Ex Parte Crosswy et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 13, 2012

11240142 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 13, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________

Ex parte WILLIAM CALDWELL CROSSWY, RAHUL V.
LAKDAWALA, MATTHEW J. WAGNER, and ROBERT E. KRANCHER

Appeal 2010-002384
Application 11/240,142
Technology Center 2100
______________

Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, ROBERT E. NAPPI, and JASON V.
MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

Per Curiam.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2010-002384
Application 11/240,142
2

This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the rejection
of claims 1 through 7, 9 through 13, 15 through 29, and 32 through 35.
We affirm.
INVENTION
The invention is directed to a docking adaptor for a computer. See
Specification page 2 and 3. Claim 1 is representative of the claimed
invention under appeal and reproduced below:

1. A docking server system, comprising:
a docking assembly communicatively couplable to a portable
computer, the docking assembly having at least one server module
comprising a disengagement element actuatable to communicatively
disengage the server module from a communicative engagement with
at least one other module of the docking assembly.

REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
The Examiner has rejected claims 1 through 4, 7, 9, 10, and 12
under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a) and 102(e) as anticipated by Gasbarro (US
2005/0047079). Answer 3-5.1
The Examiner has rejected claims 5, 11, 13, 16, 18, 20, 21, 23, and
25-29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Gasbarro in view of
Chandley (US 2005/0013103). Answer 5-10.
The Examiner has rejected claims 6 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Gasbarro and Brenner (US 2005/0246470). Answer
10-11.

1 Throughout this opinion we refer to the Examiner’s Answer mailed on
August 26, 2009, Appeal Brief dated July 1, 2009, and Reply Brief dated
October 14, 2009.
Appeal 2010-002384
Application 11/240,142
3

The Examiner has rejected claims 17, 19, 22, 24, and 32 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Gasbarro, Chandley and Brenner.
Answer 12-14.
The Examiner has rejected claims 33 through 35 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Gasbarro, and Firooz (US 5,032,789). Answer
15-16.

ISSUE
Appellants’ contentions present us with the issue: did the Examiner
error in finding that Gasbarro teaches a disengagement element as recited in
each of the independent claims?

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
contentions that the Examiner has erred. Further, we have reviewed the
Examiner’s response to each of the independent claims argued.
We disagree with Appellants’ conclusions. We adopt as our own
(1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from
which this appeal is taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in
the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief. We
concur with the conclusion reached by the Examiner. We note that
Appellants’ Specification on page 7 identifies that a connector is used to
communicatively couple modules. Thus, we see no error in the Examiner’s
findings that the connectors shown in Gasbarro’s figures 4A and 4B, which
communicatively couple (and when disconnected de-couple) modules meets
the claimed disengagement element.
Appeal 2010-002384
Application 11/240,142
4

CONCLUSION

The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 1 through 7, 9 through 13, 15
through 29, and 32 through 35 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and 35 U.S.C. § 103.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 through 7, 9 through 13, 15
through 29, and 32 through 35 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

tj