Ex Parte Wong et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 24, 2016

12634007 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 24, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/634,007 12/09/2009
89133 7590 03/28/2016
RIDOUT & MAYBEE LLP
250 UNIVERSITY A VENUE
5THFLOOR
TORONTO, ON MSH 3E5
CANADA
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Joshua Kwan Ho Wong
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.
42783-1297 6771
EXAMINER
OBAYANJU, OMONIYI
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2646
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/28/2016 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address( es):
ipinfo@ridoutmaybee.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JOSHUA KWAN HO WONG, YING TONG MAN,
YIHONG QI, and PERRY JARMUSZEWSKI
Appeal2014-003656
Application 12/634,007 1
Technology Center 2600
Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, KEVIN C. TROCK, and
JESSICA C. KAISER, Administrative Patent Judges.
STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-7 and 11-17. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
STATEMENT OF THE INVENTION
The claims are directed to a mobile communication device with a base
portion and a slider portion connected with a coiled cable. Abstract. Claim
1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1 According to Appellants, the Real Party in Interest is Research In Motion
Limited. Br. 3.
Appeal2014-003656
Application 12/634,007
1. A mobile communication device, the device comprising:
a base portion and a parallel slider portion connected
through a slide assembly;
a transceiver housed in one of the base portion and the
slider portion;
an RF antenna housed in the other of the base portion and
the slider portion; and
a coiled coaxial cable having one end connected to the RF
antenna and having its other end connected to the transceiver;
wherein one of the base portion or the slider portion has a
casing wall facing the other of the base portion or the slider
portion, and wherein the casing wall defines a longitudinal slot
through which the coiled coaxial cable passes, the longitudinal
slot extending in the direction of translational movement.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Lee
Abdul-Gaffoor
US 2006/0001581 Al
US 2009/0085696 Al
REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Jan.5,2006
Apr. 2, 2009
Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 11, and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Abdul-Gaffoor. Final Act. 4--5.
Claims 3, 4, 7, and 13-17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Abdul-Gaffoor and Lee. Final Act. 6-9.
2
Appeal2014-003656
Application 12/634,007
ISSUES
Did the Examiner err by finding Abdul-Gaffoor teaches or suggests "a
coiled coaxial cable," and a "casing wall defines a longitudinal slot through
which the coiled coaxial cable passes, the longitudinal slot extending in the
direction of translational movement," as recited in claim 1?
Did the Examiner err by finding the combination of Abdul-Gaffoor
and Lee teaches or suggests "the coiled cable has a minimum radius ...
wherein the coiled cable has a length such that the second radius is larger
than the minimum radius," as recited in claim 4?
Did the Examiner err by finding Abdul-Gaff oor teaches or suggests
"the coiled cable is arranged in a loop within either the base portion or the
slider portion," as recited in claim 5?
Did the Examiner err by finding the combination of Abdul-Gaffoor
and Lee teaches or suggests "the point at which the coaxial cable crosses
itself being disposed within one of the base portion and the slider portion,"
as recited in claim 13?
ANALYSIS
Obviousness of Claim 1 over Abdul-Gaffoor
Appellants argue Abdul-Gaffoor does not teach or suggest a slider
phone using "a coiled coaxial cable" to connect components in a base
portion to components in a slider portion, as recited in claim 1. Br. 9-11.
Specifically, Appellants argue "Abdul-Gaffoor teaches away from using a
coaxial cable to connect" the portions because Abdul-Gaffoor states"[ w ]hile
coaxial cable is good for RF signal transmission it severely complicates
3
Appeal2014-003656
Application 12/634,007
chassis design and adds to the mechanical complexity" for the slider phone.
Br. 9--10 (citing Abdul-Gaffoor i-f 6) (emphasis omitted).
We are not persuaded by this argument. The Examiner finds, and we
agree, that Abdul-Gaffoor teaches a cable is used to connect a slider phone's
base portion and slider portion. See Final Act. 4 (citing Abdul-Gaffoor
i-f 24). The Examiner further finds, and we agree, Abdul-Gaffoor teaches an
embodiment in which "a coaxial cable may be used" as a cable option to
connect the base portion and slider portion. Ans. 2-3 (citing Abdul-Gaffoor
,-r,-r 5, 27).
Appellants' arguments highlight passages in Abdul-Gaffoor
discussing inferior properties of coaxial cable (Br. 10 (citing Abdul-Gaffoor
i-fi-16, 27)); however, discussing inferior properties of coaxial cable does not
necessarily teach away from using coaxial cable. Indeed, Abdul-Gaffoor
describes using coaxial cable can "add[] to the complexity and does not
make efficient use of real estate/volume in [the] slider phone," but does not
state using coaxial cable is unlikely to work and instead, identifies coaxial
cable as a possibility for connection of the base portion to the slider portion.
See Abdul-Gaffoor i-f 27. Thus, we are not persuaded a person of ordinary
skill, "upon reading the reference, would be discouraged from following the
path set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from
the path that was taken by the applicant." In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553
(Fed. Cir. 1994).
Appellants additionally argue Abdul-Gaffoor does not teach the cable
connecting its base and slider portions is "coiled" because Abdul-Gaffoor
teaches its cable is "arranged with a bend" rather than a coil or a loop. Br.
11 (citing Abdul-Gaffoor Fig. 3). Appellants further assert an ordinarily
4
Appeal2014-003656
Application 12/634,007
skilled artisan would not have replaced the bent flex cable with a coiled
coaxial cable (Br. 12).
We are not persuaded by this argument because the Examiner's
rejection is based on obviousness. As discussed above, the Examiner finds
Abdul-Gaffoor teaches a cable connecting a base portion to a slider portion.
Final Act. 4 (citing Abdul-Gaffoor i-f 24, Fig. 3). The Examiner concludes,
and we agree, Abdul-Gaffoor's "cable 350 can be [wound] or turned into at
least a loop." Ans. 3 (emphasis added). Appellants have not proffered
sufficient evidence or argument to persuade us an ordinarily skilled artisan
would not have found it obvious to connect the RF antenna and the
transceiver with a coiled coaxial cable instead of a coaxial cable that results
in a bend. Indeed, we are not persuaded, for example, that coiling or looping
the coaxial cable would have been uniquely challenging or beyond the skill
of an ordinary artisan.
Appellants next argue Abdul-Gaffoor does not teach "the casing wall
defines a longitudinal slot through which the coiled coaxial cable passes, the
longitudinal slot extending in the direction of translational movement," as
recited in claim 1. Br. 11-12. Specifically, Appellants contend it would not
have been obvious to "design[] a slot that allows freedom of movement in
the longitudinal direction" because it is non-obvious to coil Abdul-Gaffoor's
cable. Br. 11-12. Appellants further assert a slot allowing passage of
Abdul-Gaffoor's cable "may [be] arranged transversely, rather than
longitudinally .... " Br. 12.
We are not persuaded by this argument. The Examiner finds, and we
agree, Abdul-Gaffoor teaches a slider phone with an encased slider portion
and an encased base portion which "slide[] up and/or down in a longitudinal
5
Appeal2014-003656
Application 12/634,007
direction" relative to each other. Ans. 4 (citing Abdul-Gaffoor Figs. 1-3).
As discussed supra, we agree with the Examiner's conclusion that an
ordinarily skilled artisan would have found it obvious to connect the slider
portion and base portion using a coiled coaxial cable. Ans. 3. Moreover, the
Examiner concludes, and we agree, that it would have been obvious to
include a longitudinal slot extending in the direction of translational
movement, through the base and slider casings to allow the coiled coaxial
cable to pass through the casings and connect the portions. Ans. 4.
Appellants argue Abdul-Gaffoor's slot would not be longitudinal
because Abdul-Gaffoor's cable is "bent" and not coiled or looped. See Br.
12. Since we agree with the Examiner's conclusion that coiling or looping
Abdul-Gaffoor's cable is obvious (as discussed supra) this argument which
is premised on the non-obviousness of coiling the cable, is not persuasive.
Moreover, we agree with the Examiner that it would have been obvious to
pass a cable through the casing of part 130 and 110 as shown in Figure 3 's
connection (Final Act. 4). As set forth by the Examiner, although Abdul-
Gaffoor does not explicitly mention the casing wall defines a longitudinal
slot through which the coiled coaxial cable passes, the longitudinal slot
extending in the direction of translational movement, we are not persuaded
by Appellants' argument that an ordinarily skilled artisan would not have
found it obvious and moreover, would not have found including a slot as
recited, to be uniquely challenging or beyond the skill of an ordinary artisan
to create a slot extending longitudinally.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred rejecting claim
1 as obvious over Abdul-Gaffoor.
6
Appeal2014-003656
Application 12/634,007
Obviousness of Claim 4 over Abdul-Gaj)oor and Lee
Appellants argue the combination of Abdul-Gaffoor and Lee does not
teach or suggest "the coiled cable has a minimum radius ... wherein the
coiled cable has a length such that the second radius is larger than the
minimum radius" as recited in claim 4. Br. 16-17. Specifically, Appellants
contend Lee does not teach or suggest "selecting the length [of the
connection] such that the second radius is larger than the minimum radius."
Br. 17.
We agree with Appellants. The Examiner finds Lee teaches a
connection between sliding phone portions varies in length when the sliding
portions extend apart or contract together. Ans. 6-7 (citing Lee Figs. 20A,
20B, 21 ). The Examiner further finds it is known that "the variation in the
length of a coiled wired directly varies or changes the radius of coil or loop"
and therefore "Appellants['] argument that the variation in length of a coil
does not affect or varies the radius of the coil is invalid." Ans. 7. The
Examiner predicates the finding on inherency, i.e., that changing the length
of a coil or loop changes the radius of the coil or loop (e.g., by pulling the
ends of the cable to tighten the coil or loop). However, we determine it is
possible to change the length of the cable without changing the radius of the
coil or the loop (e.g., by curving or bending the cable in other places).
Because it is not inherent that changing the length of a coil changes the
radius of the coil or loop, we are persuaded the Examiner has not shown Lee
teaches or suggests "the coiled cable has a minimum radius ... wherein the
coiled cable has a length such that the second radius is larger than the
minimum radius," within the meaning of claim 4. Therefore, we do not
sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 4.
7
Appeal2014-003656
Application 12/634,007
Obviousness of Claims 5 and 6 over Abdul-Gaffoor and Claim 7 over
Abdul-Gaffoor and Lee
Appellants argue Abdul-Gaffoor does not teach or suggest its cable is
"arranged in a loop within either the base portion or the slider portion," as
recited in claim 5. Br. 13-14. Specifically, Appellants contend Abdul-
Gaffoor's looped, or bent, cable is not "within either the base portion or the
slider portion." Br. 13
We agree with Appellants. The Examiner finds Figure 3 shows a
cable connecting a base portion and a slider portion. Ans. 5. Because
Figure 2 illustrates a slider phone with an encased slider portion and an
encased base portion, the Examiner finds the cable connecting the base and
slider teaches the cable is "arranged in either of the casing[s]." Ans. 5.
However, Figure 2 does not show placement of the cable's loop within one
of the base or slider portions and it is possible the loop is arranged outside of
either the base or slider. Nor does the Examiner sufficiently explain how
Figure 2 shows placement of the cable's bend within either portion or why
arranging the cable "in a loop within either the base portion or the slider
portion" would have been obvious.
Accordingly, we are persuaded the Examiner erred in finding Abdul-
Gaffoor teaches or suggests "the coiled cable is arranged in a loop within
either the base portion or the slider portion," as recited in claim 5.
Therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 5 or claim 6
which depends from claim 5.
Claim 7, rejected for obviousness over Abdul-Gaffor and Lee, falls
with claim 5 due to its dependency from claim 5 and because the Examiner
8
Appeal2014-003656
Application 12/634,007
has not shown Lee cures the deficiencies of Abdul-Gaffor with respect to the
limitations recited in claim 5. 2
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
of claims 5 and 6 as being unpatentable over Abdul-Gaffoor and claim 7 as
being unpatentable over Abdul-Gaffoor and Lee.
Obviousness of Claim 13 over Abdul-Gaffoor and Lee
Appellants argue the combination of Abdul-Gaffoor and Lee does not
teach or suggest a coiled coaxial cable with "the point at which the coaxial
cable crosses itself being disposed within one of the base portion and the
slider portion," as recited in claim 13. Br. 18-20. Specifically, Appellants
argue "Abdul-Gaffoor fails to explicitly show [a cable with] a loop" and
Lee's loop "does not have point at which the wire crosses itself being
disposed within one of a base portion and a slider portion." Br. 19-20
(citing Abdul-Gaffoor Fig. 3) (emphasis omitted).
We are not persuaded. As discussed supra, we agree with the
Examiner finding Abdul-Gaffoor teaches or suggests a coaxial cable
connecting the base portion and slider portion of a slider phone. Final Act. 4
(citing Abdul-Gaffoor i-f 24). The Examiner further finds, and we agree, Lee
teaches a coiled cable connecting a slider phone's base and slider portions,
and that coiled cable is within either the base or slider portion. Ans. 9
(citing Lee Figs. 4, 20A, 20B, 21); see Lee i-f 79. We agree with the
Examiner's conclusion that it would have been obvious to combine Abdul-
2 Should there be further prosecution, the Examiner should consider whether
Lee teaches the limitations recited in claim 5 based on the reasoning set forth
for claim 13.
9
Appeal2014-003656
Application 12/634,007
Gaffoor and Lee in order to "improve[ e] reception sensitivity in a
communication device." Ans. 9; Final. Act. 8-9.
Appellants' argument, that Lee does not teach or suggest a loop
crossing itself within the base or slider portion of its slider phone, is
unpersuasive of Examiner error. Figure 20A of Lee shows a cable formed
into a spiral having multiple rings (i.e., loops) vertically overlapping;
because those rings overlap, those rings cross themselves. See also Lee
i-f 79. Furthermore, the spiral cable connects a main body portion to a sliding
mobile antenna portion. Lee i-f 78. When Lee's slider phone is in a closed
position all internal components of Lee's slider phone would be within the
phone; therefore, it follows Lee's spiral cable is within its main body portion
or its sliding portion. See Fig. 18-19. Because Lee teaches a cable with
overlapping loops within its base or slider, and the Examiner relies on the
combination of Abdul-Gaffoor and Lee to teach "the point at which the
coaxial cable crosses itself being disposed within one of the base portion and
the slider portion," we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 13.
Issue 5: Remaining Claims 2, 3, 11, 12, and 14-17
Dependent claims 2, 3, 11, 12, and 14--17 are not separately argued by
Appellants, and Appellants have stated those claims stand or fall with
independent claims 1 or 13. Br. 13-16, 21-22. Accordingly, since the
rejections of independent claims 1 and 13 are sustained, we sustain the
Examiner's rejection of these claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for
obviousness.
10
Appeal2014-003656
Application 12/634,007
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 2, 11, and 12 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Abdul-Gaffoor is affirmed.
The Examiner's rejection of claims 3 and 13-17 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Abdul-Gaffoor and Lee is affirmed.
The Examiner's rejection of claims 5 and 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Abdul-Gaffoor is reversed.
The Examiner's rejection of claims 4 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Abdul-Gaffoor and Lee is reversed.
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) (2009).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
11