Ex Parte Wallace et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 22, 2018

14164453 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 22, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/164,453 01127/2014
58127 7590 06/22/2018
FERENCE & ASSOCIATES LLC
409 BROAD STREET
PITTSBURGH, PA 15143
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Brian William Wallace
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
RPS920130190USNP(710.304) 3971
EXAMINER
THAKER, NIDHI VNEK
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2835
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
06/22/2018 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 BRIAN WILLIAM WALLA CE and
SETH DOUGHTON RUMSEY 1
Appeal2017-009812
Application 14/164,453
Technology Center 2800
Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, BEYERL YA. FRANKLIN, and
DEBRA L. DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
GARRIS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134, Appellant appeals from the Examiner's
rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 1-5, 7-9, 11-15, 17-19, 21, and
22 as unpatentable over Diebel et al. (US 2012/0037285 Al, published Feb.
16, 2012) (hereinafter "Diebel") in view of Liou et al. (US 2009/0073337
A 1, published Mar. 19, 2009) (hereinafter "Liou") and of claims 6 and 16 as
unpatentable over these references in combination with Ku (US
1 Appellant is the applicant, Lenovo (Singapore) PTE. LTD., which is
identified as the real party in interest (App. Br. 3).
Appeal2017-009812
Application 14/164,453
2013/0016467 Al, published Jan. 17, 2013). We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6.
We AFFIRM.
Appellant claims an apparatus and a system comprising:
a receptacle 300 for an information handling device (e.g., a tablet), the
receptacle having a first side with an opening through which the information
handling device is insertable, a second side, and an edge; and
a protrusion protruding from and pivotally attached to the second side
of the receptacle and having a length such that a first portion 315, 320, 330
wraps around an edge of the receptacle and a second portion 304, 350 covers
the opening in the first side of the receptacle;
wherein the edge of the receptacle comprises a first plurality of
fastening mechanisms 370; and
wherein a majority of the second portion of the protrusion comprises
thereon a second plurality of fastening mechanisms 3 80 for engaging with
the first plurality of fastening mechanisms that permit the edge of the
receptacle to be held in position (independent claims 1 and 11, Fig. 3).
Appellant also claims a narrower embodiment wherein the fastening
mechanism is a reclosable magnetic fastener (dependent claims 6 and 16).
A copy of representative claims 1 and 6, taken from the Claims
Appendix of the Appeal Brief, appears below.
1. An apparatus, comprising:
a receptacle for an information handling device having a user display,
the receptacle having at least a first side, a second side, and at least one
edge, wherein the first side of the receptacle has at least one opening therein
through which the information handling device is insertable there-through
and the second side forms a back of the receptacle; and
2
Appeal2017-009812
Application 14/164,453
a protrusion comprising a first and second portion that protrudes from
the second side of the receptacle and is pivotably attached to the second side
of the receptacle, said protrusion being of sufficient length that the first
portion wraps around an edge of the receptacle and the second portion
covers the opening in the first side of the receptacle;
wherein the edge of the receptacle comprises a first plurality of
fastening mechanisms; and
wherein a majority of the second portion of the protrusion comprises
thereon a second plurality of fastening mechanisms for engaging with the
first plurality of fastening mechanisms that permit the edge of the receptacle
to be held in position.
6. The apparatus of Claim 3, wherein the reclosable fastener is a
magnetic fastener.
Appellant presents arguments directed to independent claims 1 and 11
together (App. Br. 11) and dependent claims 6 and 16 together (id. at 15).
No additional arguments are directed to the remaining claims on appeal (id.
at 11-16). As a consequence, our disposition of this appeal will focus on
claims 1 and 6.
We sustain the above rejections for the reasons given in the Final
Office Action and the Answer with the following comments added for
emphasis and completeness.
In rejecting independent claim 1, the Examiner finds that Diebel
discloses a receptacle for an information handling device and concludes that
it would have been obvious to provide the first and second portions of
Diebel's receptacle protrusion with first and second fastening mechanisms in
the form of hook and loop fasteners in view of Liou (Final Action 2--4 ), and
Appellant does not contend otherwise (see generally App. Br.).
3
Appeal2017-009812
Application 14/164,453
The Examiner additionally finds that Diebel and Liou fail to disclose
the claim 1 feature wherein a majority of the second portion of the
protrusion comprises thereon the second plurality of fastening mechanisms
(Final Action 4). Regarding this deficiency, the Examiner concludes that it
would have been obvious "to provide the second plurality of fastening
mechanisms on a majority of the second portion of the protrusion depending
on the requirement for maintaining different tilted views of the display"
(id.). As support for this obviousness conclusion, the Examiner states that
"duplication of parts is considered obvious to a person of ordinary skill in
the art and has [] little patentable significance unless a new and an
unexpected result is produced" (id.).
As stated previously, Appellant does not dispute the Examiner's
proposed combination of Diebel and Liou. However, Appellant argues that
the proposed combination would not satisfy claim 1 because the hook and
loop fasteners of Liou "are located on a front end of a segment and not just
on an edge, as is disclosed in the claim[]" (App. Br. 12-13).
Appellant's argument is not persuasive. In responding to this
argument, the Examiner correctly explains that claim 1 is not limited to a
fastening-mechanism location that is 'just on an edge" (id.) such that
"Appellant[] [is] arguing about subject matter that is not claimed" (Ans. 5).
Further, we emphasize that Appellant's Reply Brief merely reiterates
contents of the Appeal Brief without even acknowledging, much less
disputing, the Examiner's above and other responses in the Answer to
arguments in the Appeal Brief.
In further challenging the claim 1 rejection, Appellant "objects to the
use of Official Notice [concerning the 'majority' requirement of claim 1 ]"
(App. Br. 13).
4
Appeal2017-009812
Application 14/164,453
In response, the Examiner explains that the obviousness conclusion
regarding the "majority" limitation does not rely on Official Notice but
instead on a duplication of parts theory (Ans. 5). More specifically, the
Examiner explains that "providing [Diebel' s second portion with] additional
loops of [Liou's hook and loop fasteners] ... is merely a duplication of parts
which results in a change in size ... considered obvious to a person of
ordinary skill in the art" (id. at 5-6).
The Examiner's explanation is supported by the above quoted
obviousness conclusion expressed in the rejection (Final Action 4 ("obvious
... to provide the second plurality of fastening mechanisms on a majority of
the second portion ... duplication of parts is considered to be obvious to a
person of ordinary skill in the art")). Moreover, we again emphasize that
Appellant does not contest in the Reply Brief the Examiner's explanatory
response, thereby failing to address and show error in the duplication of
parts rationale used by the Examiner.
For these reasons, the arguments advanced by Appellant do not reveal
error in the Examiner's rejection of claim 1.
As for the magnetic fastener requirement of claim 6, the Examiner
concludes that it would have been obvious "to provide the reclosable
fastener as a magnetic fastener, as shown in the device of K[ u ], in the device
of Diebel in view of Liou in order to firmly hold the information handling
device in certain viewing angle and separate easily while closing" (Final
Action 12).
Appellant criticizes the claim 6 rejection on the ground that "the
magnets in Ku are primarily utilized to secure a keyboard and display device
to a case, and not enable display angle viewing orientation" (App. Br. 15).
5
Appeal2017-009812
Application 14/164,453
The Examiner responds by explaining that "Ku is used merely to
teach a magnetic fastening mechanism comprising a first magnet and a
second magnet [and not] ... for teaching display viewing orientations"
(Ans. 6). As above, the Reply Brief does not address the Examiner's
explanation and show error in the Examiner's use of Ku. Based on the
record before us, the above argument is merely an ineffective attack on the
Ku reference individually. See In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097
(Fed. Cir. 1986) ("Non-obviousness cannot be established by attacking
references individually where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a
combination of references.").
In summary, Appellant's arguments presented in the Appeal Brief and
reiterated without embellishment in the Reply Brief do not disclose
reversible error in the Examiner's§ 103 rejections.
The decision of the Examiner 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)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
6