10252407 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 27, 2008)

Ex Parte Fujieda

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesMar 27, 2008

10252407 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 27, 2008)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________ Ex parte ICHIRO FUJIEDA ____________ Appeal 2007-3644 Application 10/252,407 Technology Center 2800 ____________ Decided: March 27, 2008 ____________ Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, ANITA PELLMAN GROSS, and MAHSHID D. SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judges. GROSS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Fujieda (Appellant) appeals under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134 from the Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1, 5, 6, 11 through 13, 15 through 17, and 21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). Appellant's invention relates to an imaging device which is incorporated in a portable telephone, PDA, or notebook computer and is capable of imaging both a distant view such as a landscape and a close view such as a fingerprint. The imaging device has two openings, one for each Appeal 2007-3644 Application 10/252,407 type of view, and a unit for opening one while closing the other. Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed invention, and it reads as follows: 1. An imaging device comprising: a first housing having a first and second openings provided therein; open/close unit that opens and closes said first and second openings; focus optical unit for focusing light having passed through said first opening when said first opening is open; a plurality of photosensitive elements for detecting light focused using said focus optical unit; and contact-type imaging unit for allowing light having passed through said second opening to enter said plurality of photosensitive elements when said second opening is open. The prior art references of record relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the appealed claims are: Ciccarelli US 5,874,993 Feb. 23, 1999 Masahiro JP 2001-142606 May 25, 2001 Iwanaga US 2002/0003892 A1 Jan. 10, 2002 Kitajima US 2003/0016848 A1 Jan. 23, 2003 Amano US 6,553,134 B1 Apr. 22, 2003 Claims 1, 5, 13, 15 through 17, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as being unpatentable over Masahiro. Claims 1, 5, 13, 15, 16, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as being unpatentable over Iwanaga. Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as being unpatentable over Masahiro or Iwanaga in view of Kitajima. 2 Appeal 2007-3644 Application 10/252,407 Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as being unpatentable over Masahiro or Iwanaga in view of Amano. Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as being unpatentable over Masahiro or Iwanaga in view of Ciccarelli. We refer to the Examiner's Answer (mailed January 31, 2007) and to Appellant's Brief (filed September 28, 2006) and Reply Brief (filed March 29, 2007) for the respective arguments. SUMMARY OF DECISION As a consequence of our review, we will reverse the obviousness rejections of claims 1, 5, 6, 11 through 13, 15 through 17, and 21. OPINION The Examiner (Ans. 3-6) rejects claims 1, 5, 13, 15 through 17, and 21 as obvious over Masahiro and claims 1, 5, 13, 15, 16, and 21 as obvious over Iwanaga. The Examiner admits (Ans. 4 and 5) that neither Masahiro nor Iwanaga discloses an open/close unit that opens and closes the first and second openings. The Examiner, however, asserts (Ans. 4 and 5) that it would have been obvious to convert the phones of Masahiro and Iwanaga to flip-type phones for "protecting the screen." According to the Examiner (Ans. 9), in opening and closing the flip-type phone, the user would open and close the first and second openings. Appellant contends (App. Br. 15 and 17 and Reply Br. 3-5) that the Examiner has failed to show the claimed open/close unit that opens and closes said first and second openings. Specifically, Appellant contends (Reply Br. 5) that even if it would have been obvious to convert the phones 3 Appeal 2007-3644 Application 10/252,407 of Masahiro and Iwanaga into flip-type phones, the resulting phones would not close the first and second openings, as flip-type phones have the camera lens on the outer side, not covered when the phone is closed. The issue before us, therefore, is whether converting Masahiro or Iwanaga to a flip-type phone provides an open/close unit that opens and closes the first and second openings. After reviewing the arguments and the references, we agree with Appellant. The reference cited by the Examiner to show a flip-type phone fails to show closing the first and second openings. Since Masahiro and Iwanaga do not close the first and second openings, and converting to a flip-type phone does not close the first and second openings, the Examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. Regarding claims 6, 11, and 12, Kitajima, Asano, and Ciccarelli, respectively, fail to cure the shortcomings of Masahiro and Iwanaga. Therefore, we cannot sustain the obviousness rejections of claims 6, 11, and 12. 4 Appeal 2007-3644 Application 10/252,407 ORDER The decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1, 5, 6, 11 through 13, 15 through 17, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 is reversed. REVERSED tdl SUGHRUE MION, PLLC 2100 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, N.W. SUITE 800 WASHINGTON, DC 20037 5