Ex Parte Tamura et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 28, 201813711165 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 28, 2018) Copy Citation United States Patent and Trademark Office 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 APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 13/711,165 12/11/2012 Fumio Tamura JP920110046USNP(710.202) 7692 58127 7590 02/28/2018 FERENCE & ASSOCIATES LLC 409 BROAD STREET PITTSBURGH, PA 15143 EXAMINER CAROC, LHEIREN MAE ANGLO ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2833 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/28/2018 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 FUMIO TAMURA and KENSHIN YONEMOCHI Appeal 2017-005139 Application 13/711,165 Technology Center 2800 Before CATHERINE Q. TIMM, AVELYN M. ROSS, and DEBRA L. DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges. DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL1 1 In our Opinion, we refer to the Specification filed December 11, 2012 (“Spec.”); the Final Action mailed February 1, 2016 (“Final Act.”); the Appeal Brief filed July 5, 2016 (“App. Br.”); the Examiner’s Answer mailed December 12, 2016 (“Ans.”); and the Reply Brief filed February 13, 2017 (“Reply Br.”). Appeal 2017-005139 Application 13/711,165 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant2 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims 1, 3—7, 9-13,3 and 21—23. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. The subject matter of the invention is a key switch device that is used in a keyboard of an electronic apparatus, such as a personal computer. Spec. 12. Claim 1, reproduced below with disputed limitations italicized, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A key switch device comprising: a base plate; a sheet laminated on the base plate; a key top disposed above the sheet; an elastic dome that is disposed between the sheet and the key top and presses the sheet in response to the key top being pressed down; a guide mechanism that is foldably mounted between the base plate and the key top and supports the key top so as to be movable up and down; the guide mechanism comprising an inner frame and outer frame, wherein the inner frame and outer frame are mounted in a diagonally crossing manner; projections provided on a bottom surface of the guide mechanism that approach the sheet in a case where the key top is pressed down', and 2 Appellant is the applicant, Lenovo (Singapore) PTE, LTD., which, according to the Brief, is the real party in interest. App. Br. 3. 3 The Office Action Summary does not include claim 13 as a pending claim. Final Act. 1. However, the rejection makes clear that claim 13 is pending and rejected. Id. at 2, 4. 2 Appeal 2017-005139 Application 13/711,165 receiving portions in the base plate which receive the projections. App. Br. 18 (Claims App’x)(emphasis added). REFERENCES The Examiner relies on the following prior art in rejecting the claims on appeal: Bruner US 5,268,545 Yao US 6,150,624 Cheng US 8,080,755 B2 REJECTIONS The Examiner maintains and Appellant seeks review of the following rejections under 35 U.S.C § 103: (1) claims 1, 3—7, 9-13, and 23 over Yao in view of Bruner;4 and (2) claims 21 and 22 over Yao in view of Bruner and further in view of Cheng. Final Act. 2—5; App. Br. 11. OPINION Appellant argues the claims in two groups: independent claims 1 and 7, and dependent claims 6 and 12. We select claim 1 as representative of the first group. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). The Examiner finds that Yao teaches most of the limitations of claim 1, but does not teach “projections provided on a bottom surface of the guide mechanism that approach the sheet in a case where the key top is pressed down” or “receiving portions in the base plate which receive the Dec. 7, 1993 Nov. 21,2000 Dec. 20, 2011 4 The Office Action Summary page of the Final Action mistakenly does not identify claim 13 as pending and rejected. Final Act. 1. Claim 13 is clearly rejected in the body of the Final Action, however. Id. at 4. Appellant also acknowledges the claim 13 is rejected. App. Br. 11. 3 Appeal 2017-005139 Application 13/711,165 projections.” Final Act. 2—3. The Examiner finds that Bruner teaches these limitations. Id. at 3. Specifically, the Examiner finds: Bruner teaches [Figs. 2 and 4] projections [26, 27] provided on a bottom surface of the guide mechanism [41, 42] that approach the sheet [39] in a case where the key top [31] is pressed down and receiving portions [Fig. 4] in the base plate [37] which receive the projections wherein the receiving portions pass through the base plate. Id. (brackets in original). Bruner discloses [Figs. 2, 4, and 5 and col. 3, line 66 - col. 4, line 30] that stabilizer elements [41, 42] pivot about posts [51, 52, 63, 64] which are received for rotation and translation in elongated oval channels in bearings [43, 44, 46, 47]. The extension pins [26, 27] are attached to and rotate about members [49, 62], Therefore, their free ends move in an arc which includes a downward movement toward the sheet when the key top is pressed down. Ans. 2 (brackets in original). An annotated version of Bruner’s Figure 2 is reproduced below: 4 Appeal 2017-005139 Application 13/711,165 82 Figure 2 is an exploded view of a key mechanism in accordance with Bruno’s invention. Bruner col. 2,11. 42-43. An annotated version of Bruno’s Figure 4 is reproduced below: 5 Appeal 2017-005139 Application 13/711,165 Figure 4 is a front elevational view, with portions removed, of the key mechanism of Bruner. Id. col. 2,11. 49—50. Extension pins 26 and 27 are shown when the key cap is not depressed. The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the protrusions of Bruner with the key switch of Yao in order to provide a tactile switch. Final Act. 3. Appellant contends that the extension pins (elements 26 and 27 of Figure 2, supra) are not equivalent to the claimed projections5 because the extension pins rotate away from the base plate rather than move towards it. App. Br. 12. Appellant cites to the following portions of Bruner in support of this position: Extension pins 26, 27 from the stabilization arms 28, 29 serve to force the spring holders 23, 24 to swing toward one another as the keybutton, or key top, 31 is depressed. Bruner col. 3,11. 2—5. When the key cap 31 is depressed, the stabilizer joints 56, 57 and 58, 59 move upwardly and the extension pins 26, 27 swing inwardly forcing the spring holders 23 and 24 to rotate toward one another, compressing the spring 21. Id. col. 4,1. 66—col. 5,1. 2. 5 Appellant states that the Examiner alleges that the extension pins are equivalent to the claimed “receiving portions” limitation. App. Br. 12. However, the statement is incorrect; the Examiner finds that pins 26 and 27 are equivalent to the claimed “projections.” Final Act. 3. Appellant’s statement appears to be a typographical error, as later in the same paragraph Appellant argues that the extension pins are readily distinguishable from the “projections provided on a bottom surface of the guide mechanism.” App. Br. 12. We, therefore, consider Appellant’s position to be that the extension pins are not equivalent to the claimed projections. 6 Appeal 2017-005139 Application 13/711,165 When the key is released, the force of the spring 21 spreads the spring holders 23 and 24 apart, swinging the extension pins 26, 27 outwardly.... Id. col. 5,11. 9-11. In light of Bruner’s disclosures, Appellant’s argument is not persuasive. Bruner teaches that the key cap 31 is held in the upright position and the stabilizer assembly kept from collapsing due to the extension pins 26 and 27 resting on tabs 35 and 36 on spring holders 23 and 24. Id. col. 4, 11. 59—63. The extension pins swing inwardly when the key cap is depressed. Id. col. 4,11. 66—68. As shown in Bruner’s Figures 2 and 4, the extension pins are in a slight outward orientation when the key cap is not pressed. The extension pins swing inwardly, and through a downward arc toward the layers of the keyboard base, when the key cap is pressed. Therefore, the extension pins approach the keyboard base when the key cap is pressed. Appellant does not show reversible error by the Examiner in finding that Bruner teaches the “projections” claim limitation. Appellant also argues that Bruner fails to teach “receiving portions in the base plate which receive the projections.” App. Br. 13. This argument is also unpersuasive of reversible error. Figures 2 and 4 of Bruner illustrate portions of the top and middle layers of the keyboard base are cut away to accommodate the extension pins. Bruner Figs. 2, 4. Therefore, Bruner discloses the limitation “receiving portions in the base plate which receive the projections.” We sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 as obvious over Yao in view of Bruner. Appellant does not argue separately for patentability of dependent claims 3—5, 7, 9—11, 13, or 21—23, therefore, we sustain the rejection of these claims as well. 7 Appeal 2017-005139 Application 13/711,165 Rejection of claims 6 and 12 Claim 6 depends from claim 1 and claim 12 depends from claim 7. Claims 6 and 12 each recite the limitation “wherein the receiving portions pass through the base plate.” App. Br. 19, 20 (Claims App’x). The Examiner finds that elements 37 and 39 of Bruner (middle and top layers of the keyboard base) are each a “base plate” and the cutaway portions are “receiving portions” that pass through the base plate. Ans. 3^4. Appellant argues that neither the top layer nor middle layer of Bruner’s keyboard base is equivalent to the claimed base plate. App. Br. 15. Appellant provides no further explanation. Mere attorney’s arguments or conclusory statements, which are unsupported by concrete factual evidence, are entitled to little probative value. In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997). On the record before us, Appellant does not show reversible error in the rejection of claims 6 and 12 as obvious. DECISION The rejection of claims 1, 3—7, 9-13, and 21—23 is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)( 1 )(iv) (2015). AFFIRMED 8 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation