Microsoft Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 13, 2020

14303510 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 13, 2020)

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.
14/303,510 06/12/2014 Errol M. TAZBAZ 341654-US-NP 4135
69316 7590 08/13/2020
MICROSOFT CORPORATION
ONE MICROSOFT WAY
REDMOND, WA 98052
EXAMINER
CHOWDHURY, ROCKSHANA D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2841
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/13/2020 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):
chriochs@microsoft.com
usdocket@microsoft.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte ERROL M. TAZBAZ

Appeal 2019-001912
Application 14/303,510
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before ROMULO H. DELMENDO, JEFFREY T. SMITH, and
SHELDON M. MCGEE, Administrative Patent Judges.

DELMENDO, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
The Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Primary
Examiner’s final decision to reject claims 1–20.2 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—i.e., “Microsoft Corporation” (Application Data Sheet
filed June 12, 2014 at 4). The Appellant identifies “Microsoft Technology
Licensing, LLC” as the real party in interest (Appeal Brief filed August 1,
2018 (“Appeal Br.”) at 2).
2 See Appeal Br. 8–29; Reply Brief filed January 3, 2019 (“Reply Br.”) at
2–17; Final Office Action entered March 22, 2018 (“Final Act.”) at 2–16;
Examiner’s Answer entered November 5, 2018 (“Ans.”) at 3–30.
Appeal 2019-001912
Application 14/303,510

2
I. BACKGROUND
The subject matter on appeal relates to a computing device having a
hinge assembly that rotatably secures portions of the computing device
while protecting the device’s flexible display from damage (Specification
filed June 12, 2014 (“Spec.”) ¶ 20; Drawings filed June 12, 2014, Figs. 17–
24). Representative claim 1 is reproduced from the Claims Appendix to the
Appeal Brief, as follows:
1. A computing device, comprising:
a first portion and a second portion;
a hinge assembly comprising:
a fixed end fixedly secured to the second portion,
and
a sliding end comprising a protuberance, the sliding
end slidably secured relative to the first portion,
where the protuberance moves in a slot formed in
the first portion such that a length of the hinge
assembly changes when the hinge assembly is used
to rotate inside surfaces of the first portion and the
second portion toward one another for a storage
configuration and away from one another for a
deployed configuration, the protuberance including
a rack carrier that is retained in the slot to secure the
sliding end to the first portion; and,
a flexible display secured to the inside surfaces of the first
and second portions such that the flexible display is
folded inside the computing device and the hinge
assembly wraps around an outside of the folded
flexible display in the storage configuration.
(Appeal Br. 30 (emphases added)). Claims 14 and 18, which are the only
other independent claims on appeal, also recite a hinge assembly that is
slidably secured to a first portion of the computing device (id. at 32, 33).

Appeal 2019-001912
Application 14/303,510

3
II. REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
The claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as follows:
A. Claims 1–4, 6, 7, and 9–13 as unpatentable over van Dijk et al.3
(“van Dijk”) in view of Jeong et al.4 (“Jeong”), and further in
view of Fukuma et al.5 (“Fukuma”);
B. Claim 5 as unpatentable over van Dijk in view of Jeong, in
view of Fukuma, and further in view of Lin et al.6 (“Lin”);
C. Claim 8 as unpatentable over van Dijk in view of Jeong, in
view of Fukuma, and further in view of Shim et al.7 (“Shim”);
D. Claims 14–16 as unpatentable over Fukuma in view of Jeong;
E. Claim 17 as unpatentable over Fukuma in view of Jeong, and
further in view of van Dijk; and
F. Claims 18–20 as unpatentable over van Dijk in view of Jeong.
(Final Act. 2–16; Ans. 3–30).
III. DISCUSSION
Rejections A, B, C, & F (Claims 1–13 & 18–20). A dispositive
issue in Rejections A, B, C, and F, which rely on van Dijk as a principal
reference, is whether the Examiner’s construction of the specified “hinge
assembly” (claim 1) or “radius hinge assembly” (claim 18) comprising a
fixed end secured to a second portion of the computing device and a sliding

3 US 9,235,239 B2, issued January 12, 2016.
4 US 2010/0277860 A1, published November 4, 2010.
5 US 2010/0232100 A1, published September 16, 2010.
6 US 7,533,446 B1, issued May 19, 2009.
7 US 2011/0063783 A1, published March 17, 2011.
Appeal 2019-001912
Application 14/303,510

4
end secured to a first portion of the computing device, wherein a flexible
display is secured to the inside surfaces of the first and second portions,
reads on van Dijk’s elements 21–23 as shown in Figures 4A–4F thereof
(Final Act. 2, 14; Ans. 4–5, 26; Appeal Br. 9–10, 25–26; Reply Br. 2–4).
For the reasons given below, we concur with the Appellant that the
Examiner’s claim construction is unreasonably broad and, therefore,
constitutes reversible error. In re Smith Int’l, Inc., 871 F.3d 1375, 1382
(Fed. Cir. 2017); In re Suitco Surface, Inc., 603 F.3d 1255, 1260–61 (Fed.
Cir. 2010).
As recited in claim 1, the “hinge assembly” comprises a “fixed end
fixedly secured to [a] second portion” and a “sliding end slidably secured
relative to [a] first portion,” and “a flexible display [is] secured to the inside
surfaces of the first and second portions” (Appeal Br. 30). In other words,
the “hinge assembly” rotatably secures the device’s first and second
portions, to which a flexible display is secured to the inside surfaces thereof
(Figs. 17–24). Claim 18 recites a similar configuration (Appeal Br. 33).
The prior art reference, van Dijk, also uses the term “hinge” by
disclosing an element 13 that is connected to display supports 11, 12 for
opening and closing a flexible display (van Dijk, Fig. 4F; col. 6, ll. 1–10).
But, as the Appellant points out (Appeal Br. 9), van Dijk’s hinge 13 is a
fixed, single-axis hinge—not a hinge that is slidably secured to either
support 11 or 12 (van Dijk, Fig. 4F).
The Examiner’s position is that the “hinge assembly” recited in claim
1 is met by van Dijk’s pivot 23a (corresponding to “a fixed end”), which is
fixedly secured to display support 12 (“second portion”), and an end portion
of moveable arm 22 (“sliding end”) attached to a panel 20 (“protuberance”)
Appeal 2019-001912
Application 14/303,510

5
that slides in slot 11a, and that these elements (pivot 23a, end of moveable
arm 22, and panel 20) collectively perform the function of rotating the inside
surfaces of the display supports 11, 12 either toward or away from each
other, as required by claim 1 (Ans. 4–5; Final Act. 2–3)). Although van
Dijk’s elements 21–23 include pivots 22a and 23a that work in concert with
moveable arms 22 and 23 on both sides of the device to allow sliding
movement of panels 20 and 21 in slots 11a and 12a for additional display
support, van Dijk’s flexible display 10 has not been shown to be secured to
panels 20 and 21 in the same manner as required by the “hinge assembly”
limitations recited in claims 1 and 18 (van Dijk, col. 6, l. 61–col. 7, l. 10).
As the Appellant argues, the rotation of the display supports 11, 12 in van
Dijk is effected by hinge 13 (id. at col. 6, ll. 6–10). By contrast, van Dijk
does not identify panels 20 and 21, moveable arms 22 and 23, and pivots
22a and 23a as performing a “hinge assembly” function for rotating the
display supports 11 and 12 but rather as merely supporting the surface of
display segment 10a in the planar position as shown in Figures 4A and 4B
(id. at col. 6, l. 61–col. 7, l. 10). The Examiner does not direct us to
sufficient evidence that van Dijk’s pivot 23a, moveable arm 22, and panel
20, by themselves, would necessarily function as a “hinge assembly” in the
manner as recited in claim 1.
For these reasons, we conclude that the Examiner’s rejections of
claims 1 and 18 (and claims dependent thereon) are based on an
unreasonably broad interpretation of certain claim limitations. Therefore,
we cannot sustain Rejection A, B, C, and F.
Rejections D & E (Claims 14–17). Claim 14 recites, in relevant part,
“a radius hinge assembly comprising timed link elements and a slide, the
Appeal 2019-001912
Application 14/303,510

6
radius hinge assembly slidably secured to the first portion via the slide”
(Appeal Br. 32). Both Rejections D and E rely on at least the combination
of Fukuma, the principal prior art reference, and Jeong (Final Act. 10–13).
The Examiner acknowledges that Fukuma does not disclose a radius
assembly comprising timed link elements and a slide, wherein the radius
hinge assembly is slidably secured to a first portion via the slide (Final Act.
11–12; Ans. 20). The Examiner finds, however, that Jeong teaches a driving
unit 200 (corresponding to “radius hinge assembly”) comprising driving
force forwarding unit 210 and second pinion gear 221 (corresponding to
“timed link elements”) and a lower body 103 (corresponding to “slide”),
wherein the driving unit 200 is slidably secured to a main body 101 (“first
portion”) via the lower body 103 (“slide”) (Final Act. 12; Ans. 20–21 (citing
Jeong, Figs. 6, 9A–9C)). The Appellant disputes the Examiner’s findings
regarding Jeong (Appeal Br. 21–22; Reply Br. 12–13).
Again, we agree with the Appellant. As the Appellant argues (Appeal
Br. 21–22), Jeong’s driving unit 200, which the Examiner considers as the
“hinge assembly,” is not “slidably secured” to main body 101, which the
Examiner considers as the “first portion” (Jeong, Figs. 6, 9A–9C; ¶¶ 130–
135). In the Answer, the Examiner states that Jeong’s lower body 103 as
shown in Figures 9A–9C acts as a “slide” and that these figures show that
the driving unit 200 (“hinge assembly”) is slidably secured to main body 101
(“first portion”) via lower body 103 (“slide”) (Ans. 21–22). The problem,
however, is that what the Examiner considers as the “slide”—i.e., lower
body 103—is not part of what the Examiner considers as the “hinge
assembly”—i.e., driving unit 200, which is not slidably secured to main
body 101. To the extent that the Examiner may be interpreting the lower
Appeal 2019-001912
Application 14/303,510

7
body 103 as a “slide” that is part of an overall “radius hinge assembly,” such
an interpretation is contrary to one that would have been given by a person
having ordinary skill in the art in view of the enlightenment found in the
Specification and Drawings (Figures 17–24). Smith Int’l, 871 F.3d at 1383
(“[G]iving the [disputed] term . . . such a strained breadth in the face of the
otherwise different description in the specification was unreasonable.”).
Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 14 (and claims
dependent thereon).

IV. CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–4, 6, 7, 9–13 103 van Dijk, Jeong,
Fukuma
1–4, 6, 7, 9–13
5 103 van Dijk, Jeong,
Lin
5
8 103 van Dijk, Jeong,
Shim
8
14–16 103 Fukuma, Jeong 14–16
17 103 Fukuma, Jeong, van
Dijk
17
18–20 103 Van Dijk, Jeong 18–20
Overall
Outcome
1–20

REVERSED