Ex Parte Lev et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 19, 2010

11076086 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 19, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
________________

Ex parte JEFFREY A. LEV and PABLO J. SALAZAR
________________

Appeal 2009-008952
Application 11/076,086
Technology Center 2800
________________

Decided: March 19, 2010
________________

Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, CHARLES F. WARREN, and
TERRY J. OWENS, Administrative Patent Judges.

OWENS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-20, which are all of the pending claims. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

Appeal 2009-008952
Application 11/076,086

2
The Invention
The Appellants claim a mechanism, method and system for providing
locking of the rotational connection between a computer device’s display
member and base member. Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A locking system for a computer device, comprising:

a display member coupled to a base member to enable positioning of
the display member relative to the base member in a [sic] open position, a
closed position and a tablet position;

a first locking mechanism adapted to restrict rotational movement
between the base and display members in a direction about a first axis;

a second locking mechanism adapted to restrict rotational movement
between the base and display members in a direction about a second axis;
and

wherein the second locking mechanism is automatically engaged and
disengaged in response to movement of the display member.

The References
Hsiang 2003/0090862 A1 May 15, 2003
Chu 2005/0047069 A1 Mar. 3, 2005
The Rejection
Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Hsiang in view
of Chu.
OPINION
We affirm the rejection.
Issue
Have the Appellants indicated reversible error in the Examiner’s
determination that the applied prior art would have rendered prima facie
Appeal 2009-008952
Application 11/076,086

3
obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, a locking mechanism that is
automatically disengaged in response to movement of a display member?
Findings of Fact
The Examiner relies upon Chu’s locking mechanism comprising a
locking arm (52) and an elongated locking slot (51) (¶ 0070; Fig. 1A) as
corresponding to the Appellants’ locking mechanism that is automatically
disengaged in response to movement of a display member (Ans. 3-4). Chu
discloses (¶ 0070):
The locking means consists of at least an elongated locking slot 51
indently formed on the universal mounting stand 20, preferably at the
fixture surface 121, and comprises a locking arm 52 upwardly
extended from and slidably connected to the entertainment housing 11
at a position corresponding to the elongated locking slot 51 such that
the locking arm 52 is adapted to receive in the locking slot 51 and
sidewardly slide to engage with a sidewall of the locking slot 51 so as
to interlock a lateral pivotal movement between the universal
mounting stand 20 and the entertainment unit 10.

Hsiang discloses a corresponding locking mechanism comprising a
locking switch (65) that is movable to unlock retainers (66) from locking
slots (113) in a display (1) (¶ 0051; Fig. 9).
Analysis
The Appellants argue that “there is no motivation or suggestion to
replace the locking mechanism of Hsiang with the locking mechanism of
Chu in order to arrive at a function already provided in the Hsiang device”
(Br. 6).
As set forth in KSR Int’l. Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417
(2007), “if a technique has been used to improve one device [Chu’s device],
and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would
Appeal 2009-008952
Application 11/076,086

4
improve similar devices [Hsiang’s device] in the same way, using the
technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill.”
It does not appear that substitution of Chu’s locking mechanism for that of
Hsiang would have been beyond the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art,
and the Appellants have provided no evidence to that effect.
The Appellants argue that “Chu does not disclose or in any manner
discuss how the locking mechanism of Chu is disengaged; therefore, Chu
does not disclose automatic disengagement of Chu’s locking mechanism in
response to movement of the display member of Chu” (Br. 6).
Chu discloses that the locking mechanism is disengaged by
sidewardly sliding movement of the locking arm (52) with respect to the
elongated locking slot (51) (¶ 0070). Chu’s Figure 1 would have indicated
to one of ordinary skill in the art that the sidewardly sliding movement is a
flexing of the locking arm (52) such that it disengages from the elongated
locking slot (51) when the entertainment unit (10) is pulled upwardly to
separate it from the universal mounting stand (20) and rotate it about the
folding joint (30). It is undisputed that such disengagement is “automatic”
as that term is used by the Appellants.
The Appellants argue that Hsiang’s locking mechanism requires user
actuation to disengage the fragile display member, presumably to prevent
inadvertent opening, which is more likely to happen if Chu’s locking
mechanism automatically disengages (Reply Br. 4-5).
One of ordinary skill in the art would not have desired for the device
of either Hsiang or Chu to open inadvertently. Hence, one of ordinary skill
in the art, through no more than ordinary creativity, would have required
sufficient force to open Chu’s locking mechanism that inadvertent opening
Appeal 2009-008952
Application 11/076,086

5
does not occur. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (In making an obviousness
determination one “can take account of the inferences and creative steps that
a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ”).
The Appellants argue that because Chu is directed toward an
entertainment system and not a locking mechanism, “the lack of a lever or
slide only necessarily indicates to persons of ordinary skill that the locking
mechanism and any associated functionality was not critical to the claimed
invention of Chu and thus not described therein” (Reply Br. 5).
Chu does not disclose or indicate that the functioning of the locking
mechanism is not critical. Hence, the Appellants’ argument to that effect is
unsupported speculation. Chu’s disclosure that sidewardly slidable
engagement of locking arm (52) with elongated locking slot (51) functions
“to interlock a lateral pivotal movement between the universal mounting
stand 20 and the entertainment unit 10” (¶ 0070) would have indicated to
one of ordinary skill in the art that the locking mechanism as described and
illustrated is an effective locking mechanism, without any additional lever or
slide being required.
Conclusion of Law
The Appellants have not shown reversible error in the Examiner’s
determination that the applied prior art would have rendered prima facie
obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, a locking mechanism that is
automatically disengaged in response to movement of a display member.
DECISION/ORDER
The rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Hsiang in
view of Chu is affirmed.
It is ordered that the Examiner’s decision is affirmed.
Appeal 2009-008952
Application 11/076,086

6
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED

PL Initial:
sld

HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY
Intellectual Property Administration
3404 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 35
FORT COLLINS, CO 80528