Ex Parte Stewart et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 25, 2018

14565945 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 25, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/565,945 12/10/2014
58127 7590 06/25/2018
FERENCE & ASSOCIATES LLC
409 BROAD STREET
PITTSBURGH, PA 15143
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Aaron M. Stewart
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.
RPS920110041USCNT-710174C 4019
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, KEVIN M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2628
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
06/25/2018 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte AARON M. STEWART, ADAM M. SMITH,
JEFFREY E. SKINNER, and THOMAS J. SLUCHAK 1
Appeal2017-011333
Application 14/565,945
Technology Center 2600
Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, NABEEL U. KHAN, and
DAVID J. CUTITTA II, Administrative Patent Judges.
STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Lenovo (Singapore)
PTE. LTD. See Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal2017-011333
Application 14/565,945
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm. 2
THE INVENTION
The claims are directed to information handling devices with a touch-
based reflective display. Claim 1, reproduced below with formatting and
labels added identifying disputed limitations, is illustrative of the claimed
subject matter:
1. A method comprising:
providing a first configuration for one or more areas of a
touchable control area of an information handling device, said
first configuration comprising a designation of one or more areas
of said touchable control area, said one or more areas providing
both reflective display and accepting touch-based input,
[(a)] wherein said reflective display substantially only
draws power when the display contents are changed;
[ (b)] ascertaining a power state transition; and
updating said first configuration for said one or more areas
of said touchable control area associated with the ascertained
power state;
[(c)] wherein said touchable control area is disposed in
place of at least a portion of a standard component of said
information handling device, other than said display device, and
provides functionality equivalent thereto in one or more
configurations.
2 We refer to the Specification, filed Dec. 10, 2014 ("Spec."); the Final
Office Action, mailed Dec. 16, 2016 ("Final Act."); Appeal Brief, May 16,
2017 ("Appeal Br."); the Examiner's Answer, mailed July 6, 2017 ("Ans.").
The Reply Brief filed Sept. 6, 2017 is noted but it is not cited herein.
2
Appeal2017-011333
Application 14/565,945
REFERENCES
The following prior art is relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the
claims on appeal:
Kim US 2011/0039603 Al Feb. 17, 2011
Van Der Westhuizen US 2011/0047459 Al Feb. 24, 2011
("W esthuizen")
Lee US 2011/0105189 Al May 5, 2011
REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claims 1-20 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Kim, Lee and Westhuizen. Final Act. 2-20.
ANALYSIS
Appellants' contentions are unpersuasive of reversible Examiner error.
We adopt as our own ( 1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner
in the action from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 2-20) and (2) the
reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner's Answer in response to
Appellants' Appeal Brief (Ans. 3-7) and concur with the conclusions
reached by the Examiner. We highlight the following for emphasis.
Claim 1
Limitation (a): wherein said reflective display substantially only draws
power when the display contents are changed
Appellants contend Kim's power display of battery charging status
information fails to teach or suggest the disputed limitation of a reflective
display that substantially only draws power when the display contents are
changed. Appeal Br. 15. This argument is unpersuasive because it fails to
address the Examiner's finding that Lee teaches or suggests the disputed
limitation. See Final Act. 5, Ans. 4--5 (citing Lee i-f 34). "Non-obviousness
3
Appeal2017-011333
Application 14/565,945
cannot be established by attacking references individually where the
rejection is based upon the teachings of a combination of references." In re
Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (citing In re Keller,
642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981)).
Limitation (b): ascertaining a power state transition
Appellants contend Kim's battery charging status information,
although teaching a "power state", fails to teach or suggest "ascertaining a
power state transition" as required by claim 1. Appeal Br. 15. The
Examiner responds, finding Kim's detection of whether a mobile terminal
operation has been normally or abnormally terminated when power is turned
off teaches or suggests the disputed step of ascertaining a power state
transition. Ans. 4 (citing Kim i-fi-1218, 247, 250, and 252).
Appellants' contention is unpersuasive. Kim discloses, inter alia, "if
the operation of the terminal is terminated (i.e., if a power of the terminal is
turned oft), the mobile terminal 100 determines whether an operation
termination type is a normal termination or an abnormal termination." Kim
i1 24 7. Similarly, Appellants disclose a power state transition includes when
a device is powered off. Spec. i1 44. Thus, one skilled in the art at the time
of the invention would have understood Kim to teach or suggest the disputed
step of ascertaining a power state transition, i.e., from a powered-on state to
a powered-off state, so as to then distinguish between a normal termination
and an abnormal termination of terminal operations.
4
Appeal2017-011333
Application 14/565,945
Limitation (c): wherein said touchable control area is disposed in place
of at least a portion of a standard component of said information
handling device
Appellants contend "Westhuizen discloses providing reflective display
portions in addition to a standard mechanical keyboard ... rather than
replacing portions of the mechanical keyboard as currently claimed."
Appeal Br. 16. Accordingly, Appellants conclude Westhuizen fails to teach
or suggest the disputed limitation of "wherein said touchable control area is
disposed in place of at least a portion of a standard component of said
information handling device, other than said display device, and provides
functionality equivalent thereto in one or more configurations." Id. The
Examiner responds, finding Westhuizen's Multi-Touch Screen Ribbon
(MSR) touch-sensitive display 14.1 found at the rear of keyboard 15 and
above the usual "F" or function keys 16 teaches or suggests the disputed
touchable control area. Final Act. 6-7, Ans. 5-6.
Appellants' contention is unpersuasive. Although Appellants argue
Westhuizen fails to disclose replacing a portion of a keyboard, the disputed
limitation is broader, only reciting locating the touchable control area in
place of "a standard component of [the] information handling system."
Claim 1 (emphasis added.) Appellants' Specification fails to provide a
definition of a "standard component" and Appellants fail to provide evidence
that the term is limited to the argued keyboard or otherwise. Accordingly,
Appellants' argument is not commensurate in scope with claim 1.
Furthermore, Appellants do not explain why locating Westhuzen's
MSR display above the usual function keys fails to teach or suggest
disposing the display in place of a portion of a standard component.
Although Appellants' Figure 3 depicts touch control area 310 replacing
5
Appeal2017-011333
Application 14/565,945
"some or all of the conventional sixth row ( 6) keys (commonly including at
least 'Esc' - 'F12')" (Spec. i-f 38), claim 1 is not specific either about the
component that is being partially or entirely replaced (e.g., keys of keyboard
as argued) or what constitutes a standard component (e.g., a keyboard
having six rows of keys including a sixth row of "function keys"). For
example, Appellants do not explain why a standard keyboard might not
include a seventh row of keys with Westhuizen's MSR touch-sensitive
display disposed in place of the seventh row of keys. Still further, one
skilled in the art at the time of the invention would have understood that
Westhuizen's MSR touch-sensitive display provides functionality similar to
that of PC QWERTY keyboard 15 so that the MSR touch-sensitive display
could be used in place of at least some of the keys of the keyboard.
For the reasons discussed above, we sustain the rejection of
independent claim 1 and, for the same reasons, the rejection of independent
claims 19 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Kim, Lee and Westhuizen
together with the rejection of dependent claims 2--4 and 6-18 which are not
argued separately with particularity.
Claim 5
Claim 5 recites:
The method of claim 1, wherein said updating is associated with
one or more of: a power-off of the information handling device;
a power-on of the information handling device; a hibernation of
the information handling device; and a suspension of the
information handling device.
Appellants contend Kim only discloses displaying battery charging status
information, not updating a configuration for one or more areas of a
6
Appeal2017-011333
Application 14/565,945
touchable control area based on different power states of the device. Appeal
Br. 16-17. The Examiner responds, finding Kim's disclosure of displaying
prescribed information upon a determination of a normal or abnormal
termination of processing by a mobile terminal teaches or suggests the
disputed updated configuration. Ans. 6. The Examiner further finds Lee's
disclosure of "when the electric power is just used for driving the reflective
display so as to update the displaying contents, when the electric power is
shut down, the displaying contents stay in the last updated contents" also
teaches or suggest the disputed limitation of claim 5. Id.
Appellants' arguments addressing Kim fail to address the Examiner's
findings in connection with Lee and are, therefore, unpersuasive of
Examiner error. Furthermore, during examination, claims are given their
broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification. See In
re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
"Construing claims broadly during prosecution is not unfair to the applicant
... because the applicant has the opportunity to amend the claims to obtain
more precise claim coverage." Id. Appellants fail to explain why, under a
broad but reasonable interpretation of the disputed limitation, the recited
updating requires some action be performed that distinguishes over Kim's
display of information when terminal operations are terminated.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of dependent claim 5
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-20 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a).
7
Appeal2017-011333
Application 14/565,945
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). See 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(±).
AFFIRMED
8