Lenovo (Singapore) Pte. Ltd.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 24, 2022

2020005375 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 24, 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. 15/296,443 10/18/2016 Brian William Wallace RPS920160034- US-NP 18-27 3578 124906 7590 01/24/2022 The Small Patent Law Group LLC 1423 Strassner Dr. Suite 100 Brentwood, MO 63144 EXAMINER SCHNIREL, ANDREW B ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2625 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/24/2022 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): docket@splglaw.com jleclair@splglaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte BRAIN WILLIAM WALLACE and ROLAND KAMAKAU ALBION ALO JR. ____________ Appeal 2020-005375 Application 15/296,443 Technology Center 2600 ____________ Before MARC S. HOFF, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and CATHERINE SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judges. SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 3-17, which are all the claims pending and rejected in the application. Appeal Br. 5. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 We use “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Lenovo (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2020-005375 Application 15/296,443 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction The invention relates to “electronic devices that include a flexible display and more particularly to a flexible display with multiple viewing regions.” Spec. ¶ 1. In particular, the Specification explains the existing prior art problems as follows: Convertible tablet personal computers (convertible PCs) have been proposed that offer the dual functionality of a PC and a tablet device. The convertible PC includes a display portion that is capable of rotating 360 degrees and folding back over the keyboard. However, convertible PCs also experience certain limitations. The convertible PC can be used in two ways, as a normal laptop personal computer (laptop PC) and a tablet PC. When such a convertible PC is changed to a tablet PC, the upward-facing keyboard in laptop PC mode becomes the downward-facing portion in tablet PC mode. Therefore, when the tablet PC is placed on a desk or other similar surface, the keyboard and click pad come into direct contact with the hard surface of the desk. Consequently, this decreases the stability of the device and also increases the likelihood of scratching or damaging the keyboard and click pad. Further, convertible tablet personal computers require the user to rotate, slide, flip or otherwise tum the display between two different operative positions when switching between a conventional PC mode and a tablet mode. Complex interconnection assemblies are utilized to enable the display to rotate, slide, flip or otherwise tum. The complex interconnection assembly increases the potential for mechanical and/or electrical failures over an extended period of time. Id. ¶¶ 4-5. Appeal 2020-005375 Application 15/296,443 3 To solve the problems discussed above, the invention provides an improved electronic device: [A]n electronic device is provided. The electronic device comprises a main body unit including a user input, memory to store program instructions, and a processor to execute the program instructions. A display unit is moveably coupled to the main body unit. The display unit comprises a flexible display layer having primary and secondary viewing regions formed as a monolithic structure. The secondary viewing region is foldable relative to the primary viewing region. The processor defines boundaries for the primary and secondary viewing regions. The processor displays content on the primary and secondary viewing regions within the corresponding boundaries. Id. ¶ 7. Claim 1 is exemplary: 1. An electronic device, comprising: a main body unit including a user input keyboard, a memory to store program instructions, and a processor to execute the program instructions; a display unit moveably coupled at a hinge to the main body unit, the display unit comprising a flexible display layer having primary and secondary viewing regions formed as a monolithic structure, the secondary viewing region foldable relative to the primary viewing region, wherein the flexible display layer is rotatably coupled to the main body unit at the hinge proximate to a first boundary of the primary viewing region, the secondary viewing region foldable along a fold line proximate to a second boundary of the primary viewing region; the processor to define boundaries for the primary and secondary viewing regions; and the processor to display content on the primary and secondary viewing regions within the corresponding boundaries. Appeal Br. 51 (Claims App.). Appeal 2020-005375 Application 15/296,443 4 References and Rejections2 Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § References 1, 3-7, 9- 11, 13 103 Wilk (US 6,643,124 B1, issued November 4, 2003), Pfeifer (US 2014/0215201 A1, published July 31, 2014) 8, 12, 14- 17 103 Wilk, Pfeifer, Chen (US 2009/0021666 A1, published January 22, 2009) PRINCIPLES OF LAW “[W]hen the prior art teaches away from combining certain known elements, discovery of a successful means of combining them is more likely to be nonobvious.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). “A reference may be said to teach away when 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 Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 990 (Fed. Cir. 2006). “[T]he ‘mere disclosure of alternative designs does not teach away’” and “just because better alternatives exist in the prior art does not mean that an inferior combination is inapt for obviousness purposes.” In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Although a reference that teaches away is a significant factor to be considered in determining unobviousness, the nature of the teaching is highly relevant, and must be weighed in substance. A known or obvious composition does not become patentable 2 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the (1) Final Office Action dated November 29, 2019 (“Final Act.”); (2) Appeal Brief dated March 6, 2020 (“Appeal Br.”); (3) Examiner’s Answer dated May 12, 2020 (“Ans.”). Appeal 2020-005375 Application 15/296,443 5 simply because it has been described as somewhat inferior to some other product for the same use. In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994). ANALYSIS Obviousness We have reviewed and considered Appellant’s arguments, but such arguments are unpersuasive. To the extent consistent with our analysis below, we adopt the Examiner’s findings and conclusions in (i) the action from which this appeal is taken and (ii) the Answer. Further, to the extent Appellant advances new arguments in the Reply Brief without showing good cause, Appellant has waived such arguments. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2). Independent Claims 1 and 10 On this record, the Examiner did not err in rejecting claim 1. I Appellant argues that the Examiner has not provided adequate rationale for the proposed combination of Wilk and Pfeifer, which among other things, incorporates Pfeifer’s feature of “the display unit comprising a flexible display layer having primary and secondary viewing regions formed as a monolithic structure.” See Appeal Br. 10-19.3 In particular, Appellant cites excerpts from Wilk and Pfeifer and argues: 3Appellant asserts that according to the Examiner, Wilk does not teach “a display unit moveably coupled at a hinge to the main body unit” (Appeal Br. 10). Appellant is mistaken, as the Examiner finds that Wilk teaches the limitation. See Final Act. 3. Appeal 2020-005375 Application 15/296,443 6 It would seem self-evident, from a cursory review of the structures and features in Wilk and Pfeifer, that if the person of ordinary skill were truly going to use anything from Pfeifer, the person . . . would include Pfeifer’s touch screen functionality on one of the foldable displays. If the person of ordinary skill is going to go through the effort of including the foldable displays of Pfeifer, such a modification would clearly also include the touch screen functionality, thereby rendering case 50 and keyboard 58 from Wilk unnecessary and useless. Stated another way, . . . Pfeifer describes a system that would be utilized as an entire replacement for the system of Wilk. It has long been recognized that in establishing obviousness . . ., the full scope and content of the prior art must be considered. One cannot pick and choose particular features from references without a legitimate reason to make such modifications. In each and every embodiment, Pfeifer suggests constructing the entire device from foldable sections. There is no suggestion to attach a subset of the foldable sections from Pfeifer to a conventional case/keyboard. Therefore, . . . Pfeifer does not provide any legitimate reason to take the asserted portions from Pfeifer and only add those portions to the system of Wilk. Appeal Br. 17 (emphases omitted). [T]he motivation suggested in the Final Office Action directly contradicts the proposed modification, and instead supports applicants position noted above, namely that the person of ordinary skill truly would have been motivated to entirely replace the system of Wilk with the system of Pfeifer in Pfeifer's original and unmodified form . . . . The suggested motivation completely supports Applicants’ position that the person of ordinary skill would have simply thrown out the system of Wilk and implemented the system of Pfeifer in the original form. Pfeifer teaches to provide a “foldable computing device that provides multiple operating modes” by providing an entirely foldable device. Appeal Br. 17-18. Appeal 2020-005375 Application 15/296,443 7 We disagree. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that “[t]he combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). Contrary to Appellant’s arguments about Pfeifer (Appeal Br. 17-18), “[i]f the claim extends to what is obvious, it is invalid under § 103” and “the analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” Id. at 418-19. The Examiner has provided articulated reasoning with a rational underpinning as to why one skilled in the art would have found it obvious to combine the teachings of Wilk and Pfeifer. See Final Act. 5. Additionally, in the Answer, the Examiner explains further why one skilled in the art would have pursued the combination. See Ans. 27-29. Appellant does not persuasively show why the Examiner’s reasoning is incorrect. For example, Appellant’s arguments about Pfeifer’s touch screen (Appeal Br. 17) are unpersuasive, because the Examiner explains that adding Pfeifer’s touch screen function to Wilk’s system does not negatively affect Wilk’s physical keyboard. See Ans. 27-28. Appellant does not dispute that explanation. Contrary to Appellant’s arguments (Appeal Br. 17), the proposed combination would enhance Wilk’s system, so that Wilk’s device would operate in multiple modes: as a traditional computing device using a physical keyboard, or as a device with a touch screen, which is similar to an iPad ™ or other tablet. As a result, we agree with the Examiner that one skilled in the art would have pursued the proposed modification because it achieves the benefit of “provid[ing] multiple Appeal 2020-005375 Application 15/296,443 8 operating modes with associated functions.” Final Act. 5; see also KSR, 550 U.S. at 424 (“[t]he proper question to have asked was whether a . . . designer of ordinary skill . . . would have seen a benefit to upgrading Asano with a [feature from the secondary reference]”). Appellant’s attorney argument that “the person of ordinary skill would have simply thrown out the system of Wilk and implemented the system of Pfeifer in the original form” (Appeal Br. 17) is unpersuasive, as Appellant does not provide sufficient objective evidence to support the assertion. See In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“attorney argument [is] not the kind of factual evidence that is required to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness”); Meitzner v. Mindick, 549 F.2d 775, 782 (CCPA 1977) (“Argument of counsel cannot take the place of evidence lacking in the record.”). Further, the argument is not directed to the Examiner’s specific findings, which uses Wilk as the primary reference, and modifies Wilk’s system to achieve additional benefits. Appellant’s proposal of “simply throw[ing] out the system of Wilk and implement[ing] the system of Pfeifer in the original form” (Appeal Br. 17) is also wasteful and unnecessary, and ignores the features and benefits of Wilk’s system, such as a physical keyboard to enable the system to operate in a traditional computing device mode. The Examiner’s findings and conclusion are reasonable because the skilled artisan would “be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle,” as the skilled artisan is “a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 420-21. Appellant does not present adequate evidence that the resulting arrangements would have been “uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art” or Appeal 2020-005375 Application 15/296,443 9 “represented an unobvious step over the prior art.” Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 418-19). Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that applying Pfeifer’s feature of “the display unit comprising a flexible display layer having primary and secondary viewing regions formed as a monolithic structure” in the Wilk system would have predictably used prior art elements according to their established functions-an obvious improvement. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417. II Appellant argues that the Examiner has used impermissible hindsight for the proposed combination. See Appeal Br. 10-19. In particular, Appellant argues: Final Office Action fails to establish a prima facie case of obviousness as no legitimate reason exists to modify Wilk based on the teachings of Pfeifer in a manner that would render obvious the claimed invention. More specifically, Wilk and Pfeifer describe fundamentally different systems that are alternatives or substitutes in total for one another. There is no legitimate reason to pick the specific subset of the structure in Wilk, keep it, and then add only the portion of Pfeifer that is necessary to arrive at the claimed invention. This is a clear example of improper hindsight reconstruction. Appeal Br. 10. Pfeifer does not utilize and does not suggest any reason for adding, a separate main body unit that includes a user input keyboard, a memory and a processor. Instead, Pfeifer specifically teaches to include, a virtual touchscreen as an input, and to include all of the electronics within one or more of the foldable portions. Accordingly, it is respectfully submitted that Appeal 2020-005375 Application 15/296,443 10 the Final Office Action is merely utilizing improper hindsight reconstruction to pick a portion of the system of Pfeifer and include it within the system of Wilk. Appeal Br. 17-18. We disagree. Our reviewing courts have not established a bright-line test for hindsight. The U.S. Supreme Court guides that “[a] factfinder should be aware, of course, of the distortion caused by hindsight bias and must be cautious of arguments reliant upon ex post reasoning.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 421 (citing Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City, 383 U.S. 1, 36 (1966)). “Rigid preventative rules that deny factfinders recourse to common sense, however, are neither necessary under our case law nor consistent with it.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 421. As discussed above, Appellant does not present adequate evidence that the resulting arrangements would have been “uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art” or “represented an unobvious step over the prior art.” Leapfrog Enters., 485 F.3d at 1162. In particular, Appellant’s attorney arguments about hindsight (Appeal Br. 10, 18) are unpersuasive, as Appellant does not provide sufficient objective evidence to support the arguments. See Geisler, 116 F.3d at 1470; Meitzner, 549 F.2d at 782. Further, after reviewing the respective teachings and suggestions of Wilk and Pfeifer, we find that the weight of the evidence shows the proffered combination is merely a predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions, because the combination uses Pfeifer’s prior art feature “the display unit comprising a flexible display layer having primary and secondary viewing regions formed as a monolithic structure” according to its well-known functions. Therefore, on this record, Appeal 2020-005375 Application 15/296,443 11 Appellant has not persuaded us that the Examiner engaged in impermissible hindsight. III Appellant argues that the proposed combination would render “Wilk inoperable for its intended function.” Appeal Br. 18; see also Appeal Br. 18-19. In particular, Appellant argues: The stated goals of the cited references simply do not align. Wilk provides multiple reasons for why his multiple movable display panels have an advantage over a single panel. Wilk asserts . . . that a single flat display necessarily “involves a greater variation in angle of gaze relative to a surface normal of the panel compared to a multiple panel display, which may be angled inward towards the viewer in a wrap around configuration.” Next, Wilk goes on to assert that “multiple displays allow an adaptation of display type to intended function, with a consequent cost reduction.” A single high- resolution color display may be used for viewing digital images and lower resolution may be used for tasks such as word processing. It is clear that Wilk considers a single viewing panel undesirable. On the other hand, Pfeifer seeks to replace multiple devices. . . . Pfeifer states that the goal of the disclosure is to provide a way to “combine multiple electronic devices of various functions into one foldable computing device that allows a user to employ functions of multiple operating modes of the foldable computing device at an adequate device format.” The goal of Wilk to provide multiple screens as a solution for having views of various programs running simultaneously is greatly compromised by combining the limited viewing folding screen of Pfeifer. Pfeifer teaches folding a screen in different ways to approximate different devices, not allowing the user to view multiple programs on multiple screens simultaneously. Pfeifer’s single screen viewing area is the problem that Wilk seeks to solve. Appeal Br. 18-19. Appeal 2020-005375 Application 15/296,443 12 An argument that the system is rendered “inoperable for its intended purpose” is akin to a “teaching away” argument. In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (The court concluded that in effect, “French teaches away from the board’s proposed modification” because “if the French apparatus were turned upside down, it would be rendered inoperable for its intended purpose”). In this case, Appellant’s attorney argument that “[t]he goal of Wilk [is] to provide multiple screens as a solution for having views of various programs running simultaneously” (Appeal Br. 18) is speculative and unpersuasive, as Appellant does not provide sufficient objective evidence to support the arguments. See Geisler, 116 F.3d at 1470; Meitzner, 549 F.2d at 782. Further, as pointed out by the Examiner (Ans. 29), Appellant’s arguments that “Wilk provides multiple reasons for why his multiple movable display panels have an advantage over a single panel,” “[i]t is clear that Wilk considers a single viewing panel undesirable,” and “Pfeifer's single screen viewing area is the problem that Wilk seeks to solve” (Appeal Br. 18-19) mischaracterize Wilk and are misleading. Contrary to Appellant’s misleading arguments (Appeal Br. 18-19), Wilk describes advantages over a single rigid panel-not Pfeifer’s flexible panel. See Wilk 2:15-17 (“Several significant advantages accrue from using multiple movable display panels as opposed to a single rigid panel of equivalent display area”) (emphasis added). In short, Appellant’s teaching away arguments are unpersuasive because Appellant fails to provide adequate analysis under the case law. Appellant fails to show one skilled in the art “would be discouraged from following the path set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction Appeal 2020-005375 Application 15/296,443 13 divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant.” Kahn, 441 F.3d at 990. Because Appellant has not persuaded us the Examiner erred, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1. Regarding independent claim 10, Appellant provides extensive arguments. See Appeal Br. 27-36. We have reviewed such arguments, and they are similar to the arguments discussed above with respect to claim 1. Therefore, for similar reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claim 10. Dependent Claims 3-9 and 11-17 Claim 3 Appellant argues: Claim 3 further defines the device of claim 1, wherein the display unit is foldable about a primary lateral axis that extends laterally relative the user input keyboard and primary viewing region. Appellant submits that a person having ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to combine the teachings of Wilk and Pfeifer. Appeal Br. 19; see also Appeal Br. 19-21. There is no legitimate reason to make this particular modification of Wilk and Pfeifer. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be more legitimately motivated to make the fold at the hinge between 50 and 52 from figures 2 and 3 of Wilk, rather than attempting to modify Wilk with Pfeifer’s folding screen. Pfeifer suggests constructing the entire device from foldable sections. Also, Pfeifer does not suggest attaching a subset of the foldable sections from Pfeifer to a conventional Appeal 2020-005375 Application 15/296,443 14 case/keyboard. Therefore, it is respectfully submitted that Pfeifer does not provide any legitimate reason to take the asserted portions from Pfeifer and only add those portions to the system of Wilk. Appeal Br. 20. Appellant has not persuaded us of error. Appellant’s attorney arguments are unpersuasive, as Appellant does not provide sufficient objective evidence to support the arguments. See Geisler, 116 F.3d at 1470; Meitzner, 549 F.2d at 782. Further, contrary to Appellant’s argument about specific motivation from Pfeifer, “[i]f the claim extends to what is obvious, it is invalid under § 103” and “the analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418-19. Therefore, and for similar reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claim 3. Claim 4 Appellant argues: Claim 4 further defines the device of claim 3, wherein the secondary viewing region is foldable, relative to the primary viewing region, about a secondary lateral axis that is oriented orthogonal to the primary lateral axis. Appellant submits that a person having ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to combine the teachings of Wilk and Pfeifer. Appeal Br. 21; see also Appeal Br. 21-22. Appeal 2020-005375 Application 15/296,443 15 There is no legitimate reason to make this particular modification of Wilk with Pfeifer. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be more legitimately motivated to make the fold at the hinge between 50 and 52 from figures 2 and 3 of Wilk, rather than attempting to modify Wilk with Pfeifer’s folding screen. Pfeifer suggests constructing the entire device from foldable sections. Also, Pfeifer does not suggest attaching a subset of the foldable sections from Pfeifer to a conventional case/keyboard. Therefore, it is respectfully submitted that Pfeifer does not provide any legitimate reason to take the asserted portions from Pfeifer and only add those portions to the system of Wilk. Appeal Br. 22. Appellant has not persuaded us of error. Contrary to Appellant’s argument about specific motivation from Pfeifer, “[i]f the claim extends to what is obvious, it is invalid under § 103” and “the analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418-19. Further, Appellant’s attorney arguments are unpersuasive, as Appellant does not provide sufficient objective evidence to support the arguments. See Geisler, 116 F.3d at 1470; Meitzner, 549 F.2d at 782. Further, Therefore, and for similar reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claim 4. Claim 5 Appellant argues: Claim 5 further defines the device of claim 3, wherein the primary and secondary viewing regions are arranged in a stacked configuration with the primary lateral axis and the user input keyboard, and the fold line extending parallel to one Appeal 2020-005375 Application 15/296,443 16 another and located along bottom and top boundary of the primary viewing region. Appellant submits that a person having ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to combine the teachings of Wilk and Pfeifer. Appeal Br. 23; see also Appeal Br. 23-24. There is no legitimate reason to make this particular modification of Wilk with Pfeifer. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be more legitimately motivated to make the fold at the hinges at 94 and 96 from figure 10 of Wilk, rather than attempting to modify Wilk with Pfeifer’s folding screen. Pfeifer suggests constructing the entire device from foldable sections. Also, Pfeifer does not suggest attaching a subset of the foldable sections from Pfeifer to a conventional case/keyboard. Therefore, it is respectfully submitted that Pfeifer does not provide any legitimate reason to take the asserted portions from Pfeifer and only add those portions to the system of Wilk. Appeal Br. 24. Appellant has not persuaded us of error. Appellant’s attorney arguments are unpersuasive, as Appellant does not provide sufficient objective evidence to support the arguments. See Geisler, 116 F.3d at 1470; Meitzner, 549 F.2d at 782. Further, contrary to Appellant’s argument about specific motivation from Pfeifer, “[i]f the claim extends to what is obvious, it is invalid under § 103” and “the analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418-19. Appeal 2020-005375 Application 15/296,443 17 Therefore, and for similar reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claim 5. Claim 6 Appellant argues: Claim 6 further defines the device of claim 3, wherein the primary and secondary viewing regions are arranged in a side- by-side configuration with the secondary viewing region foldable, relative to the primary viewing region, about a vertical axis that is oriented perpendicular to the primary lateral axis and the keyboard. Claim 6 depends from claims 1 and 3, and thus claim 6 is allowable over the cited references for at least the reasons set forth in claims 1 and 3. Appeal Br. 25. For similar reasons discussed above with respect to claims 1 and 3, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claim 6. Claim 7 Appellant argues: Claim 7 further defines the device of claim 1, wherein the secondary viewing region is divided into first and second viewing regions that are formed as a monolithic structure with the primary viewing region, the first and second viewing regions are provided on opposite lateral sides of the primary viewing region. Appeal Br. 25; see also Appeal Br. 25-26. There is no legitimate reason to make this particular modification of Wilk with Pfeifer. A person having ordinary skill in the art would not be legitimately motivated to redesign Wilk to be a monolithic structure. The process would introduce a burdensome amount of experimentation. Pfeifer suggests constructing the entire device from foldable sections. Appeal 2020-005375 Application 15/296,443 18 Therefore, it is respectfully submitted that Pfeifer does not provide any legitimate reason to take the asserted portions from Pfeifer and only add those portions to the system of Wilk. Appeal Br. 26. Appellant has not persuaded us of error. Appellant’s attorney arguments are unpersuasive, as Appellant does not provide sufficient objective evidence to support the arguments. See Geisler, 116 F.3d at 1470; Meitzner, 549 F.2d at 782. Further, Appellant’s assertion about “burdensome amount of experimentation” (Appeal Br. 26) is unsubstantiated and speculative, as the skilled artisan is “a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 420-21. Appellant does not present adequate evidence that the resulting arrangements would have been “uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art” or “represented an unobvious step over the prior art.” Leapfrog, 485 F.3d at 1162. Additionally, contrary to Appellant’s argument about Pfeifer (Appeal Br. 26), “[i]f the claim extends to what is obvious, it is invalid under § 103” and “the analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418-19. Therefore, and for similar reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claim 7. Claim 8 On this record, the Examiner did not err in rejecting claim 8. Appeal 2020-005375 Application 15/296,443 19 I Appellant argues that the Examiner has not provided adequate rationale for the proposed combination of Wilk, Pfeifer, and Chen. See Appeal Br. 40-43. In particular, Appellant cites excerpts from Chen and argues: [T]he Final Office Action fails to establish a prima facie case of obviousness as no legitimate reason exists to modify Wilk and Pfeifer based on the teachings of Chen in a manner that would render obvious the claimed invention. As noted above, Wilk and Pfeifer describe fundamentally different systems that are alternatives or substitutes in total for one another. Chen adds another folding screen to the combination. Appeal Br. 40; see also Appeal Br. 40-43. [M]odifying Wilk and Pfeifer by Chen is improper. A person having ordinary skill in the art would not think combine Chen to the other cited references. Chen's display folds in upon itself in a completely different orientation than Wilk, the primary reference. The display of Chen gives no further functionality to Wilk, because Wilk already has multiple foldable display panels . . . . Appeal Br. 42. The motivation offered by the Final Office Action . . . that the motivation for adding Chen is to further improve image quality, as noted in paragraph 30 of Chen, is inadequate when considering that Wilk at column 2, line 60-65 already includes that “[a] multiple display device may provide a single high- resolution color display panel for viewing of digital images . . . .” Appeal Br. 43. Appellant has not persuaded us of Examiner error. Claim 8 recites: The device of claim 1, wherein the flexible display layer comprises a intermediate region between the primary and Appeal 2020-005375 Application 15/296,443 20 secondary viewing regions, the intermediate region having a fold clearance area, the intermediate region enabling the secondary viewing region to be folded entirely inward until abutting against the primary viewing region and to be folded entirely outward until rear surfaces of the primary and secondary viewing regions are located proximate to one another. Appeal Br. 52 (Claims Appendix). Claim 8 depends from claim 1, and the Examiner cites Wilk, Pfeifer, and Chen for rejecting claim 8. See Final Act. 12. Regarding the additional features recited in claim 8, the Examiner finds-and Appellant does not dispute-that Pfeifer teaches “wherein the flexible display layer comprises a intermediate region between the primary and secondary viewing regions, the intermediate region having a fold clearance area, the intermediate region enabling the secondary viewing region to be folded entirely inward until abutting against the primary viewing region.” See Final Act. 12-13. The Examiner further finds-and Appellant does not dispute-that Chen teaches “the intermediate region enabling the secondary viewing region . . . to be folded entirely outward until rear surfaces of the primary and secondary viewing regions are located proximate to one another.” See Final Act. 13. Turning to the proposed combination of Wilk and Pfeifer, the Examiner has provided articulated reasoning with a rational underpinning as to why one skilled in the art would have found it obvious to combine the teachings of Wilk and Pfeifer. See Final Act. 13. In particular, the Examiner finds that the proposed combination of Wilk and Pfeifer would “provide[] multiple operating modes with associated functions.” Final Act. 13. Appellant’s arguments toward the combination of Wilk and Pfeifer are similar to the arguments discussed above with respect to claim 1. Therefore, Appeal 2020-005375 Application 15/296,443 21 similar to the discussions about claim 1, Appellant’s arguments are unpersuasive. The Examiner further finds that the proposed combination of Wilk, Pfeifer, and Chen would improve image quality. Id. As pointed out by the Examiner (Ans. 33), one skilled in the art would have purposed the combination with Chen, because modifying Wilk’s system to incorporate Chen’s feature would allow a user to view the images more clearly across the primary and secondary viewing regions, resulting in improved image quality. See Chen ¶ 30 (“As the foldable display 100 is in a spreading state, the display software may input the images to the entire display region D, such that consecutive frames may be displayed by the sub-regions 140 and the folded region 130 in the display region D, and the quality of the display images can be further improved.”); KSR, 550 U.S. at 424 (“[t]he proper question to have asked was whether a . . . designer of ordinary skill . . . would have seen a benefit to upgrading Asano with a [feature from the secondary reference]”). Appellant does not persuasively dispute the Examiner’s reasoning. In particular, Appellant’s argument that “[t]he display of Chen gives no further functionality to Wilk” (Appeal Br. 42) plainly contradicts the record, as it ignores Chen’s feature of “the intermediate region enabling the secondary viewing region . . . to be folded entirely outward until rear surfaces of the primary and secondary viewing regions are located proximate to one another” and its benefit to Wilk’s system (discussed above). Further, Appellant’s following assertion is unsubstantiated, as Appellant does not persuasively explain why Wilk’s statement about a single high-resolution Appeal 2020-005375 Application 15/296,443 22 color display panel negates the Examiner’s reasoning about improving image quality across multiple viewing regions: The motivation offered by the Final Office Action on page 13 that the motivation for adding Chen is to further improve image quality, as noted in paragraph 30 of Chen, is inadequate when considering that Wilk at column 2, line 60-65 already includes that “[a] multiple display device may provide a single high-resolution color display panel for viewing of digital images . . .” Therefore, there is no motivation for a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Chen with Wilk and Pfeifer. Appeal Br. 43. Additionally, Appellant’s argument that “[a] person having ordinary skill in the art would not think combine Chen to the other cited references. Chen’s display folds in upon itself in a completely different orientation than Wilk” (Appeal Br. 42) is unpersuasive, as Appellant does not cite any evidence to support the argument. In any event, regardless of whether Appellant’s argument about “a completely different orientation” (Appeal Br. 42) is correct, the orientation difference would not deter one skilled in the art from pursuing the proposed combination, because the skilled artisan would “be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle,” as the skilled artisan is “a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 420-21. Appellant does not present adequate evidence that the resulting arrangements would have been “uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art” or “represented an unobvious step over the prior art.” Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 418-19). Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that applying Chen’s feature in Wilk’s system (as modified by Pfeifer) would have Appeal 2020-005375 Application 15/296,443 23 predictably used prior art elements according to their established functions-an obvious improvement. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417. II Appellant argues that the Examiner has used impermissible hindsight for the proposed combination of Wilk, Pfeifer, and Chen. See Appeal Br. 40-43. In particular, Appellant cites excerpts from Chen and argues: There is no legitimate reason to pick the specific subset of the structure in Wilk, keep it, add only the portion of Pfeifer that is necessary to arrive at the claimed invention, and then add the folding screen of Chen. This is a clear example of improper hindsight reconstruction. Appeal Br. 40; see also Appeal Br. 40-43. [T]here is no motivation for a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Chen with Wilk and Pfeifer. Appellant submits that the Final Office Action is using improper hindsight reasoning to arrive at the subject matter of claim 8. Appeal Br. 43. Appellant’s arguments are unpersuasive. Regarding the combination of Wilk and Pfeifer, Appellant’s arguments are similar to the arguments discussed above with respect to claim 1. Therefore, similar to the discussions above with respect to claim 1, Appellant’s arguments are unpersuasive. Turning to the combination of Wilk, Pfeifer, and Chen, as discussed above, Appellant does not present adequate evidence that the resulting arrangements would have been “uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art” or “represented an unobvious step over the prior art.” Leapfrog Enters., 485 F.3d at 1162. In particular, Appellant’s attorney Appeal 2020-005375 Application 15/296,443 24 arguments about hindsight (Appeal Br. 40, 43) are unpersuasive, as Appellant does not provide sufficient objective evidence to support the arguments. See Geisler, 116 F.3d at 1470; Meitzner, 549 F.2d at 782. Further, after reviewing the respective teachings and suggestions of Wilk, Pfeifer, and Chen, we find that the weight of the evidence shows the proffered combination is merely a predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions, because the combination uses Chen’s prior art element “the intermediate region enabling the secondary viewing region . . . to be folded entirely outward until rear surfaces of the primary and secondary viewing regions are located proximate to one another” according to its well-known functions. Therefore, on this record, Appellant has not persuaded us that the Examiner engaged in impermissible hindsight. Because Appellant has not persuaded us the Examiner erred, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claim 8. Claim 9 Appellant argues: Claim 9 depends from claim 1, and thus claim 9 is allowable over the cited references for at least the reasons set forth in claim 1. Appeal Br. 27. For similar reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claim 9. Claim 11 Appellant argues: Appeal 2020-005375 Application 15/296,443 25 Claim 11 further defines the method of claim 10, further comprising enabling the display unit to be foldable about a primary lateral axis that extends laterally relative the primary viewing region; and enabling the secondary viewing region to be foldable, relative to the primary viewing region and the user input keyboard, about a secondary lateral axis that is oriented orthogonal to the primary lateral axis and the user input keyboard. Appellant submits that a person having ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to combine the teachings of Wilk and Pfeifer. Appeal Br. 36; see also Appeal Br. 36-37. Appellant cites excerpts of Wilk and argues: There is no legitimate reason to make this particular modification of Wilk with Pfeifer. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be more legitimately motivated to make the fold at the hinge between 50 and 52 from figures 2 and 3 of Wilk, rather than attempting to modify Wilk with Pfeifer' s folding screen. Pfeifer suggests constructing the entire device from foldable sections. Also, Pfeifer does not suggest attaching a subset of the foldable sections from Pfeifer to a conventional case/keyboard. Therefore, it is respectfully submitted that Pfeifer does not provide any legitimate reason to take the asserted portions from Pfeifer and only add those portions to the system of Wilk. Appeal Br. 37. Appellant has not persuaded us of error. Appellant’s attorney arguments are unpersuasive, as Appellant does not provide sufficient objective evidence to support the arguments. See Geisler, 116 F.3d at 1470; Meitzner, 549 F.2d at 782. Further, contrary to Appellant’s argument about Pfeifer (Appeal Br. 37), “[i]f the claim extends to what is obvious, it is invalid under § 103” and “the analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the Appeal 2020-005375 Application 15/296,443 26 challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418-19. Therefore, and for similar reasons discussed above with respect to claim 10, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claim 11. Claim 12 Appellant argues: The Final Office Action concedes that combined teachings of Wilk and Pfeifer do not teach or suggest the subject matter of claim 12 that concerns the secondary viewing region and to be folded entirely outward until rear surfaces of the primary and secondary viewing regions are located proximate to one another. However, the Final Office Action asserts that Chen overcomes the deficiency of Wilk and Pfeifer, Appellant disagrees. Appeal Br. 44; see also Appeal Br. 44-47. Appellant also cites excerpts from Chen and argues: [M]odifying Wilk and Pfeifer by Chen is improper. A person having ordinary skill in the art would not think combine Chen to the other cited references. Chen’s display folds in upon itself in a completely different orientation than Wilk, the primary reference. The display of Chen gives no further functionality to Wilk, because Wilk already has multiple foldable display panels . . . . Appeal Br. 46. The motivation offered by the Final Office Action . . . that the motivation for adding Chen is to further improve image quality, as noted in paragraph 30 of Chen, is inadequate when considering that Wilk . . . already includes that “[a] multiple display device may provide a single high-resolution color display panel for viewing of digital images . . . .” Therefore, Appeal 2020-005375 Application 15/296,443 27 there is no motivation for a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Chen with Wilk and Pfeifer. Appellant submits that the Final Office Action is using improper hindsight reasoning to arrive at the subject matter of claim 12. Appeal Br. 47. Appellant has not persuaded us of error. Appellant’s arguments are similar to the arguments discussed above with respect to claims 8 and 10. Therefore, and for similar reasons discussed above with respect to claims 8 and 10, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claim 12. Claim 13 Appellant argues: Claim 13 further defines the method of claim 10, further comprising arranging the primary and secondary viewing regions in a configuration in which the primary viewing region is folded to a closed position against the main body unit, corresponding to an intermediate folded position, while the secondary viewing region remains visible; and operating the secondary viewing region in a tablet mode when in the intermediate folded position. Appeal Br. 38. There is no legitimate reason to make this particular modification of Wilk with Pfeifer. A person having ordinary skill in the art would not be more legitimately motivated to modify Wilk with Pfeifer’s folding screen. Pfeifer suggests constructing the entire device from foldable sections. Also, Pfeifer does not suggest attaching a subset of the foldable sections from Pfeifer to a conventional case/keyboard. Therefore, it is respectfully submitted that Pfeifer does not Appeal 2020-005375 Application 15/296,443 28 provide any legitimate reason to take the asserted portions from Pfeifer and only add those portions to the system of Wilk. Appeal Br. 39; see also Appeal Br. 38-39. Appellant has not persuaded us of error. Appellant’s attorney arguments are unpersuasive, as Appellant does not provide sufficient objective evidence to support the arguments. See Geisler, 116 F.3d at 1470; Meitzner, 549 F.2d at 782. Further, contrary to Appellant’s argument about Pfeifer (Appeal Br. 39), “[i]f the claim extends to what is obvious, it is invalid under § 103” and “the analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418-19. Therefore, and for similar reasons discussed above with respect to claim 10, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claim 13. Claims 14-17 Each of claims 14-17 depends from claim 10. Appellant argues that the claims are allowable for the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 10. See Appeal Br. 47-48. Therefore, for similar reasons discussed above with respect to claim 10, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 14-17. Appeal 2020-005375 Application 15/296,443 29 CONCLUSION We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1 and 3-17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 3-7, 9- 11, 13 103 Wilk, Pfeifer 1, 3-7, 9- 11, 13 8, 12, 14-17 103 Wilk, Pfeifer, Chen 8, 12, 14-17 Overall Outcome 1, 3-17 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f) (2019). AFFIRMED