Ex Parte Homer et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 16, 2017

14510731 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 16, 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.
14/510,731 10/09/2014 Steven S. Homer 83813171 6919
22879
HP Tnr
7590 02/21/2017 EXAMINER
3390 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 35
OKEBATO, SAHLU
FORT COLLINS, CO 80528-9544 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2625
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/21/2017 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):
ipa.mail@hp.com
barbl@hp.com
y vonne.bailey @ hp. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte STEVEN S. HOMER, PAUL J. DOCZY, and KEVIN MASSARO
Appeal 2016-005630
Application 14/510,7311
Technology Center 2600
Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, JOHN D. HAMANN, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 32-51, which are all the claims pending in this
application.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Hewlett-Packard
Development Company, LP. App. Br. 3.
2 Claims 1-31 are canceled. App. Br. 15 (Claims App’x).
Appeal 2016-005630
Application 14/510,731
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants’ application relates to a computer device with a display
element detachably coupled to a keyboard panel. Abstract. Claim 32 is
illustrative of the appealed subject matter and reads as follows with the
disputed limitation in italics'.
32. A computer device, comprising:
a housing supporting a display element having a display
surface, the housing having a cavity formed in and open to a
side of the housing, the cavity defined at least in part by
opposed surfaces oriented parallel with the display surface; and
a panel supporting a keyboard, the panel having an
attachment member projected from and supported at least at
opposite ends thereof along a side of the panel,
wherein the attachment member is engaged with the
cavity to detachably couple the panel with the housing and, with
the panel detachably coupled with the housing, the housing and
the panel are pivotable relative to each other.
The Examiner’s Rejections
Claims 32-51 stand rejected on the ground of non-statutory double
patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-31 of Homer (US 8,907,898
B2; Dec. 9, 2014) in view of Koyama (US 2005/0200559 Al; Sept. 15,
2005). Final Act. 3-5.
Claims 32-51 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Santoh (US 6,636,204 B2; Oct. 21, 2003) and Koyama. Final Act. 5-9.
2
Appeal 2016-005630
Application 14/510,731
ANALYSIS
Double Patenting
Appellants have not presented argument that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claims 32-51 on the ground of non-statutory double patenting. See
App. Br. 7-13. Arguments not made are deemed waived. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv). We, therefore, summarily affirm the non-statutory double
patenting rejection of claims 32-51.
Obviousness
We have reviewed the Examiner’s obviousness rejection in
consideration of Appellants’ contentions and the evidence of record.
Appellants persuade us the Examiner fails to establish the claims are
unpatentable over the cited prior art.
The Examiner finds the combination of Santoh and Koyama teaches
or suggests “with the panel detachably coupled with the housing, the
housing and the panel are pivotable relative to each other,” as recited in
claim 32. Final Act. 5-6. In particular, the Examiner finds Santoh teaches
an electronic device having a display housing with a cavity defined by
opposed surfaces parallel to the display surface. Final Act. 6 (citing Santoh,
Figs. 8A, 8B). The Examiner further finds Santoh teaches a keyboard panel
with an attachment member that detachably couples the panel to the display
housing. Final Act. 6 (citing Santoh, Figs. 8A, 8B).
The Examiner finds the embodiment taught in Santoh’s Figures 8A
and 8B does not teach or suggest the housing and panel are pivotable relative
to each other when the panel and housing are coupled together. Ans. 2-3.
The Examiner instead relies on Koyama for this limitation, finding Koyama
3
Appeal 2016-005630
Application 14/510,731
teaches a pivotable connection between the attachment member 10 of
display 32 and the cavity 29a of housing 21. Ans. 2-3 (citing Koyama, Figs.
1, 3). The Examiner’s proposed combination is to substitute Santoh’s non-
pivotable connection disclosed in Figs. 8A and 8B with Koyama’s pivotable
connection. Ans. 3.
Appellants argue the Examiner erred because Koyama does not teach
or suggest a housing and panel with a pivotable connection. App. Br. 10-11.
Appellants argue the information display sheet is “stably held” by the
display processing device and the connection is not pivotable. App. Br. 11.
Koyama Fig. 1 displays an information display sheet 1 connected to a
host display processing device 21. Koyama | 69. The information sheet is
stably held by the host display processing device, and the connection
between the sheet and the device is not capable of rotation. See id.
Accordingly, Appellants have persuaded us of Examiner error because the
Examiner has not identified sufficient evidence or provided sufficient
explanation as to how the combination of Santoh and Koyama teaches or
suggests “with the panel detachably coupled with the housing, the housing
and the panel are pivotable relative to each other.”3
We, therefore, do not sustain the rejection of claim 32. We also do
not sustain the rejection of independent claim 42, which recites a similar
limitation, or claims 33^11 or 43-51, which depend therefrom.
3 Because we are persuaded of error with regard to the identified issue,
which is dispositive of the rejection of claims 32-51 over Santoh and
Koyama, we do not reach the additional issues raised by Appellants’
arguments.
4
Appeal 2016-005630
Application 14/510,731
DECISION
We affirm the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 32-51.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
5