Ex Parte Wagner et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 19, 2011

10034224 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 19, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte MATTHEW J. WAGNER, ROBIN T. CASTELL,
and TIMOTHY NEILL
____________

Appeal 2009-010125
Application 10/034,224
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before JOESPH F. RUGGIERO, ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, and
CARL W. WHITEHEAD, JR., Administrative Patent Judges.

RUGGIERO, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2009-010125
Application 10/034,224

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-23, which are all of the pending claims. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner,
we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed Jul. 1, 2008), the Answer (mailed Mar.
18, 2009), and the Reply Brief (filed Dec. 8, 2008) for the respective details.

Appellants’ Invention
Appellants’ invention relates to an electronic device with a display in
which the casing of the display includes a plurality of recessed cavities.
Radio and antenna modules can be inserted into the recessed cavities to
provide the electronic device with a wireless communication capability. See
generally Spec. ¶¶ [0008]-[0009].
Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and reads as follows:
1. A computer system, comprising:
a processor;
a display coupled to said processor, said display having an external
casing in which a plurality of externally exposed recessed cavities
are provided, at least one recessed cavity is adapted to receive a
radio module and another recessed cavity is adapted to receive an
antenna module, the radio module being electrically connected to
the antenna module.

Appeal 2009-010125
Application 10/034,224

3
The Examiner’s Rejection
The Examiner’s Answer cites the following prior art references:
Madsen US 6,181,284 B1 Jan. 30, 2001
Constein US 6,259,932 B1 Jul. 10, 2001
Claims 1-23, all of the appealed claims, stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Constein in view of Madsen.

ANALYSIS
Appellants’ arguments with respect to the obviousness rejection of
independent claims 1 and 12 focus on the contention that Madsen does not
overcome the deficiencies of Constein in disclosing the particular claimed
display casing structure. In particular, Appellants contend (App. Br. 10-11;
Reply Br. 2) that Madsen does not disclose an external display casing with
multiple externally exposed recessed cavities that accept radio and antenna
modules to provide wireless communication capability.
We agree with Appellants. As argued by Appellants (Reply Br. 2),
while the Examiner (Ans. 9) points to slots 14 of Madsen which can accept
cards, as well as Madsen’s antenna storage slots 50, each of these slots are in
the base housing 20, and not in the display casing as claimed.
Further, while the Examiner suggests (Ans. 10) that Madsen’s antenna
32 “could be” placed in the display housing, the Examiner has pointed to no
disclosure in Madsen that would support such an arrangement, nor has the
Examiner provided any reasoning as to why it might be obvious to do so.
We also find the Examiner’s suggestion (Ans. 10) that the entirety of
Madsen’s portable computer housing could be interpreted as part of the
display housing to be unpersuasive, especially in view of the fact that the
Appeal 2009-010125
Application 10/034,224

4
Examiner recognizes that Madsen’s display is in a separate casing structure
identified by numeral 18.
For the above reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of independent claims 1 and 12, nor of claims 2-11 and
13-23 dependent thereon.

CONCLUSION OF LAW
Based on the analysis above, we conclude that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claims 1-23 for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

DECISION
The Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 1-23, all of the
appealed claims, is reversed.

REVERSED

babc