Ex Parte Baloga et alDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardMay 17, 201915143915 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 17, 2019) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 15/143,915 05/02/2016 113018 7590 05/21/2019 Steelcase/ Quarles & Brady LLP Attn: IP Docket 411 E. Wisconsin Ave., Suite 2350 Milwaukee, WI 53202 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Mark A. Baloga UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www .uspto.gov ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 871462.0l 154.PA1359590US 6577 EXAMINER HIJAZ, OMAR F ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3633 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/21/2019 ELECTRONIC Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address(es): pat-dept@quarles.com patents@steelcase.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte MARK A. BALOGA and FRANK G. GRAZIAN01 Appeal 2018-007161 Application 15/143,915 Technology Center 3600 Before MICHAEL L. HOELTER, JAMES P. CALVE, and JEREMY M. PLENZLER, Administrative Patent Judges. CAL VE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Office Action rejecting claims 1-20. Appeal Br. 5. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE 1 Steelcase Inc. is identified as the real party in interest (Appeal Br. 2) and also is the applicant pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.46. Appeal 2018-007161 Application 15/143,915 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claimed conferencing assembly provides table and display assemblies that are configurable in different ways to support different conferencing requirements of differently-sized groups. Spec. ,-J 3. Claim 1, the sole independent claim, is reproduced below. 1. A conferencing assembly, the conferencing assembly comprising: a first table assembly including: (i) a first table top having oppositely facing front and rear edges and first and second lateral edges that traverse a distance between the front and rear edges, the first table top forming a first table top surface, spaces adjacent the lateral edges substantially unobstructed having a length selected to receive one or more chair for conferees along the first and second lateral edges; (ii) a first support structure adjacent the rear edge of the first table top; (iii) at least a first display screen supported by the first support structure with a lower edge of the first display screen adjacent a central portion of the rear edge of the first table top and with the first table top surface substantially unobstructed by the first display screen and substantially unobstructed by the first support structure; a second table assembly including: (i) a second table top having oppositely facing front and rear edges and first and second lateral edges that traverse the distance between the front and rear edges, the second table top forming a second table top surface, spaces adjacent the lateral edges of the second table top substantially unobstructed having a length selected to receive one or more chair for conferees along the first and second lateral edges; and (ii) a second support structure adjacent the rear edge of the second table top; 2 Appeal 2018-007161 Application 15/143,915 (iii) at least a second display screen supported by the second support structure with a lower edge adjacent a central portion of the rear edge of the second table top and with the second table top surface substantially unobstructed by the second display screen and substantially unobstructed by the second support structure; (iv) a first control assembly connected to the first table assembly and enabling a user to selectively take control of one of the first and second displays and to present information from a computer device on a selected one of the first and second displays; (v) a second control assembly connected to the second table assembly, the second control assembly enabling a user to selectively take control of one of the first and second displays and to present information from a computer device on a selected one of the first and second displays; wherein, the first and second table tops are arranged so that the front edges thereof are spaced apart to form an unobstructed gap with the second display screen substantially parallel to and facing the first display screen. REJECTIONS Claim 1 is rejected on the grounds of obviousness-type double patenting over claims 1, 2, and 6-8 of U.S. Patent No. 8,407,944 and Ambrose (US 5,967,058, iss. Oct. 19, 1999). Claims 1-6, 9, and 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Weissenbach (US 5,037,164, iss. Aug. 6, 1991) and Ambrose. Claims 7, 8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Weissenbach, Ambrose, and Mauchly (US 8,797,377 B2, iss. Aug. 5, 2014). 3 Appeal 2018-007161 Application 15/143,915 ANALYSIS Claims 1-6, 9, and 11-20 As Unpatentable Over Weissenbach and Ambrose Regarding claim 1, the Examiner finds that Weissenbach teaches all of the limitations of the claimed conferencing assembly including first and second display screens (indicator devices 35 arranged on transverse member 32) and first and second control assemblies (adjusting devices 34 arranged on transverse member 32) but lacks first and second control assemblies that are "enabling a user to selectively take control of one of the first and second displays and to present information from a computer device on a selected one of the first and second displays." Final Act. 5-7. The Examiner finds that Ambrose teaches a first control assembly as a mouse controlling a video monitor and a second control assembly as a keyboard controlling a video monitor, and the assemblies would be connected to the table assemblies of Weissenbach to enable a user to selectively take control of one of the first and second displays. Id. at 7-8 ( citing Ambrose, 3: 17-20). The Examiner determines it would have been obvious to replace Weissenbach' s "display" with a computer screen and control assemblies of Ambrose to provide user- friendly, rich information and better control presentation of visuals on the screens from a computer device. Id. at 8; Ans. 3-5. The Examiner reasons that an input mouse and keyboard allow a user to take control of information presented on a video monitor and present information. Ans. 5. The Examiner also determines it would have been obvious to replace transverse bars 32 of Weissenbach with the visual video display screens of Ambrose "in order to allow the operator to more effectively receive and communicate information." Ans. 6. 4 Appeal 2018-007161 Application 15/143,915 Appellant argues that claim 1 requires the first and second display screens to have a lower edge that is adjacent to a central portion of the rear edge of the corresponding table top. Appeal Br. 9. Appellant argues that indicator device 35, which the Examiner treats as a display, is mounted well above the table top working surface at the height of a man and thus lacks a lower edge adjacent a central portion of the rear edge of the table top as claimed. Id. In response the Examiner finds that "adjacent" means "lying near, close, or contiguous." Ans. 4 (quoting http://www.dictionary.com/ browse/adjacent). The Examiner reasons that the transverse display bars 32 of Weissenbach are at least lying near or close to a central portion of the table tops' rear edges as illustrated in Figure 13. Id. Appellant illustrates displays 1110, 1112, 1124 of their assembly in the embodiment of Figures 53-57 with lower edges that are near to the rear edge of corresponding table top 1106, 1120 with some (i.e., relatively little) space in between the lower edge of the displays and rear edge of the table tops. 2 See Figs. 55-57. The Specification discloses that a totem or display support assembly 1108 supports displays 1110, 1112 "adjacent and generally at a height above the rear edge of table top member 1106." Spec. ,-J 226. We interpret the term "adjacent" consistent with the Specification and the drawings to mean "near or close but not in contact or contiguous." See also Definition of adjacent by Merriam-Webster at http://www.merriam- webster.com/dictionary/adjacent (last viewed May 14, 2019) ("adjacent" can mean "not distant," "nearby," or "having a common endpoint or border"). 2 In the Summary of Claimed Subject Matter, Appellant asserts that claim 1 is directed to the embodiment of Figure 53. Appeal Br. 3-5 (also citing paragraphs [224-231 ]). The Specification indicates that this embodiment is illustrated in Figures 53-57. See Spec. ,-J,-J 223, 224, and 228. 5 Appeal 2018-007161 Application 15/143,915 We appreciate the Examiner's interpretation of "adjacent" to allow for some separation between elements, in this case a lower edge of each display screen and a central portion of a rear edge of each table top as claimed. We are not persuaded, however, that "the display bars (32) of Weissenbach et al. are at least lying near or close to a central portion of the table top's rear edge (figure 13)."). Ans. 4. We reproduce Figure 13 of Weissenbach below to illustrate this feature, upon which the Examiner relies to teach "adjacent." Figure 13 illustrates a workstation with column-like connection devices 11 b. Each device 11 b extends well above each laboratory table or bench 14a. Weissenbach, 6:40-54. Each connecting device l lb carries a transverse bar 32, which is "spaced from the floor of the working area which approximately corresponds to the height of a man, and above the working surface." Id. at 6:56-60; Appeal Br. 9. Adjusting devices 34 and indicator devices 35 for gas and liquid media are arranged on transverse bar 32. Id. at 6:60-64. Connecting elements 30 for electrical and power, and connections 31 for gas and liquid media lines are provided. Id. at 6:50-56. 6 Appeal 2018-007161 Application 15/143,915 As depicted in Figure 13 above, the lower edge of each transverse bar 32 and indicator device 35, which correspond to the claimed displays (Final Act. 5, 6; Ans. 4), is positioned above a central portion of a rear edge of each table tops 14a by a distance sufficient to interpose connecting elements 30 and 31 in-between the lower edges of transverse bar 32 and the rear edges of table tops 14a. Figure 13 illustrates table tops 14a and their rear edges near waist height of a person with transverse bar 32 positioned near or above eye level of that person. See Weissenbach, 6:56-60. Hence, the Examiner's finding that Figure 13 illustrates the claimed "adjacent" relationship is an unreasonably broad interpretation of this term in light of the Specification. We also agree with Appellant that the Examiner's reason for adding input devices (keyboard, mouse) of Ambrose to Weissenbach to enable a user to take control of one of the displays (on transverse bars 32) lacks a rational underpinning. Appeal Br. 10-11; Reply Br. 2-3. Even if a skilled artisan would have been motivated to add the video screen of Ambrose to Weissenbach's transverse bars to provide a user-friendly, rich information display (Ans. 3-4), we are not persuaded that a skilled artisan would have been motivated to provide control assemblies of Ambrose on Weissenbach in order to control presentation of information on a first and a second display screen of different workstations of Weissenbach. See Final Act. 8; Ans. 5-6. Weissenbach teaches individual workstations with controls ( adjusting devices 34 and indicator devices 35) on transverse bars 32. Even if displays were added to transverse bars 32 to provide better information display in lieu of indicator devices 35, the Examiner has not explained why a person at one workstation would want or need to control a display at another work station. 7 Appeal 2018-007161 Application 15/143,915 Claim 1 recites first and second control assemblies that enable a user to "selectively take control of one of the first and second displays and to present information from a computer device on a selected one of the first and second displays." Appeal Br. (Claims App.), 1. This feature allows a user to plug a cable of control assembly 1118 into a laptop and select a button(s) on control assembly 1118 to take control of one or more display screens to present information from the laptop on a display screen. Spec. ,i 228. Weissenbach does not teach a computer at any laboratory workstation. Each workstation includes adjusting devices 34 and indicators 3 5 for fluid and gas media, and connectors 30, 31 for power, gas, and liquid lines for just that workstation. See Weissenbach, 6:40-64; Reply Br. 2-3; Appeal Br. 11. Ambrose teaches modular, reconfigurable furniture pieces that each can support a display and keyboard/mouse to teach computer skills in an education setting. Ambrose, 3: 15-19. However, Ambrose does not teach to use a single mouse or keyboard to control different displays. Nor is there a teaching or suggestion in Ambrose to use a keyboard or mouse to selectively control a first and second display to present information on one or the other display from a computer as claimed. Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1-6, 9, and 11-20. Claims 7, 8, and 10 As Unpatentable Over Weissenbach, Ambrose, and Mauchly The Examiner's reliance on Mauchly to teach videos of remote conferees presented via second and third display screens and video cameras (Final Act. 17) as recited in dependent claims 7, 8, and 10 does not cure the deficiencies of Weissenbach and Ambrose as to claim 1 from which these claims depend. Thus, we do not sustain this rejection. 8 Appeal 2018-007161 Application 15/143,915 Claim 1 for Obviousness-Type Double Patenting The Examiner rejects claim 1 for nonstatutory double patenting over claims 1, 2, 6-8 of U.S. Patent No. 8,407,944 to Baloga et al. and Ambrose. Final Act. 3-4. The Examiner relies on Baloga to teach at least one table top with first and second display screens and Ambrose to teach first and second control assemblies. Id. at 4. The Examiner determines it would have been obvious to modify Baloga to include the first and second control assemblies of Ambrose (keyboard and computer mouse) to present information from a computer device because control assemblies are extremely well known and common in the art. Id.; Ans. 6. Appellant argues that Ambrose does not teach first and second displays or using a mouse and keyboard to provide a function of selecting first and second displays. Appeal Br. 11. We agree. Even if Ambrose is combined with Baloga as the Examiner proposes, Ambrose does not use a mouse or keyboard to selectively take control of a first or second display to present information from a computer on a selected first or second display as discussed above. See Ambrose, 3: 15-20. Instead, Ambrose teaches generally that a video monitor or display may be supported by a discrete furniture element together with one or more data input devices (e.g., a keyboard or a computer mouse) to teach computer skills. Id. Thus, we do not sustain this rejection. DECISION We reverse the prior art rejections of claims 1-20. We reverse the double patenting rejection of claim 1. REVERSED 9 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation