Ex Parte ZhouDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 29, 201613050957 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 29, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 13/050,957 03/18/2011 54000 7590 02/02/2016 Novak Drnce Connolly Bove+ Quigg/SEP 54000 1000 Louisiana Street Fifty-Third Floor Houston, TX 77002 CONG-BING ZHOU 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. US37864 3595 EXAMINER FANTU, YALKEW ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2859 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/02/2016 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): eoa-proce@scienbizip.com sbp@novakdrnce.com eoa-cbd@scienbizip.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte CONG-BING ZHOU Appeal2014-004281 Application 13/050,957 1 Technology Center 2800 Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, and SHARON PENICK, Administrative Patent Judges. PENICK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1-7, 9, and 10. (Appeal Br. 1, 5.) Claim 8 has been cancelled. (Final Act. 2.) We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b )(1). We reverse. 1 According to Appellant, the real parties in interest are Fu Tai Hua Industry (SHENZHEN) Co., Ltd and Hon Hai Precision Industry Co., Ltd., (Appeal Br. 3.) Appeal2014-004281 Application 13/050,957 Invention Appellant's invention relates to a dock charger including a main body, with a recess for receiving one end of an electronic device. The dock charger also includes a slidable connector which, in one position, slides out of an opening in the main body to connect with the electronic device. (Spec. Abstract, i-fi-f 10, 14--15, Fig. 5-6.) Illustrative Claims Claims l and 10, reproduced below are illustrative: 1. A dock charger for charging an electronic device, the dock charger comprising: a housing comprising a rear surface and a bottom surface connected to each other, wherein the rear surface and the bottom surface cooperatively define a recess therebetween for receiving one end of an electronic device therein, and the rear surface defines a first through opening therein; and a connector slidably connected to the housing and slidable between a first position where the connector is received in the first through opening and a second position where the connector is exposing out of the first through opening to connect with the electronic device. 10. A dock charger for charging an electronic device, the dock charger comprising: a housing comprising a rear surface and a bottom surface cooperatively defining a recess therebetween for receiving one end of an electronic device therein, the rear surface defining a first through opening; and a connector movably connected to the housing and switchable between a first position where the connector is received in the first through opening, and a second position where the connector is exposing out of the first through opening to connect with the electronic device. 2 Appeal2014-004281 Application 13/050,957 Rejections The Examiner rejects claims 1--4 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Geiger (US 6,154,010; issued Nov. 28, 2000). (Final Act. 2- 4.) The Examiner rejects claims 5-7 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Geiger and Janik (US 6,864,798 B2; issued Mar. 8, 2005). (Final Act. 5-7.) Issues Did the Examiner err in finding that Geiger teaches "a connector ... slidable between a first position where the connector is received in the first through opening and a second position where the connector is exposing out of the first through opening to connect with the electronic device," as recited in claim 1 ? ANALYSIS The Examiner finds that Geiger anticipates claim 1, including the slidable connector which can be disposed in two positions. (Final Act. 2--4.) The Examiner cites Geiger's cradle connector 32, cradle connector port 31, and conductive terminals 36 as disclosing the claimed connector, and Geiger's communication port 33 and mobile computer 30 disclosing the connection with the electronic device. (Id.; Answer 2--4.) Appellant argues Geiger's cradle connectors 31 and 32 are not the recited "connector." (Appeal Br. 16.) Specifically, with respect to cradle connector port 31 (including plural conductive terminals 36), Appellant argues that this component of the mobile computer ("electronic device") is not shown as being a part of Geiger's docking cradle 20. (Id.) With respect 3 Appeal2014-004281 Application 13/050,957 to cradle connector 32, Appellant argues "cradle connector 32 is stationary with respect to the bottom surface, and is thus not slidable with respect to the housing." (Id. at 16-20.) Appellant further cites Geiger's disclosure that "the cradle connector 32 comprises plural conductive terminals 37 embedded in an arm protruding from the docking cradle 20 for inserting into the mobile computer 30," as support Geiger does not disclose the recited connector "slidably connected to the housing." (Reply Br. at 3, citing Geiger col. 8 11. 62---66.) We agree with Appellant. We find Geiger describes a docking cradle into which an electronic device can be docked (Geiger Abstract; col. 1 11. 6- 8, col. 3 11. 30-38.) However, the Examiner has not demonstrated that Geiger discloses the connector (cradle connector 32, cradle connector port 31, and conductive terminals 3 6) is "slidably connected to the housing and slidable between a first position ... and a second position." Specifically, the Examiner has not shown Geiger discloses a connector that siides between a first position and a second position. Consequently, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1; and of dependent claims 2-4, due to their dependence from claim 1. While Claim 10 contains a different limitation of a connector "movably connected to the housing," neither the Examiner nor the Appellant has discussed the claims separately. Based on the findings and reasoning set forth above, we find Geiger does not disclose the recited connector "movably connected to the housing." Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 10. Appellant argues dependent claims 5-7 and 9 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are patentable because Janik does not cure the deficiency of 4 Appeal2014-004281 Application 13/050,957 Geiger in disclosing the recited connector in claim 1. (Appeal Br. 1 7.) We find Geiger does not teach or suggest the recited slidable connector and Janik does not cure that deficiency. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 5-7 and 9. DECISION The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-7 and 9-10 is reversed. REVERSED ELD 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation