Ex Parte DeLine

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 28, 2011

10708433 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 28, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
10/708,433 03/03/2004 Jonathan DeLine PU02 0189US2.035 2432
24239 7590 03/28/2011
MOORE & VAN ALLEN PLLC
P.O. BOX 13706
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
EXAMINER
TORRES, MARCOS L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2617
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/28/2011 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte JONATHAN DELINE
_____________

Appeal 2009-013332
Application 10/708,433
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, ELENI MANTIS MERCADER,
and CARL W. WHITEHEAD, JR., Administrative Patent Judges.

MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2009-013332
Application 10/708,433

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 4-10. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

INVENTION
Appellant’s Figure 5 is reproduced below:

Appellant’s Figure 5 and claimed invention are directed to two
different keypads (34, 72) within one compact mobile terminal 20. The user
can select the preferred keypad layout and position the display 30 by
pivoting and rotating the display 30 relative to the housing 22 and flip cover
24. See Fig. 5; Spec. ¶ [0032].
Appeal 2009-013332
Application 10/708,433

3
Claim 4, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on
appeal:
4. A mobile terminal for use in a wireless communication system,
comprising:
a housing having an inner major surface and an opposed outer major
surface and enclosing electronic components operable to transmit and
receive telecommunication signals, the inner major surface of the housing
including means for providing user input to the mobile terminal;
a display having an inner major surface and an opposed outer major
surface and electrically connected to the electronic components in the
housing, the display movably mounted to the housing for movement relative
to the housing from a first position where the inner major surface of the
display is opposite the inner major surface of the housing for at least
partially concealing the user input means of the housing and a second
position such that the user input means of the housing is exposed and
accessible to the user; and
a flip cover having an inner major surface and an opposed outer major
surface and electrically connected to the electronic components in the
housing, the inner major surface of the flip cover including means for
providing user input to the mobile terminal, the flip cover pivotally mounted
to the housing and movable relative to the housing and the display between a
closed position where the inner major surface of the flip cover is opposite
the outer major surface of the display when the display is in the first position
and an open position, the flip cover being sized to substantially conceal the
outer major surface of the display and the inner major surface of the housing
when in the closed position, and
means for rotating the display interposed between the display and the
pivotal mounting, the rotating means allowing the display to rotate relative
to the housing and the flip cover in a direction perpendicular to the axis of
the pivotal mounting for positioning one of the inner major surface or the
outer major surface of the display against the inner major surface of the
housing or the flip cover.

Appeal 2009-013332
Application 10/708,433

4
THE REJECTION
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of
unpatentability:
Shima US 2002/0158999 A1 Oct. 31, 2002
Mizuta EP 1 298 890 A2 Apr. 2, 2003
The following rejection is before us for review:
The Examiner rejected claims 4-10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Shima in view of Mizuta.

ISSUE
The pivotal issue is whether the combination of Shima in view of
Mizuta teaches “rotating means allowing the display to rotate relative to the
housing and the flip cover” as recited in representative claim 4.

PRINCIPLE OF LAW
“[W]hen a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that
is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the
field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable result.” KSR
Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007) (citing United States v.
Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 50-51 (1966)).

ANALYSIS
Appellant argues (App. Br. 3) that a person skilled in the art would
not be motivated by Shima to look to Mizuta to provide a rotational joint for
display. Appellant further argues (App. Br. 3) that if the features of the
Appeal 2009-013332
Application 10/708,433

5
invention were obvious they would have been disclosed in at least one of the
references.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments.
Shima’s Figure 12 is reproduced below:

Shima’s Figure 12 shows a display 61, a first operation unit housing
62a, and a second operation unit housing 62b connected by hinge 63 in a
manner permitting a turning movement of each housing (Fig. 12; ¶ [0094]).
Mizuta teaches rotating the display in a direction perpendicular to the axis of
pivotal mounting (Fig. 4A) to improve the display of images (¶ [0121]).
Thus, we agree with the Examiner’s conclusion that the combination
would have been obvious to one skilled in the art because the hinge of
Mizuta allows additional movement to the display, facilitating the view of
the user (Ans. 7). In other words, substituting the structure already known in
Appeal 2009-013332
Application 10/708,433

6
the prior art (Shima’s hinge attaching the display to the housing) for another
known in the field (Mizuta’s hinge attaching the display to the housing
allowing pivotal movement), yields a predictable result (i.e., pivotal
movement of the display improves the view of the user). See KSR, 550 U.S.
at 416.
Accordingly, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
representative claim 4 and claims 5-10, which fall with claim 4 as no
additional arguments of patentability were presented with respect to these
claims. We note that simply pointing out what a claim requires with no
attempt to point out how or why the claims patentably distinguish over the
prior art does not amount to a separate argument for patentability. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2004); see also In re Nielson, 816 F.2d 1567, 1572 (Fed.
Cir. 1987).

CONCLUSION
The combination of Shima in view of Mizuta teaches “rotating means
allowing the display to rotate relative to the housing and the flip cover.”

ORDER
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 4-10 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

babc