Ex Parte Pate et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 21, 201813916422 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 21, 2018) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 13/916,422 06/12/2013 20350 7590 08/23/2018 KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTONLLP Mailstop: IP Docketing - 22 1100 Peachtree Street Suite 2800 Atlanta, GA 30309 UNITED ST A TES OF AMERICA Christopher Pate 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. 86947-100310US-870670 1091 EXAMINER JANSEN II, MICHAEL J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2696 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/23/2018 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): ipefiling@kilpatricktownsend.com KTSDocketing2@kilpatrick.foundationip.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte CHRISTOPHER PATE, CORMAC O CONAIRE, MARTEN HELWIG, and JAMES LYNCH Appeal2018-002044 Application 13/916,422 1 Technology Center 2600 Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, LARRY J. HUME, and JOYCE CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judges. CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final rejection of claims 20-25 and 27-34, which are all of the claims pending in this application. Claims 1-19, 26, and 35-39 have been cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We reverse. 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Logitech Europe S.A. App. Br. 3. Appeal2018-002044 Application 13/916,422 INVENTION Appellants' application relates to an input device configured with a plurality of input members grouped into contoured-shaped bowls on a portion of the input devices. Abstract. Claim 28 is illustrative of the appealed subject matter and reads as follows: 28. A computer mouse comprising: a housing including: a top portion; a bottom portion to move along a work surface; and a side portion; a first plurality of buttons disposed on the side portion, wherein each of the first plurality of buttons has a different shape;and a second plurality of buttons disposed on the side portion, wherein each of the second plurality of buttons has a different shape, wherein each button of the first plurality of buttons and each button of the second plurality of buttons includes a top surface, wherein the top surface of each of the first plurality of buttons is contoured such that the first plurality of buttons forms a bowl shape having a common center, and wherein the top surface of each of the second plurality of buttons is contoured such that the second plurality of buttons forms a bowl shape having a common center. REJECTIONS Claims 20-23, 25, 27-31, 33, and 34 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Tang et al. (US 2011/0028194 Al; published Feb. 3, 2011) ("Tang") and Chaumont et al. (US 2008/010840 Al; May 1, 2008) ("Chaumont"). Final Act. 4--16. 2 Appeal2018-002044 Application 13/916,422 Claims 24 and 32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Tang, Chaumont, and Gruhl et al. (US 6,717,569 Bl; April 6, 2004) ("Gruhl"). Final Act. 17-19. ANALYSIS Rejection of Claims 20---23, 25, 27-31, 33, and 34 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) Appellants contend the Examiner erred because neither Chaumont nor Tang teaches or suggests the limitations "wherein each of the first plurality of buttons has a different shape" and "the first plurality of buttons forms a bowl shape having a common center," recited in claim 28. App. Br. 6-8; Final Act. 6. Appellants argue none of Chaumont's arrangements teaches keys of a different shape compared to those adjacent or nearby. App. Br. 7. Appellants further argue keys along a contour of a housing, as taught in Tang, do not necessarily have different shapes. Reply Br. 3 ( citing Ans. 5). Appellants further contend neither Tang's nor Chaumont's group of keys forms a bowl shape with a common center, as recited in claims 20 and 28. App. Br. 8; Reply Br. 4. Appellants argue the opposing keys in Chaumont's trough (Chaumont, Fig. 6) would feel identical (id.) and none of the other Chaumont shapes cited by the Examiner teaches or suggests a "bowl shape" with a "common center," as the claims require (Reply Br. 5). The Examiner concluded it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the input device technique as taught by Tang with the grouped shaped buttons as taught by Chaumont. Final Act. 7. The Examiner further concluded it would have been obvious to change the surface shape of a button into a bowl shape. Id. at 7-8. The Examiner found Figure 1 c of Tang teaches buttons that follow the shape of a housing, meaning each button has a different shape. Ans. 5. The Examiner also 3 Appeal2018-002044 Application 13/916,422 found Chaumont' s teaching of numerous possibilities for the shape and design of a group of keys would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art the disputed limitations "bowl shape" with a "common center," as recited in the independent claims 20 and 28. Ans. 7-8. Appellants have persuaded us that the Examiner erred. The Examiner has not shown clearly that keys on a contoured housing, as in Figure le of Tang, are each of a different shape. See Reply Br. 3. Nor does Figure 6 of Chaumont teach a "bowl shape" with a "common center," as those terms are described in Appellants' Specification. The Specification describes a bowl- shape of buttons, where the individual buttons have different shapes. Spec. ,r,r 8, 9, 28. The Specification also describes a "bowl shape" with a "common center," as used in certain embodiments. Spec. ,r,r 9, 28, 41, Fig. 3B. In all cases, the Specification describes that a group of buttons is contoured both left/right and top/bottom in a concave shape, forming a bowl. See id. Appellants present dictionary definitions of "center" and "trough." Reply Br. 4. We agree with Appellants that Figure 6 of Chaumont teaches a trough and does not have a center. For these reasons, we are persuaded the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Tang and Chaumont teaches or suggests the disputed limitations of claims 20 and 28. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's§ 103 rejection of independent claims 20 and 28. Nor do we sustain the Examiner's rejection of dependent claims 21-23, 25, 27, 29-31, 33 and 34, which stand with the independent claims from which they depend. We also reverse the rejection of dependent claims 24 and 32, which stand with the independent claims from which they depend, because the Examiner has not shown how the 4 Appeal2018-002044 Application 13/916,422 additionally cited Gruhl reference overcomes the aforementioned deficiencies of the combination of Tang and Chaumont. DECISION We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 20-25 and 27-34. REVERSED 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation