Ex Parte Sung

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 21, 2008

09904665 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 21, 2008)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte KI-HYUB SUNG
____________

Appeal 2007-1495
Application 09/904,665
Technology Center 2800
____________

Decided: February 21, 2008
____________

Before JOHN C. MARTIN, HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP, and
JOHN A. JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judges.

BLANKENSHIP, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 3, 5-
7, 10, 15-17, and 20-32. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. §§ 6(b),
134(a).
We affirm.

Appeal 2007-1495
Application 09/904,665

Appellant’s invention relates to a display apparatus comprising an
LCD panel, with structure to facilitate assembling and disassembling of the
front cover and the rear cover. (See Abstract.)
Claim 21 is representative:
21. A display apparatus, comprising:

a panel bearing a screen disposed to display varying visual images;

a panel support holding the panel;

a bezel framing a front periphery of the panel;

a rear cover removably mating with said bezel while encasing said
panel held by said panel support;

at least one rib formed to project from a peripheral surface of a first
one of the bezel and the rear cover; and

at least one deformable coupling bearing a groove, extending from an
inner surface of a different one of the bezel and the rear cover, oriented to
embrace a correspond [sic] rib during said mating, wherein the rib is inserted
in the groove.

The Examiner relies on the following references as evidence of
unpatentability:
Nakamura 5,768,095 Jun. 16, 1998
Sasai 6,426,803 B1 Jul. 30, 2002
Lee 6,587,166 B1 Jul. 1, 2003

Claims 21, 25, and 29 are independent. Claims 8, 9, 18, and 19 are
objected to as depending from a rejected claim. Claims 1, 2, 4, and 11-14
have been canceled. The Examiner sets forth four grounds of rejection
against the remaining claims:
2
Appeal 2007-1495
Application 09/904,665

I. Claims 5, 6, 21, 24, 25, 28, 29, and 32 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Nakamura.
II. Claims 15, 16, 22, 23, 26, 27, 30, and 31 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Nakamura.
III. Claims 7 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Nakamura and Lee.
IV. Claims 3, 10, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Nakamura and Sasai.

Claims 21, 25, and 29
The independent claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over
Nakamura. Nakamura is directed to a portable computer having a rear cover
51 (Figs. 3A, 3B) that is removable from front bezel 53. Nakamura col. 6, l.
60 - col. 7, l. 6. The Examiner reads (representative) claim 21 on Nakamura
as set forth at pages 3 and 4 of the Answer, with amplification of the
findings at pages 7 through 9.
First, Appellant argues that 57b′, as shown in Figures 10A and 10B of
Nakamura (and page 8 of the Answer) is clearly not a “rib.” According to
Appellant, a “rib” is defined as “something resembling a rib in form,
position or use, as a supporting or strengthening part.” (App. Br. 10.)1
Appellant does not, however, cite to any authority for the offered definition.
Nor does Appellant cite to any particular portion of the instant Specification
for a clear definition of “rib.”

1 We refer to Appellant’s substitute (filed November 22, 2006) for the
Appeal Brief filed November 14, 2005.
3
Appeal 2007-1495
Application 09/904,665

In any event, Appellant’s argument as to why 57b′ is not a “rib” is that
Figures 10A and 10B of Nakamura are cross-sectional views of the front
bezel 53. Appellant’s definition, however, does not preclude the form of a
“rib” being in cross-section. As such, the argument does not show error in
the Examiner’s finding with respect to the “rib” of Nakamura. Moreover,
the “rib” in Nakamura operates as a supporting or strengthening part of bezel
53, as it supports the bezel against rear cover 51. See Nakamura Fig. 10A.
Appellant further argues that portion 57b′ does not project “from a
peripheral surface of a first one of the bezel and the rear cover” as required
by claim 21. (App. Br. 10-11.) As shown in Figure 10A of Nakamura,
however, rib 57b′ projects at least from the peripheral (superior) surface of
front bezel 53.
Finally, with respect to claim 21, Appellant submits that Nakamura
lacks at least one deformable coupling bearing a groove, extending from an
inner surface of the rear cover, oriented to embrace a corresponding rib
during mating, wherein the rib is inserted in the groove. The Examiner reads
the “deformable coupling” on Nakamura’s latch 57b (Figs. 4, 10A) and the
“groove” on the portion of rear cover 51 that is recessed with respect to latch
57b (Fig. 10A), which meets with part (rib) 57b′.
Appellant argues that in Nakamura, latch 57b is formed at the top of
the side wall, and thus does not extend from an inner surface of the rear
cover. (App. Br. 12.) However, as shown in Figure 10B of Nakamura, latch
57b is integrally formed with the wall of rear cover 51. Claim 21 does not
limit the extent of the “deformable coupling” that bears a groove. As
4
Appeal 2007-1495
Application 09/904,665

Appellant’s representative acknowledged at the oral hearing,2 the wall of
rear cover 51 moves when front bezel 53 is placed into the rear cover; see
representative force “R” in Figure 10A of Nakamura. The wall portion of
rear cover 51 (with integrally formed latch 57b) meets all the requirements
of the “deformable coupling” of claim 21, including the bearing of the
groove into which rib 57b′ fits. The wall of rear cover 51 extends
(upwardly) from an inner surface of the rear cover, as shown in Figure 10A
of the reference.
We have considered all of Appellant’s arguments, but we are not
persuaded of error in the Examiner’s finding of anticipation with respect to
claims 21, 25, and 29. We sustain the rejection.

Claims 5, 6, 24, 28, and 32
Representative claim 5 calls for the display apparatus of claim 21
further comprising at least a pair of stops protruding from a rear surface of
the bezel to engage the panel support and prevent the panel support from
moving across a plane of the panel. The Examiner reads the “pair of stops”
on projections in the drawings of Nakamura that have no associated
reference numerals, represented by the projection to the right of back
member 61 (Fig. 7A) that extends upward from front bezel 53; see also the
inverted view in Figure 10A, with the projection extending downward from
front bezel 53, to the right of back member 61.
Appellant argues that Nakamura discloses that front bezel 53 and back
member 61 are “integrally formed (i.e., inseparable).” Nakamura col. 7, ll.
49-52. According to Appellant, because the front bezel and back member

2 October 24, 2007.
5
Appeal 2007-1495
Application 09/904,665

(or panel support) are “integrally formed,” panel support 61 will not move --
as such, there are no stops necessary to prevent the panel support from
moving across a plane of the panel. (App. Br. 13.)
We agree with the Examiner, however, that the artisan would not
understand Nakamura’s disclosure to mean that front bezel 53 and back
member 61 are formed from a single piece of material. As shown, for
example, in Figure 10A, front bezel 53 and back member 61 are formed of
two separate pieces; compare the wall and latch 57b of rear cover 51, formed
from a single piece of material. The best interpretation of Nakamura’s text
at column 7 is that the front bezel 53 and the back member 61 are
“inseparable” once the two are assembled into an effectively one-piece
structure, as compared to the separability of back member 61 and front bezel
53 from rear cover 51 (Fig. 10B).
We refer to the Examiner’s reasonable findings (Ans. 11) as to why
the “stops” of Nakamura are deemed to meet the claimed functions of
engaging the panel support and preventing the panel support from moving
across a plane of the panel. In addition, we note that instant claim 5 does not
place a time or place limitation on the “stop” functions. Although the stops
shown in Nakamura are not fully described, one skilled in the art would
reasonably assume that the stops meet the functions of claim 5 at least
during assembly of the two pieces into an integral structure. Again, when
the entirety of the reference is considered, we disagree with Appellant’s
assessment that the pieces are integrally molded, rather than assembled as a
one-piece structure.
As we are not persuaded of error in the finding of anticipation, we
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 5, 6, 24, 28, and 32.
6
Appeal 2007-1495
Application 09/904,665

Claim 22
Claim 22 further limits claim 21 in requiring a rib at each corner
portion of the rear cover and a corresponding coupling at each corner portion
of the bezel. The Examiner rejects the claim under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Nakamura. Nakamura describes a rib and
corresponding coupling on each side of the bezel, as depicted in Figure 8
(i.e., rib 57b′ corresponding to latch 57b integral with wall 51). The claim
does not require that one structure or another be borne by the rear cover or
the bezel, but only that the structures are “at” each corner of the respective
rear cover or bezel. The dispositive question is, therefore, would it have
been obvious to replace, or add to, the two sets of mating structures with
four sets of mating structures arranged at the corners of front bezel 53 and
rear cover 51.
Appellant argues that such modification would destroy the intended
purpose of Nakamura’s device, in that the front and rear portions could not
be easily separated. According to Appellant, the side walls of the rear lid
portion would be easily deformable along a central portion of the side wall,
but not near the four corners. Appellant also contends that the claim recites
that the ribs and couplings are “at,” not “near,” each corner portion. (App.
Br. 15.)
To be nonobvious, an improvement must be “more than the
predictable use of prior art elements according to their established
functions.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1740 (2007).
“[W]hen a patent ‘simply arranges old elements with each performing the
same function it had been known to perform’ and yields no more than one
7
Appeal 2007-1495
Application 09/904,665

would expect from such an arrangement, the combination is obvious.” KSR,
127 S. Ct. at 1740 (quoting Sakraida v. Ag Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 282
(1976)).
Here, having four sets of corresponding structures rather than, or in
addition to, two sets would represent no more than the predictable use of
prior art elements according to their established functions. Four sets of
corresponding structures would perform the same function as two sets; i.e.,
two, four, or six sets would hold together the front bezel and rear cover in
the Nakamura device, yet allow separation of the bezel and cover.
We see no reason why a structure having, for example, four rather
than two sets of couplings and ribs would result in the bezels and rear cover
not being easily separated, when designed by a skilled artisan. In any event,
Appellant has not provided any evidence in support of the theory that having
corresponding structures at each corner of the Nakamura device would result
in “extremely difficult” separation of the parts. Further, we note that claim
22 does not require that a rib and corresponding coupling be precisely “at”
the corner of the bezel and rear cover, but indeed need only be “near” an
actual corner. As shown, for example, in Specification Figure 3, “rib” 31
and “coupling” 18 are not at precise corners of front cover 12 or rear cover
27. “At” the corners necessarily includes regions “near” the precise corners.
We are thus not persuaded of error in the rejection of claim 22, and
sustain the rejection.

Claims 7 and 17
Representative claim 7 recites that a hook is formed at a leading edge
of each stop for engaging an edge of the panel support. The Examiner finds
8
Appeal 2007-1495
Application 09/904,665

that Nakamura discloses the invention except for the claimed hook, turning
to Lee for the “hook” teaching. (Ans. 6.)
Appellant argues there is no motivation to look to Lee for a teaching
of how to prevent a panel support from moving across the plane of a panel,
because panel support 61 in Nakamura is “integrally formed” with front
bezel 53 and incapable of moving across a panel bearing screen 52. (App.
Br. 17.)
We disagree with the premise of Appellant’s argument because, as we
have found in our review of the rejection of claim 5, Nakamura’s description
of the structures as “integrally formed” does not mean that the structures
cannot, at some point, be moved one with respect to another (i.e., they are
not molded from a single piece of material).
We therefore are not persuaded of error in the rejection of claim 7.
We sustain the rejection of claims 7 and 17.

Remainder of the claims
Appellant appears to submit new arguments with respect to the
rejection of claims 3, 10, and 20 in the Reply Brief, contending that the
rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Nakamura and Sasai in
the Answer is “considered to be a new ground of rejection . . . .” (Reply Br.
21.)
Appellant could have filed a petition to the Technology Center
contesting the improper “new ground of rejection,” if Appellant believed
that the Examiner committed procedural error.3 See Manual of Patent

3 As the Examiner correctly notes (Ans. 13), Appellant was notified in the
Advisory Action (mailed Jul. 29, 2005, prior to the filing of the Appeal
9
Appeal 2007-1495
Application 09/904,665

Examining Procedure § 1207.03, Heading IV (8th ed., Rev. 5, Aug. 2006)
(“Any allegation that an examiner’s answer contains a new ground of
rejection not identified as such is waived if not timely raised (i.e., by filing
the petition within two months of the answer) by way of a petition under 37
CFR 1.181(a).”).
On this record, Appellant’s arguments in the Reply Brief in response
to the rejection of claims 3, 10, and 20 are untimely and thus have not been
considered, in that the time to respond to the rejection was at the filing of the
Appeal Brief. We would then have had the benefit of the Examiner’s
response to the new arguments in the Reply Brief. We summarily sustain
the rejection of claims 3, 10, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
Nakamura and Sasai, absent a timely response to the rejection from
Appellant.
To the extent that claims were separately argued in the Appeal Brief,
we have considered representative claims in the foregoing sections. Because
none of the representative claims have been demonstrated to be rejected in
error, the claims not separately argued fall with the representative claims.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).

CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 3, 5-7, 10, 15-17, and 20-32 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) or 103(a) over the applied prior art is affirmed.
Brief) that the claims were rejected over “Nakamura” and Sasai rather than
“Lee” and Sasai. Moreover, the base claims (21 and 25) in the Final
Rejection were rejected over Nakamura rather than Lee.
10
Appeal 2007-1495
Application 09/904,665

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

ce

Robert E. Bushnell
Suite 300
1522 K Street, N.W.
Washington DC 20005
11