Ex Parte Helot et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Oct 30, 2002

08956974 (B.P.A.I. Oct. 30, 2002)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not
written for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 15
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________
Ex parte JACQUES H. HELOT
and
MICHAEL D. DEROCHER
Appeal No. 2001-0007
Application No. 08/956,974
__________
ON BRIEF
__________
Before HAIRSTON, JERRY SMITH, and LALL, Administrative
Patent Judges.
HAIRSTON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims
1 through 13 and 15 through 17.
The disclosed invention relates to a fan located in a
docking station that allows air to flow between the docking
station and an airflow port of a portable computer. The
Appeal No. 2001-0007
Application No. 08/956,974
2
airflow port of the portable computer is adjoined to the
docking station via an airflow coupler on the docking
station.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed invention, and
it reads as follows:
1. A docking station for a portable computer,
comprising:
an airflow coupler for adjoining said docking
station to an airflow port of said portable
computer, wherein said airflow port allows air to
flow between said docking station and said
portable computer through said airflow port; and
a fan.
The references relied on by the examiner are:
Donahoe et al. (Donahoe) 5,757,615 May 26, 1998
(filed Jul. 1, 1996)
Cheng 5,768,101 Jun. 16, 1998
(filed Dec. 20, 1996)
Claims 1 through 13 and 15 through 17 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cheng in
view of Donahoe.
Reference is made to the brief (paper number 13) and
the answer (paper number 14) for the respective positions of
the appellants and the examiner.
Appeal No. 2001-0007
Application No. 08/956,974
3
OPINION
We have carefully considered the entire record before
us, and we will reverse the obviousness rejection of claims
1 through 13 and 15 through 17.
In Cheng, a fan 31 located in the portable computer
3 forces hot air out of the portable computer and into the
docking station 4 where it is vented out an exhaust hole
424 (column 2, line 62 through column 3, line 7; Figures 3
and 5).
The examiner acknowledges (answer, page 4) that Cheng
does not have a fan in the docking station. For such a
teaching, the examiner turned to Donahoe (answer, page 4).
Based upon the teaching in Donahoe (column 8, lines 3
through 7) that “[i]f desired, the . . . heat sink 126 and
fan 128 [may be] correspondingly relocated within the
housing 114 as necessary,” the examiner concludes (answer,
page 5) that “[i]t would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made
to incorporate the teachings of Donahoe et al. in . . . the
apparatus of Cheng to aid in cooling both the portable
computer and the docking station.”
Appeal No. 2001-0007
Application No. 08/956,974
1 An exhaust fan in the ductwork leading from a stove is a
better example of the type of fan needed to assist the flow of
hot air from the docking station disclosed by Cheng.
4
We agree with the appellants’ argument (brief, pages
5 and 6) that Donahoe merely discloses (Figure 9) a cooling
fan 128 located inside housing 114 of a docking station to
pull ambient air 130 into the housing via inlet 132 to
thereby create a flow of air past heat sink member 126, and
that the combined teachings of the references “would prevent
the cooling air from the portable computer [disclosed by
Cheng] from flowing into and . . . out the exhaust hole 424
of the docking station.” Since Cheng is concerned with
pulling air out of the portable computer, and Donahoe is
concerned with blowing air1 past the cooling fins of the
heat sink located on the portable computer, we additionally
agree with the appellants’ argument (brief, page 6) that
“there is no ‘objective reason’ to combine the teachings of
the references.” Thus, the obviousness rejection of claims
1 through 13 and 15 through 17 is reversed.
Appeal No. 2001-0007
Application No. 08/956,974
5
DECISION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1 through
13 and 15 through 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed.
REVERSED
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
JERRY SMITH ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
PARSHOTAM S. LALL )
Administrative Patent Judge )
KWH:hh
Appeal No. 2001-0007
Application No. 08/956,974
6
HEWLETT PACKARD CO.
P.O. BOX 272400
3404 E. HARMONY RD.
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ADMIN.
FT. COLLINS, CO 80527-2400