12497580 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 3, 2014)

Ex Parte Thorson

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 3, 2014

12497580 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 3, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE 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. 12/497,580 07/03/2009 Brad Thorson SONY-37300 6770 28960 7590 06/04/2014 HAVERSTOCK & OWENS LLP 162 N WOLFE ROAD SUNNYVALE, CA 94086 EXAMINER WU, JERRY ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2848 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/04/2014 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 BRAD THORSON ______________ Appeal 2012-002902 Application 12/497,5801 Technology Center 2800 ________________ Before CHUNG K. PAK, PETER F. KRATZ, and MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judges. PAK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final Rejection2 of claims 1 through 51. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6. We reverse. 1 Application 12/497,580 (Application’580), filed on July 3, 2009. 2 Final Rejection mailed April 22, 2011 (“Rejection”). Appeal 2012-002902 Application 12/497,580 2 INTRODUCTION The appealed subject matter relates to an electronics device having a plurality of “rotatable panels configured for display and adaptive interface.” Specification (“Spec.”), 1, ll. 2-4. More specifically, the claims are directed to three-panel mobile electronics device having two touchscreen displays, where the three panels can be folded into a plurality of different configurations, e.g., a notebook computer, a tablet laptop computer, or a reader. According to the Specification, [a] touchscreen is a display that detects the presence, location, and pressure of a touch within the display area, generally by a finger, hand, stylus, or other pointing device. The touchscreen enables a user to interact with the display panel directly without requiring any intermediate device, rather than indirectly with a keyboard, a mouse, or a touchpad. Id. at ll. 19-22. Representative details of the appealed subject matter are recited in independent claims 1 and 17 of Application ’580, which are reproduced below from the Claims Appendix to the Appeal Brief3 (bracketed reference characters of Figs. 1, 4B, and 5, which are reproduced below, indentations, and emphasis added): 1. An electronics device [8 (Fig. 1)] comprising: a. a first panel [10 (Fig. 1)] comprising a housing and a device processing unit; b. a second panel [20 (Fig. 1)] rotatably coupled to the first panel, wherein the second panel comprises a first touchscreen display [24 Fig. 1)]; and 3 Appeal Brief filed on July 19, 2011 (“App. Br.”). Appeal 2012-002902 Application 12/497,580 3 c. a third panel [30 (Fig. 1)] rotatably coupled to the second panel, wherein the third panel comprises a second touchscreen display [34 (Fig. 1)], further wherein when the first panel, the second panel, and the third panel are positioned in a workstation configuration, the first touchscreen display and the second touchscreen display are exposed, and the second touchscreen display is configured as a touch-sensitive keyboard, when the first panel, the second panel, and the third panel are positioned in a tablet laptop configuration [Fig. 5], the second touchscreen display [34 of the third panel 30] is covered by the first panel [10] and the second panel [20], and the first touchscreen display [24 of the second panel 20] is exposed and configured as a tablet laptop touchscreen [24], and when the first panel, the second panel, and the third panel are positioned in a reader configuration [Fig. 4B], the first touchscreen display [24 of the second panel 20] is covered by the first panel [10] and the third panel [30], and the second touchscreen display [34 of the third panel 30] is exposed and configured as a reader. 17. An electronics device comprising: a. a first panel [10 (Fig. 1)] comprising a housing and a device processing unit; b. a second panel [20 (Fig. 1)] rotatably coupled to the first panel, wherein the second panel comprises a first touchscreen display [24 (Fig. 1)]; and c. a third panel [30 (Fig. 1)] rotatably coupled to the second panel, wherein the third panel comprises a second touchscreen display [34 (Fig. 1)], further wherein the first panel, the second panel, and the third panel are rotatable into a plurality of configurations, in a workstation configuration the second panel and the third panel are open relative to each other and the first touchscreen display and the second touchscreen display are exposed, in a tablet laptop configuration [Fig. 5] the first panel [10], the second panel [20], and the third panel [30] are folded closed and the first touchscreen display [24 on the second panel 20] is exposed, and Appeal 2012-002902 Application 12/497,580 4 in a reader configuration [Fig. 4B] the first panel [10], the second panel [20], and the third panel [30] are folded closed and the second touchscreen display [34 on the second panel 20] is exposed. Independent claim 36 recites a “method of configuring and using an electronics device” that is identical to the device recited in claim 17. Fig. 1 is shown below: Fig. 1 illustrates a perspective view of an electronics device according to some embodiments, where the reference characters 12 and 14 indicate the first and second sides of the first panel, respectively. The reference Appeal 2012-002902 Application 12/497,580 5 characters 22 and 32 indicate the back-sides of the second panel 20 and third panel 30, respectively. Each of the reference characters 40 and 50 represents a hinge mechanism. Id. at 10, ll. 15-24. Fig. 4B is shown below: Fig. 4B “illustrates the electronics device in the reader configuration and rotated 180 degrees about the x-axis relative to the position of the electronics device in Figure 4A.” Id. at 6, ll. 15-16. Appeal 2012-002902 Application 12/497,580 6 Fig. 5 is shown below: Fig. 5 illustrates the electronics device in a tablet laptop configuration. Id. at l. 17. The Examiner maintains the following rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in the Answer,4 which are before us on appeal: 1) Independent claims 1, 17, and 36 as being unpatentable over Rebeske5 in view of Chen;6 and 4 Examiner’s Answer mailed on September 9, 2011 (“Ans.”). 5 United States Patent No. 7,136,282 B1, issued to Carlton Rebeske on November 14, 2006. Appeal 2012-002902 Application 12/497,580 7 2) Dependent claims 2 through 16, 18 through 35, and 37 through 51 as being unpatentable over Rebeske in view of Chen, alone or further in view of the other applied prior art. See App. Br. 5, and Ans. 3, 4. DISCUSSION In rejecting independent claims 1 and 17, the Examiner finds that Rebeske discloses an electronics device, as illustrated in Rebeske Fig. 1, comprising: (1) a first panel 4, which comprises a housing and a device processing unit; (2) a second panel 6 “rotatably coupled to the first panel,” comprising a “first touchscreen display” 38 (Fig. 3); and (3) a third panel 10 rotatably coupled to the second panel. Ans. 5-8. The Examiner finds that Rebeske does not teach that the third panel 10 comprises a second touchscreen display as recited in claims 1 and 17. Id. at 6, 8. The Examiner further finds that Rebeske does not teach that the first, second, and third panels are rotatable into the three configurations, i.e., workstation, tablet, and reader, as recited in claims 1 and 17. Id. Moreover, the Examiner finds that Rebeske does not teach that when the three panels are positioned in the workstation configuration, the “second touchscreen display [of the third panel 10] is configured as a touch- sensitive keyboard” as recited in claim 1. Id. at 6. The Examiner finds that Chen teaches “an electronics device (fig 6) comprising: a hinge structure (fig 7, hinge structure 1, 2, and 3) with two panels (fig 7, 4 and 5) rotatably coupled to each other and each panel 6 United States Patent Application Publication 2010/023096 A1 by Stephen Chen, published on September 16, 2010. Appeal 2012-002902 Application 12/497,580 8 comprising a touchscreen display (fig 7, 41 and 51); wherein both panels can be configured to either face to each other (fig 6) or on opposite side (fig 10).” Id. at 6, 8. The Examiner holds that “[i]t would have been obvious . . . to include the hinge with 360 degree rotation and display panels as taught by Chen to Rebeske's hinge and display panels [in the Rebeske electronics device] so as to provide the third panel comprises a second touchscreen display (Chen's fig 7, 51).” Id. In the Examiner’s words, “[t]he motivation to modify Rebeske with Chen is to provide an electronic device which allows the users can [sic] selectively perform input operation in a handheld or desktop fashion as disclosed by Chen (abstract)” Id. at 7, 9. The Examiner further holds that the first, second, and third panels in the electronics device suggested by the collective teachings of Rebeske and Chen can be positioned in the three configurations, as recited in claims 1, 17, and 36. Id. at 6-9. In rejecting independent claim 36, the Examiner holds that the “method steps recited in . . . [claim] 36 . . . are obviously met by the device structure as taught by Rebeske in view of Chen.” Id. at 11. Appellant urges that the collective teachings of Rebeske and Chen would not have suggested an electronics device comprising a third panel comprising a second touchscreen display that is exposed and configured to be “a touch-sensitive keyboard” when the first, second, and third panels are positioned in a workstation configuration, and which can also be “a reader” when the three panels are positioned in a reader configuration, as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 9. Appeal 2012-002902 Application 12/497,580 9 Appellant urges that there is no motivation or reason to combine the teachings of Rebeske and Chen. Id. at 8, 10. Appellant urges that “Rebeske teaches a laptop device with pivotal displays . . . [while] Chen teaches a device convertible between a laptop configuration and a handheld configuration where the keyboard is facing opposite of the display.” Id. at 10. Appellant urges that “the proposed combination of Rebeske and Chen would completely change Rebeske, since Rebeske utilizes touchscreens and would have no use for a keyboard facing opposite of the display.” Id. On this record, the preponderance of evidence is that the Examiner has not demonstrated that the collective teachings of Rebeske and Chen would have prompted one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at an electronics device having first, second and third panels designed to be folded in the three configurations discussed above, as recited in claims 1, 17, and 36.7 In particular, the Examiner has not provided any credible evidence showing that the second touchscreen display on the third panel can be configured to be both a “touch-sensitive keyboard” and “a reader” in the workstation and reader configurations, respectively, as required in claims 1, 17, and 36. According to Rebeske’s Fig. 1, both the first panel 4 and second panel 6 referenced by the Examiner comprise a touchscreen display. Rebeske, col. 3, ll. 29-30; col. 4, ll. 60-62; and Fig. 3, 7 We note that claims 17 and 36, unlike claim 1, do not explicitly recite that the second touchscreen on the third panel is configured to be a reader. However, claims 17 and 36 recite that in “a reader configuration the first panel, the second panel, and the third panel are folded closed and the second touchscreen display [on the third panel] is exposed” for the purpose of using the second touchscreen as a reader. (See also Spec. 3 and 9.) Thus, we interpret claims 17 and 36 as requiring the exposed second touchscreen to be a reader, as recited in claim 1, upon being folded in a reader configuration. Appeal 2012-002902 Application 12/497,580 10 reference character 38. In Rebeske’s Fig. 1, the third panel 10 referenced by the Examiner is illustrated as comprising a mechanical keyboard. Rebeske, col. 2, ll. 43-45, discloses that the computer case 10 may “include a keyboard, a touchpad or other cursor-control, function keys and other components presently available in conventional laptop computers for interacting with the computer 2.” When the Rebeske Fig. 1 device is modified by Chen, as suggested by the Examiner, the mechanical keyboard on the third panel 10 would be replaced with a touchscreen display having a “touch-sensitive keyboard,” as urged by the Examiner. However, the proposed substitution of one keyboard taught by Chen for another keyboard used in the electronic device of the type taught by Rebeske would not result in an electronics device requiring, inter alia, a third panel comprising a second touchscreen display that is exposed and configured to be “a touch-sensitive keyboard” when the first, second, and third panels are positioned in a workstation configuration, and also be “a reader” when the three panels are positioned in a reader configuration, as recited in claims 1, 17, and 36. See, e.g., Uniroyal, Inc., v. Rudkin-Wiley Corp., 837 F.2d 1044 (Fed. Cir. 1988). Moreover, on this record, the Examiner has not provided sufficient evidence demonstrating that it would have been obvious to modify the Rebeske electronics device by adding the hinges and display panels taught by Chen. As noted by Appellant, the proposed combination of Rebeske and Chen would completely change Rebeske. In particular, as noted by Appellant (App. Br. 6), Rebeske teaches a laptop computer, as illustrated in Fig. 1, having a case 10 including a keyboard and containing traditional computer components, a first display screen 6 pivotally secured to the computer case, and a second display screen 4 pivotally secured to the first display screen 6. Rebeske discloses that the first 6 and second 4 display screens can be arranged “in an opposite direction to permit an operator and Appeal 2012-002902 Application 12/497,580 11 an observer to observe the same information viewable on the first and second display screens, respectively.” Id., citing Rebeske Figs. 2 and 3, and Abstract. When the three panels in the Rebeske device modified by Chen are arranged in a reader configuration as recited in claims 1, 17, and 36, neither the Rebeske display screen 4 nor the Rebeske display screen 6 would be exposed; instead they would face each other. Such an arrangement would change the principle of operation of Rebeske. Accordingly, we find that Appellant has identified reversible error in the Examiner’s determination that the collective teachings of Rebeske and Chen8 would have prompted one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the subject matter recited in the claims on appeal within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). ORDER In view of the foregoing, we reverse the rejections of claims 1 through 51 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). REVERSED kmm 8 The additional prior art references used for rejecting some of the dependent claims on appeal in the remaining rejections of record were not relied upon by the Examiner to remedy the deficiencies discussed supra.