Ex Parte Chiang

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 31, 2016

12662788 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 31, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/662,788 05/04/2010
21999 7590 11/01/2016
KIRTON MCCONKIE
Key Bank Tower
36 South State Street, Suite 1900
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84111
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Hsiao-Long Chiang
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.
14212.273 8549
EXAMINER
FLORES, ROBERTO W
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2621
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
11/01/2016 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HSIAO-LONG CHIANG
Appeal2016-000809
Application 12/662,788
Technology Center 2600
Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., JON M. JURGOV AN, and
AARON W. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
MOORE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2016-000809
Application 12/662,788
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1--4 and 6-19, which are all of the pending claims. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
THE INVENTION
The application is directed to a cursor control device. (See Abstract.)
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative:
1. A cursor control device adapted for controlling a cursor on a
display screen of an electronic device, comprising:
a circuit module holder, said circuit module holder having an
accommodation space defined therein and an opening on a top
side thereof for exposing said accommodation space;
a sleeve having a tube shape that is sleeved onto said circuit
module holder and movable leftwards and rightwards overtop
said circuit module holder and rotatable forwards and backwards
around said circuit module holder; and
a circuit module accommodated in said accommodation space
of said circuit module holder, said circuit module comprising a
circuit board, a sensor module connected to said circuit board for
sensing light reflected by said sleeve and received through said
opening so as to determine the direction and amount of
movement of said sleeve relative to said circuit module holder
and producing a signal indicative of the direction and amount of
movement of said sleeve relative to said circuit module holder, a
microprocessor in communication with said sensor module for
receiving the signal produced by said sensor module and
producing a control signal for controlling said cursor on said
1 Appellant identifies assignee Chen-Min Hung as the real party in interest.
(See App. Br. 3.)
2
Appeal2016-000809
Application 12/662,788
display screen subject to the signal received from said sensor
module, and a control switch disposed inside said circuit module
holder and being in communication with said microprocessor
and movable downwards to produce a triggering signal when
said sleeve is pressed by the user.
THE REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Shinokura
Chen
Bidiville et al.
No et al.
Schelling et al.
US 2005/0248530 Al
US 2006/0061549 Al
US 2007 /0069088 A 1
US 2007 /0273548 Al
US 2008/0278444 Al
THE REJECTIONS2
Nov. 10, 2005
Mar. 23, 2006
Mar. 29, 2007
Nov. 29, 2007
Nov. 13, 2008
1. Claims 1--4, 6-10, 13, 14, and 19 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Schelling and Chen. (See Final Act. 5-
13.)
2. Claims 11 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Schelling, Chen, and No. (See Final Act. 13-15.)
3. Claim 15 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Schelling, Chen, and Bidiville. (See Final Act. 15-16.)
4. Claims 16-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Schelling, Chen, and Shinokura. (See Final Act. 16-18.)
2 Rejections of claims 1 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, have
been withdrawn. (See Ans. 2.)
3
Appeal2016-000809
Application 12/662,788
ANALYSIS
Appellant argues that the rejections are in error because the
combination fails to disclose or suggest "a control switch disposed inside
said circuit module holder and movable downwards to produce a triggering
signal when said sleeve is pressed by the user." (See App. Br. 12-14.) We
do not agree.
The Examiner finds that Schelling teaches the limitations of claim 1,
including a control switch disposed inside said circuit module holder and
being in communication with said microprocessor, except that it "does not
appear to specifically disclose a control switch ... movable downwards to
produce a triggering signal when said sleeve is pressed by the user." (See
Final Act. 5-7.) However, the Examiner further finds that Chen teaches a
switch composed of two parts, switch rod 51 and switch 52, where the
switch rod is movable downwards to produce a triggering signal. (See Final
Act. 7 ("[0031] and figure 7 refer to a finger impart a downward pressure to
the shank 32 to further compress the cone 332, thereby causing the switch
rod 51 to trigger the respective switch 52").)
Appellant argues that "Chen's switch rod 51 is simply a rod and not a
switch." (App. Br. 13.) This is not persuasive of error because the
Examiner does not find the switch rod 51 to be the claimed switch. Instead,
the Examiner finds that it is the combination of the downwardly movable
"switch rod 51" and the stationary "switch 52" that corresponds to the
claimed "control switch," the broadest reasonable interpretation of which
encompasses a device with multiple components. (See Final Act. 5-7; Ans.
2--4.)
4
Appeal2016-000809
Application 12/662,788
Moreover, the Examiner correctly observes that Chen, in which the
two parts cooperate as the switch, is essentially the same arrangement as that
described in Appellant's Specification, where the switch is actuated by one
structure moving downwards and a cooperating structure that remains
stationary. This is shown in Figures 6 and 7, annotated below:
.,
~ ,. -~ >'
FIG.a PIC. /'
Cross-Sectional Figures 6 and 7 of the Specification
Because we find Appellant's contentions regarding the claimed switch
insufficient to show Examiner error, and as Appellant does not offer
additional arguments, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of claims
1--4 and 6-19.
DECISION
The rejections of claims 1--4 and 6-19 are 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)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
5