11529792 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 29, 2012)

Ex Parte Terleski et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardOct 29, 2012

11529792 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 29, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte TIMOTHY W. TERLESKI and STACI A. MININGER ____________________ Appeal 2010-005932 Application 11/529,792 Technology Center 3600 ____________________ Before: PHILLIP J. KAUFFMAN, LYNNE H. BROWNE, and HYUN J. JUNG, Administrative Patent Judges. KAUFFMAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-005932 Application 11/529,792 2 STATEMENT OF CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1-24. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. THE INVENTION Appellants’ claimed invention relates to “devices for cable management and, more specifically, to a device providing display capabilities and cable management.” Spec. 1, para. [0001]. Claims 1, 10, and 18 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter (emphasis added): 1. An apparatus for display and cable management, comprising: a base having an aperture, wherein the aperture includes a first portion and a second portion; a cable having a first portion and an adjacent second portion, the first portion of the cable having a first size and the second portion of the cable having a second size, the second size being larger than the first size; and a display device removably coupled to the base, wherein the display device is adapted to couple to, and decouple from, the base without the use of a tool, and when the display device is coupled to the base, the display device fills the first portion of the aperture, leaving unfilled the second portion of the aperture, the second portion of the aperture having a size that allows the first portion of the cable to pass through the second portion of the aperture and prevents the second portion of the cable from passing through the second portion of the aperture. Appeal 2010-005932 Application 11/529,792 3 REJECTIONS The following rejections are before us on review: 1. Claims 1, 4-10, and 12-17 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Nakamura (US 2005/0101182 A1; pub. May 12, 2005). 2. Claims 2, 3, 11, and 18-24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Nakamura and Lines (US 6,582,346 B1; iss. Jun. 24, 2003). OPINION Independent claims 1 and 18 require that when the display device is coupled to the base, it “fills” the first portion of the aperture in the base. Similarly, independent method claim 10 requires that coupling the display device to the base “fills” the first portion of the aperture. The Specification does not provide a lexicographical definition for “fill.” Appellants assert that an ordinary definition of “fill” is “to plug up, to close, to make full, to extend throughout, or to fill to capacity.” Reply Br. 4 (not providing a citation for the definition).1 We discern nothing inconsistent in Appellants’ disclosure with this ordinary meaning of “fill.” In parity with this ordinary meaning, the Specification states that when display device 104 is inserted into the aperture 204 of base 102, the extension 218 of that aperture 204 remains unfilled, forming an aperture 118. Spec. para. [0028]; see also App. Br. 6-7. Display device 104 is depicted as plugging up (or extending throughout) the first portion of aperture 204. Spec., figs. 1, 2. 1 Similarly, see, “fill”: “[t]o occupy the whole capacity or extent of.” “Fill,” v., def. II.7.a., Oxford English Dictionary (1989) available at www.OED.com (last visited Oct. 14, 2012). Appeal 2010-005932 Application 11/529,792 4 Therefore, independent claims 1, 10, and 18 each require that when the display device is coupled to the base, it plugs up (or extends throughout) the first portion of the aperture of the base. Each of the two rejections relies in part on the Examiner’s finding that Nakamura discloses a base (docking base 11) having an aperture that includes a first portion (slit-shaped opening 67 or slit 45) and second portion (second cable exit 46), configured so that when the display device (docking tray 10) is coupled to the base (docking base 11), it fills the first portion of the aperture (slit-shaped opening 67 or slit 45).2 Ans. 3-11. This finding is based upon a claim construction that claim 1 does not preclude the cable from being positioned within the first portion (slit-shaped opening 67 or slit 45) of the aperture in the base (docking base 11), and does not require that the display device enter the aperture. Ans. 8-9, 11. The Examiner’s interpretation that a cable may be positioned within the first portion of the aperture is incorrect because, as explained supra, the independent claims call for the display device to plug up (or extend throughout) the first portion of the aperture. When Nakamura’s display device (docking tray 10) is coupled to the base (docking base 11) it does not plug up or extend throughout the first portion of the aperture (slit-shaped opening 67 or slit 45). Nakamura, fig. 2. Therefore, Nakamura does not 2 The Examiner initially found Nakamura’s slit 45 corresponds to the claimed first portion of the aperture, and then, in response to Appellants’ representation that the Examiner found Nakamura’s opening 67 corresponds to the first portion of the aperture, changed to find that slit-shaped opening 67 corresponds to the claimed first portion of the aperture. See Ans. 3, 4, 6- 8, and 10 and Reply Br. 2. Though not explicit, the Examiner seems to rely upon the modified finding for the second rejection as well. See Ans. 11. Appeal 2010-005932 Application 11/529,792 5 disclose a display device that couples to the base as called for in the independent claims. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claims 1, 10, and 18 or their dependent claims 2-9, 11-17, and 19-24. DECISION We reverse the Examiner’s decision to reject claim 1-24. REVERSED hh