HEWLETT-PACKARD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, L.P.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 21, 2022

2021003919 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 21, 2022)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 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 APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 15/764,946 03/30/2018 Hsin-Ming Chen 84942525 8930 22879 7590 03/21/2022 HP Inc. 3390 E. Harmony Road Mail Stop 35 Fort Collins, CO 80528-9544 EXAMINER BOSWELL, CHRISTOPHER J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3675 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/21/2022 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): ipa.mail@hp.com jessica.pazdan@hp.com yvonne.bailey@hp.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte HSIN-MING CHEN ____________ Appeal 2021-003919 Application 15/764,946 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before EDWARD A. BROWN, MICHAEL L. HOELTER, and MICHAEL J. FITZPATRICK, Administrative Patent Judges. BROWN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant1 seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 4-7, 9-14, and 16-23. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Hewlett- Packard Development Company, L.P. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2021-003919 Application 15/764,946 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claims 1 and 22 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative. 1. A lock assembly comprising: a lock head; and a lock body; the lock head comprising: two blades connected at a hinge about which each of the two blades pivots; a first end comprising an engagement element, the first end of the lock head transitionable between a first configuration that allows the engagement element to be inserted into or removed from a lock port of a device and a second configuration that engages the engagement element in the lock port and secures the first end to the lock port of the device such that the lock head cannot be removed from the lock port; and a second end opposite the first end, the second end comprising an attachment feature, wherein, in the first configuration, the two blades are pivoted about the hinge so that ends of the two blades at the second end of the lock head are separated and, in the second configuration, the two blades are pivoted about the hinge so that the ends of the two blades at the second end of the lock head are aligned so as to be received in the lock body; and wherein the lock body is to receive, in an interior thereof, the second end of the lock head when in the second configuration so as to prevent pivot of the two blades of the lock head about the hinge into the first configuration when the second end of the lock head is received inside the lock body, the lock body further to rotate relative to the lock head, when the second end of the lock head is received inside the lock body, to secure the lock head to the lock body using the attachment feature. Appeal Br. 21 (Claims App.). Appeal 2021-003919 Application 15/764,946 3 REJECTIONS2 Claims 1, 2, 4-7, 9-14, and 17-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Sanders.3 Final Act. 3. Claims 22 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Huang.4 Final Act. 6. Claims 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Sanders. Final Act. 7. ANALYSIS Rejection of Claims 1, 2, 4-7, 9-14, and 17-21 as Anticipated by Sanders The Examiner finds that Sanders discloses a lock assembly having all the limitations of claim 1. Final Act. 3-4. More particularly, the Examiner finds that Sanders discloses (a) a lock head comprising two blades (lever elements 80) connected at a hinge (pin 81) about which the two blades pivot; (b) a first end (end 82) comprising an engagement element (half crossbar 84) and being transitionable between a first configuration (Figs. 7A, 24) that allows the engagement element to be inserted into or removed from a lock port (slot 16) of a device and a second configuration (Figs. 7B, 23) that engages the engagement element in the lock port and secures the first end to the lock port such that the lock head cannot be removed from the lock port; and (c) a second end (end 83) comprising an attachment feature (shaft 86), wherein, in the first configuration, the two blades are pivoted about the 2 The rejection of claims 1, 2, 4-7, 9-14, and 16-21 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite has been withdrawn. Ans. 3; Final Act. 2. 3 US 6,918,272 B1, issued July 19, 2005. 4 US 6,389,854 B1, issued May 21, 2002. Appeal 2021-003919 Application 15/764,946 4 hinge so that ends of the two blades at the second end of the lock head are separated and, in the second configuration, the two blades are pivoted about the hinge so that the ends of the two blades at the second end are aligned so as to be received in a lock body (cam lock assembly 20, cam unit 30). Id. at 3. The Examiner also finds that Sanders discloses the final “wherein” clause limitation. Id. at 4. Appellant disagrees that Sanders anticipates claim 1. Appeal Br. 10. Appellant points out that, the claim requires the second end of the lock head to have two configurations; namely, a first configuration in which ends of the two blades at the second end are separated, and a second configuration in which the ends of the two blades at the second end are aligned so as to be received in a lock body. Id. at 11. Appellant submits that, according to the final “wherein” clause of claim 1, “the lock body is to receive, in an interior thereof, the second end of the lock head when in the second configuration [i.e., the blades are together or “aligned”] so as to prevent pivot of the two blades of the lock head about the hinge into the first configuration [i.e., the blades are separated or apart] when the second end of the lock head is received inside the lock body.” Id. Appellant contends that Sanders is fundamentally different. Appeal Br. 11. Appellant points out that Sanders discloses: “FIGS. 7A and 8A show the cam unit 30 positioned so that the levers 80 are generally parallel and in an ‘unlocked’ mode. FIGS. 7B and 8B illustrate the cam unit 30 being turned 90° to the ‘locked’ mode, and the consequent affect [sic] on the lever rearward ends 83 causing the levers 80 to scissor about the pin 81.” Id. at 12 (quoting Sanders, col. 7, ll. 5-15; reproducing Figs. 6, 7A, 7B, 8A, 8B). Appellant contends that Sanders’s lock head is received in the aligned Appeal 2021-003919 Application 15/764,946 5 configuration shown in Figures 6 and 7A, then cam unit 30 is turned to scissor levers 80 into the separated configuration shown in Figure 7B, “while the ends of the levers 83 are received within the lock assembly 20.” Id. at 13 (citing Sanders, col. 6, ll. 11 et seq.). Appellant contends that Sanders thus does not teach the following limitation: “the lock body to receive, in an interior thereof, the second end of the lock head when in the second configuration so as to prevent pivot of the two blades of the lock head about the hinge into the first configuration when the second end of the lock head is received inside the lock body.” Id. To the contrary, Appellant contends, “Sanders accommodates and causes pivot of the blades/levers of the lock head to a separated configuration while received inside the lock assembly 21.” Id. (citing Sanders, Fig. 7B). The Examiner responds that, in Sanders: the lock body continuously receives [the] lock head in both the first configuration (as shown [in] figures 7A where the second ends of the blades are separated as the attachment ends never make contact and remain separated in the first configuration, as shown in figure 7A-1 a gap is made between the respective ends) and the second configuration of the blades (as shown in figures 7B, where the second ends are extended while remaining in an aligned relationship, as the respective ends lay in a linear formation as shown in figure 7B- l). Ans. 4 (emphasis added). Appellant’s position is persuasive. “A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference.” Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co. of California, 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (emphasis added. Not only must each claim element be shown in a single reference, but the elements must be “arranged or combined in the same way as recited Appeal 2021-003919 Application 15/764,946 6 in the claims.” Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2008). We agree with Appellant that Sanders does not meet this standard for anticipation. First, claim 1 requires that, in the second configuration, the lock head cannot be removed from the lock port. The Examiner finds that the recited second configuration is shown in Figure 7B of Sanders. In the Answer, the Examiner states that the second ends are “aligned” in Figure 7B because the second ends “lay in a linear formation,” but are “separated” in Figure 7A because “the attachment ends never make contact and remain separated.” Ans. 4. However, consistent with the Examiner’s reasoning, the second ends are “aligned” in Figure 7A and “separated” in Figure 7B of Sanders. We agree with Appellant that, in Sanders, the aligned configuration of second ends 83 is shown in Figures 6 and 7A, whereas the separated configuration of second ends 83 is shown in Figure 7B. Second, we construe the recitation of “the lock body is to receive, in an interior thereof, the second end of the lock head” to mean that the second end is introduced into the lock body. This is illustrated in Figure 3 of Sanders, which shows how second end 130 of lock head 100 is received in lock body 300 by moving lock body 300 toward lock head 100 as represented by the bold arrow. We agree with Appellant that, in Sanders, the lock body “is to receive” the second end of the lock head when the second end is in the aligned configuration shown in Figure 7A, i.e., the first configuration as found by the Examiner, not when in the separated configuration shown in Figure 7B, i.e., the second configuration as found by the Examiner. Appeal 2021-003919 Application 15/764,946 7 Third, even assuming that, in Sanders, the lock body “is to receive” the second end of the lock head when in the “second configuration” (Fig. 7B), the Examiner does not establish that “the lock body is to receive . . . the second end of the lock head when in the second configuration so as to prevent pivot of the two blades of the lock head about the hinge into the first configuration when the second end of the lock head is received inside the lock body,” as required by claim 1. That is, the Examiner does not explain why levers 80 in Sanders are prevented from pivoting from the “second configuration” (i.e., “locked mode”) to the “first configuration” (“unlocked mode”) shown in Figure 7A when the second end is received inside the lock body. For these reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1, and claims 2, 4-7, 9-14 and 17-21 depending therefrom, as anticipated by Sanders. Rejection of Claims 22 and 23 as Anticipated by Huang The Examiner finds that Huang discloses a lock head comprising a first blade (first locking plate 10) having a first end (hooked portion 15) and a second end (handle 11); a second blade (second locking plate 20) coupled to the first blade and having a first end (hooked potion 25) and a second end (handle 21), wherein the first and second blades are transitionable between a first configuration (Fig. 2) that allows the first ends of the first and second blades to pass through a lock port (security slot 51) of a device (computer 50) and a second configuration (Fig. 3) that secures the first ends of the first and second blades within the lock port; and an attachment feature (locating hole 24) coupled to the second end of the second blade, the attachment Appeal 2021-003919 Application 15/764,946 8 feature to secure attachment of the lock head to a lock body (retainer member 30, combination lock 40) upon insertion of the second ends of the first and second blades into the lock body. Appellant contends, inter alia, that claim 22 recites “insertion of the second ends of the first and second blades into the lock body,” which is not disclosed in Huang. Appeal Br. 17. Rather, Figure 2 of Huang shows that a cable or retainer member 30 is threaded through hole 24 in locking plates 10, 20 to prevent further rotation of these plates, and then is attached to alarm 60. Id. at 17-18. Thus, Appellant contends, Huang does not teach or suggest the limitation “the attachment feature to secure attachment of the lock head to a lock body upon insertion of the second ends of the first and second blades into the lock body.” Id. at 18. The Examiner responds: The attachment feature is on the second blade, and used to secure the lock head to the lock body. Accordingly, the second blade of Huang has an attachment feature, in the form of a lock hole (24) that is used to prevent separation of the first blade and the second blade when the lock holes are aligned in the locked configuration and secured by the lock body, as shown in figure 3. Ans. 7. Appellant’s contentions are persuasive. Based on the Examiner’s findings for Huang, in order for Huang to meet the claimed limitation, “second ends” 11, 21 of “first blade” 10 and “second blade” 20, respectively, must be insertable into the “lock body” 30, 40. However, Huang’s retainer member 30 is inserted into locating holes 14, 24 formed in the “second ends” (handles 11, 21, respectively). Handles 11, 21 are not inserted into the “lock body,” as required by claim 22. Appeal 2021-003919 Application 15/764,946 9 Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 22, and claim 23 depending therefrom, as anticipated by Huang. Rejection of Claims 16 and 18 as Unpatentable over Sanders The Examiner determines that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Sanders to meet the limitations recited in dependent claims 16 and 18. Final Act. 7-8. However, the Examiner’s proposed modification of Sanders does not cure the deficiency in the rejection of parent claim 1. Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 18 and 19 as unpatentable over Sanders. CONCLUSION We reverse the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 2, 4-7, 9-14, and 16-23. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 2, 4-7, 9- 14, 17-21 102(a)(1) Sanders 1, 2, 4-7, 9- 14, 17-21 22, 23 102(a)(1) Huang 22, 23 16, 18 103 Sanders 16, 18 Overall Outcome 1, 2, 4-7, 9- 14, 16-23 REVERSED