Ex Parte Kudrna et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 27, 2016

13041026 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 27, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/041,026 03/04/2011
95866 7590 09/29/2016
Fleit Gibbons Gutman Bongini & Bianco P,L,
551 NW 77th street
Suite 111
Boca Raton, FL 33487
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Paul John Kudrna
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
36266-US-PAT 4129
EXAMINER
FLEMING-HALL, ERICA L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2647
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/29/2016 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):
ptoboca@fggbb.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PAUL JOHN KUDMA,
BENJAMIN MICHAEL FINNEY,
DAVID KAZMIERZ SZCZYPINSKI, and OLEG LOS 1
Appeal2015-005031
Application 13/041,026
Technology Center 2600
Before BRUCE R. WINSOR, JOHN F. HORVATH, and
AMBER L. HAGY, Administrative Patent Judges.
HAGY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify Research in Motion Limited as the real party in
interest. (Br. 3.)
Appeal2015-005031
Application 13/041,026
Introduction
According to Appellants, "the disclosure relates to mobile devices that
are physically separable into a control device and a portable docking station,
which wirelessly communicates with the control device." (Spec. i-f 1.)
Exemplary Claim
Claim 1, reproduced below, is exemplary of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A mobile communication device comprising:
a control module configured for short-range wireless
communication, the control module comprising:
a touch-sensitive display;
a short-range wireless transceiver; and
a processor that electrically couples the touch-sensitive
display and the short-range wireless transceiver; and
a docking station module configured for long-range
wireless communication and short-range wireless
communication, the docking station module comprising:
a docking area that receives the control module, the
docking area including a keyboard;
a docking short-range wireless transceiver configured to
communicate with the control module;
a long-range wireless transceiver that is configured to
communicate with a long-range network; and
a docking processor that electrically couples the docking
short-range wireless transceiver and the long-range wireless
transceiver.
2
Appeal2015-005031
Application 13/041,026
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Lieu et al.
Vossoughi et al.
US 2007 /0242424 Al Oct. 18, 2007
US 2014/0031081 Al Jan. 30, 2014
REJECTION
Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Lieu and Vossoughi. (Final Act. 2-7.)
ISSUE
The sole issue presented by Appellants is whether the Examiner erred
in finding Vossoughi teaches or suggests "a docking area that receives the
control module, the docking area including a keyboard," as recited in
independent claim 1 and commensurately recited in independent claim 12.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants'
conclusions and we adopt as our own: ( 1) the findings and reasons set forth
by the Examiner in the Final Office 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. We concur with the conclusions
reached by the Examiner, and we highlight the following for emphasis. 2
2 Only those arguments made by Appellants have been considered in this
decision. Arguments Appellants did not make in the briefs have not been
considered and are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
3
Appeal2015-005031
Application 13/041,026
The Examiner finds the combination of Lieu and V ossoughi teaches
or suggests the limitations of claim 1. (Final Act. 3--4.) Of relevance to the
Appellants' argument on appeal is the Examiner's finding "V ossoughi
discloses the docking area including a keyboard .... " (Final Act. 4 (citing
Vossoughi Figs. 2B, 6A, 6B, 8A, and 11 ).) In particular, the Examiner finds
Vossoughi discloses "the control module is received into a surface having a
keyboard." (Id. at 7 .) Figure 2B from Vossoughi, reproduced below, is
illustrative:
20
FIG. 28
Figure 2B, reproduced above, shows "a modular communication
device 50 that includes an information input module styled as a conventional
mobile telephone form factor keypad 52." (Vossoughi i-f 31.) Vossoughi
further discloses "[k ]eypad 52 exhibits on its upper surface 54 a
conventional set of keypad buttons 56 and receives puck 20 in a circular
aperture 58, as shown in [Figure] 2B." (Id.) Puck 20 is described as "an
information delivery module." (Vossoughi i-f 29.)
Appellants "agree that Vossoughi discloses a docking area (58) that
receives a control module" and also "agree that V ossoughi discloses a
4
Appeal2015-005031
Application 13/041,026
keyboard (52)." (Br. 9.) Appellants argue, however, the Examiner's
challenged finding is in error because, according to Appellants,
"Vossoughi's keyboard is not located within Vossoughi's docking area."
(Id. (emphasis added).)
The dispute raised by Appellants, thus, centers on the proper scope of
the term "docking area." It is well settled that the terms of a claim must be
given the broadest reasonable interpretation, consistent with Appellants'
Specification, as they would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in this
art. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054--55 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Zletz, 893
F.2d 319, 321-22 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
Appellants refer to Figures 3 and 4 of their Specification as depicting
"a docking area that receives a control module (210) and which also itself
includes a keyboard (224 ). " Figures 3 and 4 are reproduced below:
..... ~ ·-: .. : ~ ....
.,.,.;~ 2 \ ~ _./·":~::?~~:~.':::.:::::.:.l~--- ·:)"
(~~~~~~~~
Figures 3 and 4, reproduced above, illustrate a "modular
communication device" in a "partially docked state" and a "fully docked
state," respectively. (Spec. i-fi-16-7.)
Appellants argue "[a]s well illustrated in [Figure] 4, when the control
module (210) is fully docked, the keyboard (224) is covered by the control
module (210) because the keyboard (224) is so located (i.e., located in the
5
Appeal2015-005031
Application 13/041,026
docking area)." (Br. 8 (emphasis added).) Implicit in Appellants' argument
is the premise that, once the control module is docked, it will cover the
keyboard because the footprint of the "docking area" is commensurate with
the footprint of the control module.
As an initial matter, we note the term "docking area" appears only in
the claims and is not described in the Specification. Appellants appear to
read the claimed "docking area" on the "keyboard 224" and "upper surface
227" of "docking station 220" as shown in Figures 3 and 4. (See Br. 8; see
also Spec. i-f 32.) Although we agree with Appellants that Figure 4 of the
Specification depicts an embodiment in which the upper surface of docking
station 220, including the keyboard, is fully covered by the control module
(Br. 8), nothing in the Specification limits the construction of the term
"docking area" to that example. Indeed, in describing Figure 4, the
Specification uses broad language, noting "[i]n the fully docked state, the
control module 210 may overlap all or substantially all of the upper surface
227 of the docking station module 220." (Spec. i-f 34 (emphasis added).)
Such broad language does not require that the control module must overlap
all of the upper surface or docking area of docking station 220, including the
keyboard. Moreover, as shown in Figure 3, the Specification discloses the
control module can be docked in a "partially docked state" that "enable[s]
viewing the display content while manipulating the keyboard 224 and the
navigation tool 226." (Id. i-f 33).
The proper construction of the term "docking area" is further
informed by the context of claim 1. In that regard, we note the claimed
"docking area" is recited as being part of the "docking station module,"
which also comprises wireless transceivers and a processor. (Br. 12 (Claims
6
Appeal2015-005031
Application 13/041,026
App.).) Read in context, claim 1 does not limit the "docking area" to a
particular physical area of the docking station module, but requires only that
the "docking area" must "receive[] the control module" and "includ[ e] a
keyboard." (Id.) Thus, affording claim 1 its "broadest reasonable
interpretation," we agree with the Examiner the claimed "docking area"
reasonably encompasses the entire docking base. We also agree with the
Examiner this is depicted at least in Figure 2B of Vossoughi as keypad 52,
which "receives puck 20" (the control module) and which also includes a
keyboard in the form of "keypad buttons 56." (Vossoughi i-f 31; see Ans. 7.)
For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded of error in the
Examiner's finding Vossoughi teaches or suggests "a docking area that
receives the control module, the docking area including a keyboard," as
recited in independent claim 1 and commensurately recited in independent
claim 12. We, therefore, sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection
of claim 1, along with the rejection of claims 2-20, which are not argued
separately. (See Br. 6, 10.)
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-20 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)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
7