Ex Parte Karidis

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 22, 2007

09756831 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 22, 2007)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written
for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte JOHN PETER KARIDIS
____________

Appeal 2006-2366
Application 09/756,831
Technology Center 2100
____________

Decided: February 22, 2007
____________

Before JAMES D. THOMAS, MAHSHID D. SAADAT, and
ALLEN R. MACDONALD, Administrative Patent Judges.

SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1-14, which are all of the claims
pending in this application.
We affirm.
Appeal 2006-2366
Application 09/756,831

BACKGROUND
Appellant’s invention is directed to notebook size computers having
widened keyboard base to create a widened I/O area. The display is also
widened corresponding to the widened keyboard base.
Representative independent claim 1 is reproduced as follows:
1. A notebook computer with an input/output (I/O) physical user
interface comprising:

a base containing a keyboard for said notebook computer, wherein
said base has an extended portion beyond said keyboard creating a widened
keyboard base;

a widened display, said widened display having a widened I/O display
area corresponding to said widened keyboard base, said widened display
having a width substantially equal to a width of said widened keyboard base;

an I/O device area disposed within said extended portion of said
widened keyboard base; and

an interface signal connection means mounted within said I/O device
area, said interface signal connection means operable to couple signals from
said notebook computer to an I/O device.

The Examiner relies on the following prior art references:

Saegusa US 5,568,224 Oct. 22, 1996

Trane US 6,219,227 Apr. 17, 2001
(Filed Jul. 27, 1999)

Claims 1-14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Trane alone.
2
Appeal 2006-2366
Application 09/756,831

Claims 1-14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Trane and Saegusa.
We make reference to the Answer for the Examiner’s reasoning and to
the Appeal Brief and Reply Brief for Appellant’s arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
With respect to the rejection of claims over Trane alone, the main
point of contention is whether the widened display of Trane, as a matter of
design choice, would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art a
widened I/O display area corresponding to the widened keyboard base.
Appellant argues that Trane does not teach any correspondence between the
widened keyboard base and the display device (Br. 5). Appellant further
asserts that even if Trane increases the “vertical dimension” of the lid to
match the increased vertical dimension of the keyboard, Trane does not use
this additional space for increasing the size of the display to create an
extended I/O display area (Reply Br. 7).
Trane, in Figures 1 and 2, shows a widened keyboard base to
accommodate phone 16 as the I/O device in the area widened beyond the
actual keyboard. As conceded by Appellant (Br. 7), the widened keyboard is
depicted as increased vertical dimension of keyboard base 12 which matches
3
Appeal 2006-2366
Application 09/756,831

an increase in the vertical dimension of closable lid 36 (col. 4, ll. 40-49;
col. 7, ll. 21-35). The lid covering the entire widened keyboard base houses
display 14 which is shown to cover most of the widened keyboard.
Although speakers 72 are placed in the lid (col. 7, ll. 18-20), they do not
cover the entire widened area in the lid that corresponds to the widened
keyboard, allowing display 14 to have “a width substantially equal to a
width of said widened keyboard base,” as recited in claim 1.
We agree with the Examiner’s rationale (Answer 5) for modifying
Trane to the extent that creating an extended I/O display area in the widened
display would have been obvious to the ordinary skilled artisan. The
widened display area not only accommodates speakers 72, but also allows
for additional display such as a widened I/O display area.
With respect to claim 7, Trane does suggest using the appropriate
software specific to the I/O device to handle the operation and setting of
such device (col. 9, ll. 49-61). Therefore, we also agree with the Examiner
(Answer 31) that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious
to display the operational data of the I/O device in the keyboard base on any
part of the display including the widened display area.

1 The page number corresponds to those starting in the “Response to
Argument” section of the Answer.
4
Appeal 2006-2366
Application 09/756,831

Regarding the rejection of claim 4, Appellant argues that Trane does
not suggest an interposer to compensate for mechanical and electrical
differences related to the I/O device because an opening to match phone 16
would not need any adaptor (Br. 7, Reply Br. 8). We again agree with the
Examiner (Answer 52) that the interface used in Trane for mechanical and
electrical connection between the phone and the keyboard base reads on the
claimed “interposer” as both receiving opening 46 and electrical connection
54 are clearly described in the reference (col. 5, ll. 44-64). Appellant’s
extensive arguments directed to the dictionary meaning of the term
“interposer” are not convincing since Appellant’s own Specification
describes the interposer as merely having connector features that match both
the computer and the I/O device (Specification 6:8-19). Claims will be
given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
specification, and limitation appearing in the specification are not to be read
into the claims. In re Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 858, 225 USPQ 1, 5 (Fed. Cir.
1985). Therefore, considering the broadest claim interpretation, the recited
interposer means nothing more than an interface for connecting the phone to
the computer. We find that identical functional features are described by
Trane as the connection means for the power, data, and antenna as well as

2 See footnote 1.
5
Appeal 2006-2366
Application 09/756,831

the physical body of the device (col. 6, ll. 2-11). Thus, Trane suggests an
“interposer” by providing for the necessary electrical and mechanical
interface to connect the I/O device to the computer.
Turning now to the rejection of the remaining claims, we note
Appellant’s reliance on similar arguments as presented above with respect to
claims 1, 4 and 7 (Br. 14-17). Appellant further argues that Trane does not
show any connection between the cellular phone and the hard drive in Figure
6 (Reply Br. 15) and mainly performs a simple switching function (Reply
Br. 16). We again agree with the Examiner that the software for handling
telephone messaging facsimile, internet connection, etc. in Trane suggests
that the computer is operable to execute communication software
instructions for controlling communication between the computer and the
I/O device. Trane discloses that it is the computer that includes the software
to handle telephone functions (col. 9, ll. 56-61) which suggests the presence
of communication instructions in the software to control communication
between the computer and the cellular phone if the computer is to handle the
above mentioned functions. Thus, based on the presented arguments, the
weight of evidence in support of each side and our findings above, we find
the Examiner’s case of prima facie obviousness to be reasonable and sustain
the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 1-14 over Trane alone.
6
Appeal 2006-2366
Application 09/756,831

Turning now to the rejection of the remaining claims over the
combination of Trane and Saegusa, Appellant argues that combining the
references, as proposed by the Examiner, would not have suggested the
claimed invention (Reply Br. 20). The Examiner apparently uses Saegusa
for suggesting modifications to the size and type of computer displays
(Answer 12). Saegusa provides for a display incorporating communication
functions of an I/O device (Saegusa, col. 2, ll. 51-53). While combining
Saegusa with Trane may be cumulative, we find the Examiner’s position to
be reasonable to suggest custom designing the display and the keyboard base
according to the functions and the positioning of the displayed information.
Accordingly, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 1-14 over
Trane and Saegusa.

7
Appeal 2006-2366
Application 09/756,831

CONCLUSION
In view of the foregoing, the decision of the Examiner rejecting
claims 1-14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 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).
AFFIRMED

ce

ROBERT A. VOIGT, JR.
WINSTEAD SECHREST & MINICK PC
PO BOX 50784
DALLAS TX 75201
8