Ex Parte Zhou

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 29, 2016

13050957 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 29, 2016)

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