Ex Parte Lombardi et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardOct 27, 201412291483 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 27, 2014) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ________________ Ex parte MICHAEL J. LOMBARDI, JOHN GORSICA, ROGER W. HARMON, and NARENDRA A. PATEL ________________ Appeal 2013-001187 Application 12/291,483 Technology Center 2800 ________________ Before TERRY J. OWENS, ROMULO H. DELMENDO, and MARK NAGUMO, 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. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). The Invention The Appellants claimed invention is directed toward the incorporation of a magnetic field sensor and a magnetic field producing unit proximate to the hinge of a hinged device such as a computing device or a visual entertainment device. Claim 1 is illustrative: Appeal 2013-001187 Application 12/291,483 2 1. A method of detecting more than two relative orientations of two parts of a device having a two part housing where the two parts move relative to one another, the method comprising the steps of: detecting, by a magnetic field sensor in a first one of the two parts, a magnetic field in a first orientation emitted by a magnetic field producing unit in a second one of the two parts, the magnetic field in the first orientation entering a first side of the magnetic field sensor; detecting, by the magnetic field sensor, the magnetic field in a second orientation emitted by the magnetic field producing unit, the magnetic field in the second orientation entering a second side of the magnetic field sensor, the second side being opposite the first side; and detecting, by the magnetic field sensor, a magnetic field in a third orientation emitted by the magnetic field producing unit, the magnetic field in the third orientation entering a third side of the magnetic field sensor, the third side being adjacent to both the first side and the second side; determining that the device is in a first orientation based, at least in part, on the detecting of the magnetic field in the first orientation; determining that the device is in a second orientation based, at least in part, on the detecting of the magnetic field in the second orientation; and determining that the device is in a third orientation based, at least in part, on the detecting the presence or absence of the magnetic field in the third orientation. The References Hijii US 6,922,573 B2 July 26, 2005 Hirose EP 1 755 317 A1 Feb. 21, 2007 The Rejections The claims stand rejected as follows: claims 1–18 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over Hirose and claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Hirose in view of Hijii.1 1 A rejection of claims 1–7 and 11–15 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, is withdrawn in the Examiner’s Answer (Ans. 4). Appeal 2013-001187 Application 12/291,483 3 OPINION We reverse the rejections. We need to address only the independent claims (1, 8 and 16).2 Claim 1 requires “determining that the device is in a third orientation based, at least in part, on the detecting of the presence or absence of the magnetic field in the third orientation.” Claim 8 requires that “the magnetic field sensor senses . . . a magnetic field oriented in a radial direction between the first direction and the second direction when the hinged device is in an intermediate position between the initial position and the final position.” Claim 16 requires that “the output of the magnetic field sensor indicates whether the sensor assembly is in the first position, the second position, or an intermediate position between the first position and the second position.” “Anticipation requires that every limitation of the claim in issue be disclosed, either expressly or under principles of inherency, in a single prior art reference.” Corning Glass Works v. Sumitomo Elec. U.S.A., Inc., 868 F.2d 1251, 1255–56 (Fed. Cir. 1989). Hirose discloses a cell phone comprising an upper housing (2), a lower housing (3), a biaxial hinge (21) between the upper (2) and lower (3) housings, a sensor (67) near the end of the upper housing (2) opposite the biaxial hinge (21) and offset from the center of the upper housing (2), and N-pole (65) and S-pole (66) magnets near the end of the lower housing (3) opposite the biaxial hinge (21), each offset from the center of the lower housing (3) to the same extent as the sensor (67) is offset from the center of 2 With respect to claim 19 the Examiner does not set forth any obviousness rationale regarding the subject matter of claim 16 from which claim 19 depends and does not rely upon Hijii for any disclosure that remedies the deficiency in Hirose as to claim 16 (Ans. 7–8). Appeal 2013-001187 Application 12/291,483 4 the upper housing (2) such that when the upper (2) and lower (3) housings are closed together and the display (11) is between those housings, the sensor (67) opposes the N-pole magnet (65), and when the upper housing (2) is rotated about the biaxial hinge (21) such that the display (11) faces away from the lower housing (3) when the upper (2) and lower (3) housings are closed together, the sensor (67) opposes the S-pole magnet (66) (¶¶ 37-38; Figs. 6, 11). Thus, the position of the display (11) (inside or outside the cell phone when the upper (2) and lower (3) housings are closed together) is indicated by which of the magnets (65 or 66) the sensor (67) senses (abstract). The Appellants’ Specification states, with respect to the intermediate position 160 (third orientation) in Figure 1, that “the magnetic field 130 does not intersect both the top face 123 and the bottom face 127 of the sensor 120 in the same direction and, as will be known by those skilled in the art, the sensor will sense little or none of the magnetic field when the magnet 110 is oriented proximally to the side face 125 of the sensor 120, as shown by the orientation 160” (Spec. ¶ 21). The Examiner argues that Hirose’s cell phone, when the upper housing (2) is in an intermediate position between the positions at which the sensor (67) is opposed to the N-pole magnet (65) or the S-pole magnet (66) when the upper (2) and lower (3) housings are closed together, is “unable to detect any magnetic field ‘absence of the magnetic field’ as claimed” (Ans. 6) and that “the appellant appears to commit estoppel by prohibiting the reference from ‘merely detecting an absence of the field’ and yet claiming to do the same for the ‘detection’ relative to the third orientation, Appeal 2013-001187 Application 12/291,483 5 with admittedly, little or no magnetic field present near the sensor” (Ans. 10). A step of detecting the absence of a magnetic field is not the same as absence of a detecting step. The Examiner has not established that Hirose’s cell phone detects absence of a magnetic field when the upper housing (2) is in an intermediate position between the positions at which the sensor (67) is opposed to the N-pole magnet (65) or the S-pole magnet (66) when the upper (2) and lower (3) housings are closed together. Thus, the Examiner has not established that Hirose discloses “determining that the device is in a third orientation based, at least in part, on the detecting of the presence or absence of the magnetic field in the third orientation ” as required by the Appellants’ claim 1, sensing, by the magnetic field sensor, “a magnetic field oriented in a radial direction between the first direction and the second direction when the hinged device is in an intermediate position between the initial position and the final position” as required by the Appellants’ claim 8, or indicating, by the output of the magnetic field sensor, “whether the sensor assembly is in the first position, the second position, or an intermediate position between the first position and the second position” as required by the Appellants’ claim 16. Accordingly, we reverse the rejections. DECISION/ORDER The rejections of claims 1–18 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over Hirose and claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Hirose in view of Hijii are reversed. Appeal 2013-001187 Application 12/291,483 6 It is ordered that the Examiner’s decision is reversed. REVERSED lp Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation