Ex Parte Kee et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 7, 2010

10871871 (B.P.A.I. May. 7, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________

Ex parte MARTIN J. KEE, CHAO-CHI CHEN, ROD G. FLECK,
CRAIG W. O’CONNELL, STEPHEN L. PERRIN,
and MICHAEL S. CLARKE
__________

Appeal 2009-006040
Application 10/871,871
Technology Center 2100
__________

Decided: May 10, 2010
__________

Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, JOSEPH L. DIXON, and STEPHEN C. SIU,
Administrative Patent Judges.

SIU, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 4-18, 20-24, and 90. Claims 2, 3, 19, and
25-89 have been cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appeal 2009-006040
Application 10/871,871

2
The Invention
The disclosed invention relates generally to a dual processor computer
system (Spec. 1).
Independent claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A computer system, comprising:
a computer chassis comprising a base and a lid for the base;
a keyboard mounted on an inner surface of the base for the
chassis;
a main display mounted on an inner surface of the lid;
a first processor operatively coupled to the keyboard and main
display;
a first operating system running on the first processor;
an auxiliary display mounted on an outer surface of the lid;
a keypad mounted on the outer surface of the lid;
a second processor having less computing performance than the
first processor and consuming substantially less power than the first
processor, the second processor being operatively coupled to the
auxiliary display and keypad;
a second operating system running on the second processor; and
a power controller operatively coupled to the first and second
processors, the power controller causing the computer system to
operate in either a high power mode or a low power mode, the power
controller causing power to be applied to the first processor, the
keyboard, and the main display in the high power mode and causing
power to be removed from the first processor and the main display
and applied to the second processor, the auxiliary display, and the
keypad in the low power mode, the second processor operating in the
low power mode with the auxiliary display and the keypad to provide
functionality that is less than the functionality of the computer system
provided in the high power mode.

Appeal 2009-006040
Application 10/871,871

3
The References
The Examiner relies upon the following references as evidence in
support of the rejections:
Toedtman US 5,612,520 Mar. 18, 1997
(filed Jun. 07, 1995)
Hollon US 5,768,164 Jun. 16, 1998
(filed Apr. 15, 1996)
Krishan US 6,115,755 Sep. 05, 2000
(filed Apr. 09, 1998)
Mages US 6,185,306 B1 Feb. 06, 2001
(filed Jun. 10, 1997)
Barber US 6,240,521 B1 May 29, 2001
(filed Sep. 10, 1998)
Suzuki US 2002/0026494 A1 Feb. 28, 2002
(filed Aug. 14, 2001)
Sheriff US 2002/0065564 A1 May 30, 2002
(filed Jul. 12, 2001)
Kedia US 2002/0086719 A1 Jul. 04, 2002
(filed Dec. 29, 2000)
Anderson US 6,681,324 B1 Jan. 20, 2004
(filed Sep. 07, 2000)
Kardach US 2004/0163004 A1 Aug. 19, 2004
(filed Feb. 14, 2003)
Gillaspy US 6,959,328 B1 Oct. 25, 2005
(filed Mar. 16, 2000)

The Rejections
1. The Examiner rejects claims 1, 4, 5, 9, 10, 13-15, 18, 20, 21, 24, and
90 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hollon,
Barber, and Toedtman.
Appeal 2009-006040
Application 10/871,871

4
2. The Examiner rejects claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Hollon, Barber, Toedtman, and Kedia.
3. The Examiner rejects claims 7 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Hollon, Barber, Toedtman, Kedia, and
Anderson.
4. The Examiner rejects claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Hollon, Barber, Toedtman, and Sheriff.
5. The Examiner rejects claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Hollon, Barber, Toedtman, Sheriff, and Gillaspy.
6. The Examiner rejects claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Hollon, Barber, Toedtman, and Suzuki.
7. The Examiner rejects claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Hollon, Barber, Toedtman, and Kardach.
8. The Examiner rejects claim 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Hollon, Barber, Toedtman, and Mages.
9. The Examiner rejects claim 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Hollon, Barber, Toedtman, and Krishan.

Grouping of Claims
Based on Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief, we will decide
the appeal on the basis of claim 1 alone. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).

Appeal 2009-006040
Application 10/871,871

5
ISSUE 1
Appellants assert that Hollon fails to disclose or suggest a second
processor as recited in claim 1 (App. Br. 14-15).
Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Hollon,
Barber, and Toedtman discloses or suggests a first and a second processor?

ISSUE 2
Appellants assert that the combination of Hollon and Barber fails to
disclose or suggest “that each of the processors . . . is connected to
respective displays and/or respective keyboards or keypads” (App. Br. 16).
Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Hollon,
Barber, and Toedtman discloses or suggests a first processor coupled to a
keyboard and display and a second processor operatively coupled to a
display and keypad?

ISSUE 3
Appellants assert that Toedtman discloses “turning off power to the
entire computer in the ‘sleep mode’” (App. Br. 17-18) but fails to disclose or
suggest “allowing a portion that is less than the whole to operate in the sleep
mode” (App. Br. 17).
Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Hollon,
Barber, and Toedtman discloses or suggests causing power to be applied to a
first processor in a high power mode and causing power to be applied to a
second processor in a low power mode?
Appeal 2009-006040
Application 10/871,871

6

ISSUE 4
Appellants assert that it would not have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to combine the Hollon and Barber references or to
combine the Hollon, Barber, and Toedtman references (App. Br. 16, 18-19).
Did the Examiner err in finding that it would have been obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art to have combined the Hollon, Barber, and
Toedtman references?

FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Facts (FF) are shown by a preponderance
of the evidence.
1. Hollon discloses a “first set of function keys . . . when the user uses
the primary display” (col. 1, ll. 56-59) and “a second set of function
keys . . . on the cover of the portable computer . . . available to the
user when the user uses the spontaneous use display” (col. 1, ll. 59-
62).
2. Hollon discloses that “[w]hen the primary display is active and the
portable computer is open, a window of the first application is
displayed by the primary display” (col. 1, ll. 65-67) but that when
“the portable computer is closed and the spontaneous use display is
active, the window of the first application is displayed in the
spontaneous use display” (col. 1, l. 67 – col. 2, l. 3).
Appeal 2009-006040
Application 10/871,871

7
3. Hollon discloses that a user “then puts portable computer 10 into an
inactive mode and closes the cover” (col. 3, ll. 1-3) and that pressing
“any of spontaneous use function keys 31 through 38 activates
spontaneous use display 39” (col. 3, ll. 3-5).
4. Hollon discloses that when a computer “uses battery power at a high
rate,” it “can make it unacceptable to leave the portable computer in
such a mode for long periods of time” (col. 1, ll. 25-29).
5. Barber discloses “low-powered operating modes for extending
battery life” (col. 1, ll. 15-16).
6. Barber discloses “a notebook computer that can operate at extremely
low power levels when battery life is at a premium . . . and can
operate at high speed when computational power is required” (col. 1,
ll. 31-34).
7. Barber discloses a computer system “having at least two processors”
(col. 1, ll. 44-45) in which “one processor is a high-speed processor
and the other is a low-power processor” (col. 3, ll. 56-58).
8. Barber discloses that the “high-speed processor 42 has been
instructed to suspend execution of a program and to enter its sleep
mode” (col. 4, ll. 8-9) when “the low-power processor 44 has been
commanded to leave the sleep mode, to enter an active mode and to
resume the execution of the suspended program” (col. 4, ll. 14-16).
9. Toedtman discloses a “suspend (sleep) switch for a portable
electronic device” (Abstract).
Appeal 2009-006040
Application 10/871,871

8
10. Toedtman discloses that when in sleep mode, the “display screen 130
and its back lighting source . . . are turned off, and an internal
processor . . . is caused to operate at a lower frequency or to cease
operations altogether” (col. 6, ll. 9-12).

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Obviousness
The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying
factual determinations including (1) the scope and content of the prior art,
(2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art, and
(3) the level of skill in the art. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-
18 (1966).
“The combination of familiar elements according to known methods
is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”
KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).

ANALYSIS
Issue 1
As described above, Hollon discloses avoiding using a portable
computer at a high battery power rate for long periods of time (FF 4) when a
user places a computer in inactive (i.e., sleep) mode by closing the cover of
the computer (FF 3) and utilizing the computer via a spontaneous use
display and keypad when in inactive mode (FF 1, 2). Barber discloses
conserving power in a computer by executing instructions via a high-speed
Appeal 2009-006040
Application 10/871,871

9
processor and a low-power processor by placing the high-speed processor in
sleep mode while executing instructions by the low-power processor (FF 5-
8).
As described above, Hollon discloses operating a computer with
multiple displays and keypads in one of two modes, one mode being an
inactive or sleep mode that conserves battery power (FF 1-4), and Barber
discloses conserving battery power in a computer with two processors by
placing a high-power processor in sleep mode while executing instructions
with a low-power processor (FF 5-8). We agree with the Examiner that a
first and second processor would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
in the art because both Hollon and Barber disclose conserving power in a
portable computer by placing the computer in a low-power or sleep mode.
Barber further discloses that it was known to those in the art to provide a
computer with a high-speed processor and a second low-power processor
and to place the high-speed processor in sleep mode while operating the
low-power processor to conserve battery power. Such a combination would
have entailed the combination of known elements of operating a computer
via different displays and keypads by placing a computer in sleep mode to
conserve power (Hollon) and switching between sleep modes of two
processors (a high and low-power processor) to conserve battery power.
Also, the combination of these known elements would have resulted in the
expected and predictable result of conserving battery power in a battery-
operated computer. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 416.
Appeal 2009-006040
Application 10/871,871

10
Appellants argue that “Hollon patent does not describe or suggest that
the ASIC 84 performs any processing function” (App. Br. 14). We find
Appellants’ argument unpersuasive for several reasons. First, the
application specific integrated circuit (ASIC) of Hollon “processes” the
mapping of a display by coordinating “with video control . . . so that pixels
within section 21 of display 20 are mapped to spontaneous use display 39”
(col. 3, ll. 37-39). As such, contrary to Appellants’ contention, the ASIC of
Hollon performs a “processing function.” Second, even assuming Hollon’s
ASIC does not perform a “processing function,” the Examiner relies on
Barber as disclosing a second processor. One cannot show nonobviousness
by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on
combinations of references. In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097
(Fed. Cir. 1986).
For at least the aforementioned reasons, we find no error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 4-18, 20-24, and 90 with respect to Issue 1.

Issue 2
As described above, Hollon discloses a portable computer functioning
in a high-speed mode with a display and keyboard and a sleep mode (when
the cover is closed by the user) with a “spontaneous use” display and keypad
while Barber discloses a portable computer functioning in a high-speed
mode or a low-power mode via a corresponding high-power processor or a
low-power processor (FF 1-8). Because Hollon discloses using a different
display and keyboard of a computer based on different power modes and
Appeal 2009-006040
Application 10/871,871

11
Barber also discloses different power modes utilizing different processors at
different power levels, we disagree with Appellants’ contention that the
combination of Hollon, Barber, and Toedtman supposedly fails to suggest
different processors executing instructions (Barber) for different displays or
keyboards (Hollon) based on different desired power consumption levels
(Hollon and Barber).
Appellants hypothesize that “both processors 42, 44 of Barber would
drive both the main display 20 and auxiliary display 39 of Hollon” (App. Br.
17). However, as described above, only one processor of Barber executes
instructions while the other processor is in sleep mode while a different
display and different keyboard of Hollon is used depending on whether the
computer is in inactive mode or active mode. Therefore, we agree with the
Examiner that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
that the one processor of Barber that executes in low-power mode would
power only the inactive mode display and keyboard while the other
processor of Barber that executes in high-speed mode would power the
active mode display and keyboard of Hollon since such an implementation
would be the most common-sense approach to achieve the predictable result
of conserving battery power in a computer.
For at least the aforementioned reasons, we find no error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 4-18, 20-24, and 90 with respect to Issue 2.

Appeal 2009-006040
Application 10/871,871

12
Issue 3
As described above, the combination of Hollon and Barber discloses
or suggests applying power to a first processor in a high power mode and
causing power to be applied to a second processor in a low power mode.
Toedtman further provides cumulative disclosure of a computer operating in
sleep or inactive mode (FF 9-10). For reasons set forth above, we agree with
the Examiner that the combination of Hollon, Barber, and Toedtman
discloses or suggests the disputed feature.
Appellants argue that Toedtman fails to suggest “turning off only a
part of applicants system in the reduced power mode since Toedtman
teaches turning off power to the entire computer in the ‘sleep mode’” (App.
Br. 17-18). However, as described above, at least Barber discloses the
disputed feature while Toedtman discloses further details of computer
operation while in sleep mode. Even assuming Appellants’ contention that
Toedtman supposedly fails to disclose or suggest removing power to a
processor while applying power to a second processor, Appellants have
failed to demonstrate that the combination of Hollon and Barber fails to
disclose or suggest this feature. In fact, it appears that the combination of
Hollon and Barber discloses this feature.
For at least the aforementioned reasons, we find no error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 4-18, 20-24, and 90 with respect to Issue 3.

Appeal 2009-006040
Application 10/871,871

13
Issue 4
For reasons set forth above, we agree with the Examiner that it would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have combined the
Hollon and Barber references. Also, while Hollon and Barber both disclose
operating a computer in inactive or sleep mode, Toedtman discloses further
details of a computer operating in sleep mode. We agree with the Examiner
that it would have been obvious to combine the disclosure of the Hollon and
Barber references of operating a computer in inactive or sleep mode with the
disclosure of the Toedtman reference of operating a computer in inactive or
sleep mode since each reference demonstrates that operating a computer in
sleep mode was known in the art and the combination of each disclosure of
operating a computer operating in sleep mode would have resulted in the
predictable result of operating a computer in sleep mode. See KSR, 550 U.S.
at 416. Moreover, the combination of different references disclosing the
same feature would have required no more than mere common sense on the
part of the skilled artisan. It is “[c]ommon sense . . . that familiar items may
have obvious uses beyond their primary purposes.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 420.
For at least the aforementioned reasons, we find no error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 4-18, 20-24, and 90 with respect to Issue 4.

Appeal 2009-006040
Application 10/871,871

14
CONCLUSION OF LAW
Based on the findings of facts and analysis above, we conclude that
the Examiner did not err in:
1. finding that the combination of Hollon, Barber, and Toedtman
discloses or suggests a first and a second processor (Issue 1),
2. finding that the combination of Hollon, Barber, and Toedtman
discloses or suggests a first processor coupled to a keyboard and display and
a second processor operatively coupled to a display and keypad (Issue 2),
3. finding that the combination of Hollon, Barber, and Toedtman
discloses or suggests causing power to be applied to a first processor in a
high power mode and causing power to be applied to a second processor in a
low power mode (Issue 3), and
4. finding that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
in the art to have combined the Hollon, Barber, and Toedtman references
(Issue 4).

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 4-18, 20-24,
and 90 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
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

Appeal 2009-006040
Application 10/871,871

15

msc

DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT
COLUMBIA CENTER
701 FIFTH AVENUE, SUITE 6100
SEATTLE, WA 98104-7043