Ex Parte Dittus et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 27, 2017

13729404 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 27, 2017)

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.
13/729,404 12/28/2012 Karl K. Dittus XRPS920120135US1 8445
127893 7590 03/27/2017
Streets & Steele - Lenovo (Singapore) Pte. Ltd.
13100 Wortham Center Drive
Suite 245
Houston, TX 77065
EXAMINER
MATEY, MICHAEL A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2835
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/27/2017 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 KARL K. DITTUS, DAVID J. JENSEN, and
BRIAN A. TRUMBO
Appeal 2015-007633
Application 13/729,404
Technology Center 2800
Before MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, JAMES C. HOUSEL, and
MICHAEL G. McMANUS, Administrative Patent Judges.
COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2015-007633
Application 13/729,404
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 the final rejection of claims
1-10. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Appellants’ invention is directed to an apparatus to position and to
bias a connector on an electronic module into engagement with a
corresponding connector in a chassis (Spec. 11).
Claims 1 and 6 are illustrative:
1. A system, comprising:
a module having a connector at a leading end of the module and a
handle pivotally coupled to a trailing end of the module to pivot between an
open position and a closed position,
wherein the handle has a landing and a grip portion;
a chassis having a bay, a connector disposed at a distal end of the bay,
and a spring latch assembly connected to the chassis adjacent a proximal end
of the bay,
wherein the proximal end of the bay is open to receive the leading end
of the module, and wherein the spring latch has a catch adjacent to a spring
element;
wherein receiving the leading end of the module into the bay to a first
position aligns the connector on the module with the connector in the bay of
the chassis and aligns the landing of the handle with the catch of the spring
latch assembly;
wherein pivoting the handle from the open position to the closed
position, with the module in the first position in the bay, causes the landing
of the handle to engage the catch of the spring latch assembly and then load
2
Appeal 2015-007633
Application 13/729,404
the spring element, wherein loading the spring element imparts a reactive
force to engage the connector on the module with the aligned connector
disposed in the distal end of the bay.
6. The system of claim 1, wherein the spring latch assembly is offset
from the bay into which the module is to be received to align the handle with
a recess in the module.
Appellants appeal the following rejection:
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)1 as unpatentable over:
Nguyen US 2012/0275120 A1 pub. Nov. 1, 2012
Appellants argue the subject matter of independent claim 1 and
dependent claim 6 only (App. Br. 9-14). Claims 2-5 and 7-10 will stand or
fall with our analysis of the rejection of claim 1.
FINDINGS OF FACT & ANALYSIS
CLAIM 1
The Examiner’s findings regarding Nguyen are located on pages 2 to
3 of the Final Action. The Examiner finds, in relevant part, that Nguyen
teaches a handle 300 that is pivotally coupled to a trailing end of the module
to pivot between an open position and a closed position, where the handle
300 has a landing 304 and a grip portion 302 (Final Act. 2). The Examiner
finds that claim 1 does not require that the handle include an integral grip
1 We note that the provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) are applicable to the
claims as well as 35 U.S.C. § 102(a).
3
Appeal 2015-007633
Application 13/729,404
portion and landing portion (Ans. 2). The Examiner finds that Nguyen’s
latch mechanism 300 may be considered a handle pivotally connected to a
trailing end of module 200 and includes a landing portion 304 and a grip
portion 302 (Ans. 2). The Examiner finds that Nguyen’s latching
mechanism 300 is made up of the landing 304 and the grip portion 302,
which are integral pieces in the operation of the handle pivoting between an
open position and a closed position (Ans. 2).
Appellants argue that Nguyen’s follower 304 is not part of a handle
(App. Br. 9). Appellants contend that Nguyen’s latching mechanism 300 is
made up of a driver 302, which Appellants argue is the handle, and a
follower 304 with springs 306, which is slidably attached to the body 202
(App. Br. 10). Appellants argue that the driver 302, follower 304 and
springs 306 are each separate components of the latching mechanism 300
and do not constitute a handle having an integrally formed landing and grip
portion (App. Br. 11). Appellants contend that Nguyen does not teach that
the follower 304 pivots as is required by the landing in claim 1 (App. Br.
12). Appellants argue that the claim limitations “a handle pivotally coupled
to a trailing end of the module” and “the handle has a landing” are not
statements of intended use (App. Br. 12). Appellants argue that claim 1
requires that the “handle has a landing” which means that the landing is
integrally formed with the handle (App. Br. 13). Appellants contend that the
Examiner’s reliance on the Specification disclosure that the handle
“comprises” a landing is not what is required by the claim. Id.
Claim 1 recites “a handle pivotally coupled to a trailing end of the
module to pivot between an open position and a closed position, wherein the
handle has a landing and a grip portion” (emphasis added). Appellants
4
Appeal 2015-007633
Application 13/729,404
contend that use of the verb “has” in the claim requires that the landing and
grip portions are integrally formed into the handle rather than the
Examiner’s broader interpretation of disclosure that the handle “comprises”
a landing and grip portion (App. Br. 13). “Has” is the third person present-
tense of the verb “have.” The court has held that when “having” is used as a
transitional claim phrase, the Specification must be analyzed to determine
whether “having” should be construed as open-ended. Lampi Corp. v.
American Power Products, Inc., 228 F.3d 1365, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2000). In
the present appeal, the Specification discloses that the handle “further
comprises” a landing (Spec. 120). The Specification further states that
embodiments are not limited to what is disclosed (Spec. 130). In other
words, the claim is open-ended and does not exclude other structure in the
handle. The claim does not recite explicitly that the landing and grip portion
are integrally formed into the handle. Although, the claims are read in light
of the Specification, the Specification is not limited to the integrally formed
embodiment and, in any event, limitations from the Specification are not
read into the claims. Accordingly, the Examiner reasonably finds that the
broadest reasonable interpretation of the disputed claim limitation includes
Nguyen’s latch mechanism 300 having driver 302, follower 304 and springs
306 connected together. Appellants’ argument that the claim requires an
integrally formed handle having a landing and grip portion is not persuasive.
Appellants argue that Nguyen’s follower 304 (i.e., the landing) does
not pivot (App. Br. 12). The claim recites, however, that the handle is
pivotally coupled to a trailing end of the module and the handle has a
landing and a grip portion. Claim 1 does not recite explicitly that the
landing pivots; it is the handle that pivots. As we found above, the broadest
5
Appeal 2015-007633
Application 13/729,404
reasonable interpretation of the disputed claim language includes Nguyen’s
latch mechanism 300 that includes a driver 302 that pivots and a follower
304 (i.e., landing) that cooperatively moves (i.e., slides) while the driver 302
(i.e., handle) pivots.
Appellants’ arguments regarding whether the claim limitations “a
handle pivotally coupled to a trailing end of the module” and “the handle
has a landing” are an intended use are moot. The Examiner finds that the
claim limitations are not merely an intended use and Nguyen actually is
capable of performing the function (Ans. 3).
CLAIM 6
Appellants argue that Nguyen’s leaf springs 108 and 110 are not
“offset from the bay” as required by claim 6 (App. Br. 14).
The Examiner finds that Nguyen’s host cage 104 corresponds to the
bay recited in claim 1, from which claim 6 depends (Final Act. 2). The
Examiner finds that Nguyen’s leaf springs 108 and 110 constitute a spring
latch adjacent a spring element. Id. The Examiner finds that leaf springs
108 and 110 are bent inwardly at an angle away from the center line of the
bay housing thus making the spring latch assembly offset from the bay (Ans.
5). The Examiner finds that offset is given its ordinary meaning of
something being placed away from the center line or placed at an angle to
something as to the axis of a form, shape or object; not parallel (Ans. 6).
Appellants do not respond to or otherwise show reversible error with
the Examiner’s reasonable position that Nguyen’s bent leaf springs are offset
from the host cage 104 (i.e. bay).
6
Appeal 2015-007633
Application 13/729,404
On this record, we affirm the Examiner’s § 102(a) rejection of all the
claims over Nguyen.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision 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).
ORDER
AFFIRMED
7