Ex Parte Gandhi

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 26, 2017

12765992 (P.T.A.B. May. 26, 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.
12/765,992 04/23/2010 Dinesh Gandhi PSION3540 1557
126568 7590 05/31/2017
'Zebra Teehnnlnaies; Pnmnratinn
EXAMINER
3 Overlook Point
Lincolnshire, IL 60069
WU, JERRY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2835
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/31/2017 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
docketing @ zebra, com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL
AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DINESH GANDHI
Appeal 2016-003755
Application 12/765,992
Technology Center 2800
Before PETER F. KRATZ, MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, and
DEBRA L. DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2016-003755
Application 12/765,992
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 the final rejection of claims
1—4, 6—13, and 15. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Appellant’s invention is directed to a system for shock mounting
circuit boards in an electronic device (Spec. 11).
Claims 1 and 10 are illustrative:
1. A shock mount assembly for mounting a circuit board in a housing of a
computer, the shock mount assembly comprising:
a metal frame configured to receive the circuit board, the frame
having a length and a width, the length being longer than the width,
the frame comprising a plurality of tabs, each of the tabs sheathed in a
shock-absorbent material and configured to be received by a different
pocket of a plurality of pockets in the housing, each of the tabs
positioned on a side of the frame along the length of the frame away
from the comers of the frame by at least a length of the tab; and
a clamp configured to secure the frame to the housing, the clamp
comprising two receiving portions each shaped to receive one of the
plurality of tabs of the frame, the two receiving portions of the clamp
being located at opposing ends of the clamp;
wherein when the clamp is secured to the housing, two of the plurality
of pockets of the housing and the two receiving portions of the clamp
engaging the shock-absorbent material sheathing two of the plurality
of tabs and thereby restricting a movement of the frame relative to the
housing.
10. A frame configured to support a circuit board for mounting in a housing
of a computer, the frame having a length and a width, the length being
longer than the width, the frame comprising;
2
Appeal 2016-003755
Application 12/765,992
a plurality of tabs, each of the tabs positioned on a side of the frame
along the length of the frame away from the comers of the frame by at
least a length of the tab,
each of the tabs sheathed in a shock-absorbent material and
configured to be received by a different pocket of a plurality of
pockets in the housing and
each pocket of the housing and a receiving portion of a clamp secured
to the housing engaging the shock-absorbent material sheathing a
different one of the tabs and thereby restricting a movement of the
frame relative to the housing, the clamp being secured against the
housing.
Appellant appeals the following rejections:
1. Claims 1 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, as failing to point out and distinctly claim the subject
matter which Appellant regards as the invention.
2. Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Burke (US 5,479,285) in view of Kim (US 2010/0112949 Al).
3. Claims 1—4 and 6—8 are rejected 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Burke in view of Kim and Olesiewicz (US 2010/0033909 Al).
4. Claims 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Burke in view of Kim and Park (US 6,470,175 Bl).
5. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Burke in view of Kim, Olesiewicz, and Park.
FINDINGS OF FACT & ANALYSIS
REJECTION (1): 35 U.S.C. §112,12
3
Appeal 2016-003755
Application 12/765,992
The Examiner finds that the claim 10 recitation “each pocket of the
housing and the receiving portion of the clamp secured to the housing
engaging the shock-absorbent material sheathing a different one of the tabs
and thereby restricting a movement of the frame relative to the housing, the
clamp being secured against the housing” is indefinite (Final Act. 2). The
Examiner finds that neither the written description nor the figures
describe/show the claimed features (Final Act. 2). The Examiner finds that
this limitation is open to multiple interpretations (Final Act. 3). The
Examiner interprets claim 10 as requiring “the flame [sic frame] and the
clamp are disposed in the housing and any portion [of the] housing engaging
the shock-absorbent material and thereby restricting a movement of the
frame relative to the housing” (Final Act. 3).
Regarding claim 1, the Examiner finds that the claim limitation “two
of the plurality of the pockets of the housing and the two receiving portion
of the clamp engaging the shock-absorbent material sheathing two of the
plurality of tabs and thereby restricting a movement of the frame relative to
the housing” is indefinite because the written description and drawings do
not describe/show the claimed features (Final Act. 3). The Examiner finds
that the written description and drawings do not describe/show how the
clamp is secured to the housing. Id. The Examiner finds that there are
multiple different ways to interpret the limitation and the Examiner gives
claim 1 the interpretation of that “the flame [sic frame] and the clamp are
disposed in the housing and any portion [of the] housing engaging the
shock-absorbent material and thereby restricting a movement of the frame
relative to the housing” (Final Act. 3).
4
Appeal 2016-003755
Application 12/765,992
Appellant argues that Figures 3, 6a and 6b show, and paragraph 18 of
the Specification describes, that clamps are secured to the housing where the
c-shaped receiving end portion 502 of the clamp engages the shock-
absorbent material sheathing 306 the plurality of tabs 304 in the pocket 402
of the housing (Br. 7). Appellant argues that Figures 6a and 6b show, and
paragraph 18 of the Specification describes, how the clamp is secured to the
housing using screws via holes 504 (Br. 8).
We find that the preponderance of the evidence favors Appellant’s
argument of definiteness. As argued by Appellant, the Specification
including the figures that were amended on June 25, 2012 to include
reference numeral notations to Figures 6a and 6b describe and show,
respectively, how the clamp’s c-shaped receiving portions overlay the
shock-absorbent material 306 around the tabs 304 that are placed in pockets
402 in the housing. Therefore, contrary to the Examiner’s interpretation that
any portion of the housing engaging the shock-absorbent material is
sufficient to meet the claims, the claims require according to our
interpretation that the shock mount assembly (claim 1) or frame (claim 10) is
structured so that each of the pockets of the housing and each of the
receiving portion of the clamp engage the shock-absorbent material upon
clamping with the frame secured to the housing.
For the above reasons, we find that claims 1 and 10 are not indefinite
and we reverse the Examiner’s § 112, second paragraph, rejection.
REJECTIONS (2) TO (5): 35 U.S.C. § 103
5
Appeal 2016-003755
Application 12/765,992
Appellant argues that the Examiner has not shown where Burke
teaches a clamp on the housing to engage the sheathed tabs (Br. 9).
Appellant contends that the structure required by claim 1 must be capable of
permitting the clamp and the housing to engage the sheathed portions of the
tab to secure the frame to the housing (Br. 9, 11).
The Examiner finds that Burke teaches a bezel 68, which the
Examiner finds to correspond to the claimed clamp (Final Act. 7). The
Examiner finds that the bezel 68 includes extending walls 72 and cut-outs 76
that are c-shaped and two receiving portions (indicated as item 48 in Figure
7) that is shaped to receive the plurality of tabs on the frame (Final Act. 7).
The Examiner finds that the receiving portions (indicated as 48 in Figure 7)
of the bezel 68 engage the shock member 64 at the receiving portions as the
Examiner finds is shown in Figures 4 and 9 (Ans. 5).
Claim 1 directed to a shock mount assembly requires “a clamp
configured to secure the frame to the housing.” Claim 10 directed to a frame
configured to support a circuit board for mounting in a housing requires “the
clamp being secured against the housing.” Each independent claim requires
that the clamp be secured to the housing (claim 1) or the frame is capable of
being attached to the housing using the clamp (claim 10).
The Examiner’s findings that Burke’s bezel 68 constitutes a clamp
fails to explain how the bezel 68 secures the frame 48 to or against the
housing. Burke teaches that the module 29 comprising the display 28,
gasket 44, carrier 48, bezel 68 and shock members 64 is placed into the
upper housing on top of four seats 80 (Burke col. 4,11. 42-47). Burke
discloses that the module 29 is retained to and against the upper housing
using metal plates which are not shown. Id. In other words, the bezel 68
6
Appeal 2016-003755
Application 12/765,992
does not secure the frame 48 to the housing and the frame 48 does not
appear to be capable of being secured to the housing 22 using bezel 68.
Although Burke teaches using metal plates to retain the module 29 in the
housing, the Examiner fails to provide any findings or analysis regarding
whether Burke’s metal plates would have satisfied the requirements of a
clamp as recited in the claims.
On this record, we reverse all of the Examiner’s § 103 rejections.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision is reversed.
ORDER
REVERSED
7