Ex Parte KumarDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 13, 201611571915 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 13, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 111571,915 06/21/2010 114262 7590 06/15/2016 Black, McCuskey, Souers & Arbaugh, LPA 220 Market A venue, South, Suite 1000 Canton, OH 44702 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Rajendra Kumar 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. ll 7210.00114 1687 EXAMINER BUKOWSKI, KENNETH ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2621 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/15/2016 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): ip@bmsa.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte RAJENDRA KUMAR Appeal2015-000076 Application 11/571,915 Technology Center 2600 Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, NORMAN H. BEAMER, and SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges. HOW ARD, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Non-Final Rejection of claims 5, 6, 11-18, 20, and 22-30, which constitute all of the claims pending in this application. Claim 1--4, 7-10, and 19-21 have been cancelled. Although the Action appealed from is a Non-Final Action, because the application has been twice rejected we have jurisdiction pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 6 and 134. Ex parte Lemoine, 46 USPQ2d 1420, 1423 (BPAI 1994) (precedential). We affirm. 1 Appellant identifies Khyber Technologies Corporation as the real party in interest. App. Br. 4. Appeal2015-000076 Application 11/571,915 THE INVENTION The claimed invention is directed to a compact handset communication and processing device and methods with an imaging device. Spec. iTiT 9-12, 36. Claim 5, reproduced below with the relevant language italicized, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 5. A handheld electronic device comprising: a housing having first and second surfaces facing in substantially opposite directions; a first display provided on the first surface, and the second surface carrying a navigation control system, wherein the navigation control system is used for navigating information on the first display and is sized and positioned to be operated by at least one finger of the user's hands when holding the device with the first display substantially facing the user and the navigation control system substantially facing away from the user; and an imaging system configured with at least one of a fixed mounting and a rotatable mounting for image capture from at least one of the first surface and the second surface; wherein the navigation control system comprises one or more of at least one navigation key and a touch panel; a second display provided on the second surface, the first display having a larger display size than the second display. 2 REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence in rejecting the claims on appeal is: 2 We note that the Claims Appendix does not include the second display limitation. See App. Br. 25. However, we do not see any indication in the prosecution history of the language being deleted after the Amendment filed on February 25, 2013-which included the language-and the Examiner's Non-Final Action included the claim limitation. See Non-Final Act. 4. 2 Appeal2015-000076 Application 11/571,915 Ishigami Liebenow Kang Kubo Mirza Chadha US 6,415,165 Bl July 2, 2002 US 2002/0118175 Al Aug.29,2002 US 2002/0187818 Al Dec. 12, 2002 US 6,748,243 Bl June 8, 2004 US 2004/0266475 Al Dec. 30, 2004 US 2005/0275624 Al Dec. 15, 2005 REJECTIONS Claims 5, 11-14, 16-18, 22, 24, 26, 29, and 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ishigami in view of Kang. Non-Final Act. 4--9. Claims 14, 15, 23, and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mirza in view of Kang. Non-Final Act. 9-11. Claim 25 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mirza in view of Kang and Liebenow. Non-Final Act. 11. Claims 5 and 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Chadha in view of Kubo and Kang. Non-Final Act. 11- 13. Claims 20, 27, and 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ishigami in view of Kang and Mirza. Non-Final Act. 13-14. ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner's rejection in light of Appellant's arguments that the Examiner erred. In reaching this decision, we consider all evidence presented and all arguments made by Appellant. We disagree with Appellants' arguments regarding the pending claims. 3 Appeal2015-000076 Application 11/571,915 Although Appellant concedes that Kang teaches a portable telephone including a mounted and rotatable camera used to capture images, Appellant argues it does not teach or suggest "image capture from at least one of the first surface and the second surface." App. Br. 14--15. Appellant further argues that the combination of Kang with other prior art references involves "impermissible hindsight reconstruction using the presently claimed invention to show the way and fill in the glaring deficiencies of the cited art." App. Br. 18. The Examiner provides a comprehensive response to Appellant's arguments, finding Kang Figure 4 teaches a mounted image device that captures an image from at least one surface of the device. Final Act. 4--9; Ans. 2--4. The Examiner further finds that Kang Figures 1-3-which Appellant does not discuss-"also satisfies the claim language as well as Appellant's narrowly defined 'surface."' Ans. 4. We have reviewed the Examiner's findings (Non-Final Act. 4--14; Ans. 2-7) and the documents relied upon by the Examiner to support these findings and we concur with the Examiner and adopt the Examiner's findings and conclusions as our own. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 5, along with the rejections of claims 14, 16, and 25, which are argued on the same grounds,3 and claims 6, 11-13, 15, 17, 18, 20, 22-30 (App. Br. 18, 21, 23- 24), which are not argued separately. 3 Although the combination of prior art relied on by the Examiner varies in the rejections of the independent claims, Appellant's arguments are premised on Kang not teaching the claimed imaging system limitation and the other references (Ishigami, Mirza, Liebenow, Chadha, and Kubo) not curing the deficiency. See App. Br. 13-23. 4 Appeal2015-000076 Application 11/571,915 DECISION For the above reasons, we affirm the Examiner's rejections of claims 5, 6, 11-18, 20, and 22-30. 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation