Ex Parte Kaikuranta et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 5, 2012

09847142 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 5, 2012)

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.
09/847,142 05/02/2001 Terho Kaikuranta 800.0737.U1 (US) 6584
10948 7590 06/06/2012
Harrington & Smith, Attorneys At Law, LLC
4 Research Drive, Suite 202
Shelton, CT 06484
EXAMINER
WONG, ALBERT KANG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2612
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/06/2012 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________

Ex parte TERHO KAIKURANTA and BROR SVARFVAR

Appeal 2010-02327
Application 09/847,142
Technology Center 2600
______________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, KRISTEN L. DROESCH,
KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, Administrative Patent Judges.

Per Curiam

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2010-02327
Application 09/847,142

2

This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the rejection
of claims 1 through 29.
We affirm.
INVENTION
The invention is directed keypad illuminating arrangement which
makes use of layered foil structure such as polymer based organic LEDs.
See Specification page 2 and 3. Claim 1 is representative of the claimed
invention under appeal and reproduced below:

1. A keypad for a mobile phone, comprising:

a number of pressable keys,

associated with each key, switching means for realizing a
switching function as a response to the key being pressed and

illumination means for illuminating at least a part of the
keypad; wherein:

the illumination means comprise light sources that are
semiconductor light-emitting devices made of layered foil
structures for dynamically illuminating individual keys or
key groups of said keypad in such a way that the
illumination means is reconfigurable for different kinds of
illumination effects,

at least one of said light sources is located in the
immediate vicinity of the switching means associated with
at least one key,

said light sources constitute at least a first group of
light sources and a second group of light sources and

said first and second groups of light sources are arranged
to be illuminated separately from each other.
Appeal 2010-02327
Application 09/847,142

3

REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
The Examiner has rejected claims 1 through 7, 11 and 16 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Thornton (US 5,847,336, Dec. 8,
1998), Stanek (5,936,554, Aug. 10, 1999) and Appellants’ admitted prior art.
Answer 3-4.1
The Examiner has rejected the remainder of the claims under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Thornton, Stanek and Appellants’
admitted prior art in combination with the various additional references cited
above. Answer 4-8.
ISSUE
Appellants have presented numerous arguments as to why the
combination of the references does not teach a keyboard as recited in
independent claims 1, 16 and 21.2
These contentions present us with the issue: did the Examiner err in
finding that the combination Thornton, Stanek and Appellants’ admitted
prior art teach a keypad for a mobile device with a semiconductor light
emitting device made of layered foil illuminating the individual keys?

1 Throughout this opinion we refer to the Examiner’s Answer mailed on
December 12, 2007.
2 Throughout this opinion we refer to the Appeal Brief dated September 12,
2006 Amended Appeal Brief dated February 7, 2008, and Reply Brief dated
February 12 2008.
Appeal 2010-02327
Application 09/847,142

4

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
contentions that the Examiner has erred. Further, we have reviewed the
Examiner’s response to each of the claims argued.
We disagree with Appellants’ conclusions. We adopt as our own
(1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from
which this appeal is taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in
the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief.3 We
concur with the conclusion reached by the Examiner.

CONCLUSION

The Examiner has not erred in rejecting 1 through 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 through 29 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)(iv).

3 We consider the Examiner’s statement on page 3 “it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute a conventional LED
[sic, OLED] for an OLED [sic LED] since they perform the same light
emitting functions” to contain a typo as it is inconsistent with the remainder
of the Examiner’s reasoning and therefore treat it as harmless error.

Appeal 2010-02327
Application 09/847,142

5

AFFIRMED

ke