Ex Parte Baw et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 18, 2015

11427444 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 18, 2015)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
_____________

Ex parte ANDY K. BAW, ADAM K. CYBART, DAVID G. FLISZAR,
DANIEL P. GROEBE, NICHOLAS A. JINKINSON, and RICK LATELLA
_____________

Appeal 2013-001386
Application 11/427,444
Technology Center 2600
______________

Before STEVEN D.A. McCARTHY, DAVID M. KOHUT, and
IRVIN E. BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judges.

KOHUT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Final
Rejection of claims 12–14.
1
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of these claims.

INVENTION
The invention is directed to a fascia assembly for an electronic device.
Abstract. Claim 12 is illustrative of the invention and is reproduced below:

1
The Examiner has indicated that claims 1–10 and 16–20 contain allowable
subject matter and that claim 15 would be allowable if re-written in
independent form. Ans. 6.
Appeal 2013-001386
Application 11/427,444

2
12. A fascia assembly for a portable electronic device, the
fascia assembly comprising:
a fascia, comprising:
a unitary fascia member comprising a thin, flexible
film, the unitary fascia member having at least a
transparency region and a deflectable key region, the
deflectable key region functioning as a plurality of
depressible keys; and
a rigid skeletal support member coupled to the unitary
fascia member, and a keypad module adhered to the
fascia, the keypad module comprising:
a printed circuit board having a plurality of switches
disposed thereon; and
a semi-rigid polymer layer disposed between the
fascia and the printed circuit board;
wherein the rigid skeletal support member comprises
plastic, further wherein the rigid skeletal support member
is coupled to the fascia assembly by insert molding.

REFERENCE
Wang US 2002/0094838 A1 July 18, 2002

REJECTION AT ISSUE
Claims 12–14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
the combination of Wang and Appellant Admitted Prior Art (AAPA).
2
Ans.
4–5.

2
The Examiner inadvertently left out AAPA from the statement of rejection
but included it in the body of the rejection on page 5 of the Answer. We
find this to be harmless error.
Appeal 2013-001386
Application 11/427,444

3
ISSUES
Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Wang and
AAPA teaches or suggests “wherein the rigid skeletal support member is
coupled to the fascia assembly by insert molding,” as recited in claim 12?

ANALYSIS
Appellants argue that the Examiner is combining speculative
testimony of the Examiner with Wang in order to teach using an insert
molding process to couple the fascia assembly to the skeletal support
member, as required by claim 12. App. Br. 10–11. Specifically, Appellants
contend that MPEP § 2144.03 requires that an Examiner provide an affidavit
or declaration to support what the Examiner believes is known in the art.
App. Br. 10–11. We disagree.
While Appellants correctly recite what MPEP § 2144.03 pertains to,
we find that it is not applicable in this situation. In this situation, the
Examiner has provided an explanation as to the combination of Wang with a
portion of Appellants’ Specification that indicates “insert molding” and the
“insert molding process” is well-known in the art. Ans. 5 (see also Spec.
5:14). As such, the Examiner’s finding is based upon Appellant Admitted
Prior Art (AAPA) and not the Examiner’s personal knowledge of one skilled
in the art. See MPEP § 2129. Thus, we do not find Appellants’ argument to
be persuasive.
Additionally, Appellants argue that Wang explicitly teaches away
from Appellants’ invention and expressly states that insert molding should
not be used. App. Br. 11–14; Reply Br. 7. Specifically, Appellants contend
that because the molding processes are time consuming and expensive,
Appeal 2013-001386
Application 11/427,444

4
Wang teaches press-fit and adhesively coupled configurations. App. Br. 14;
Reply Br. 7. We disagree.
Although Wang teaches a preference to use press-fit and adhesively
coupled configurations in Wang’s invention, a teaching of a preferred
embodiment does not constitute a teaching away from an embodiment which
either is not described as preferred or is not clearly described at all. See In
re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 446 (CCPA 1971); see also In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551,
553 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (holding that a reference which teaches epoxy-
impregnated circuit boards as known but inferior to circuit boards
impregnated with polyester-imide resins does not teach away from the use of
epoxy-impregnated circuit boards). Furthermore, using an insert molding
process in place of a press-fit or adhesive process would not have rendered
inoperable the result of attaching the fascia assembly to the rigid skeletal
support member. See In re Icon Health & Fitness, 496 F.3d 1374, 1381
(Fed. Cir. 2007) (holding that a reference may teach away from a use when
that use would render the result inoperable).
Thus, we agree with the Examiner (Ans. 5 and 7) that it would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use insert molding as
indicated in AAPA to attach a fascia assembly to the rigid skeletal support
member as taught by Wang.
For all of the reasons stated supra, we sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 12–14.
Appeal 2013-001386
Application 11/427,444

5

CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in finding that the combination of Wang and
AAPA teaches or suggests “wherein the rigid skeletal support member is
coupled to the fascia assembly by insert molding,” as recited in claim 12.
SUMMARY
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 12–14 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

mls