NINTENDO CO., LTD.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 5, 2020

15879180 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Oct. 5, 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.
15/879,180 01/24/2018 Shinji HIROSE SDJ-723-4594 9433
27562 7590 10/05/2020
NIXON & VANDERHYE, P.C.
901 NORTH GLEBE ROAD, 11TH FLOOR
ARLINGTON, VA 22203
EXAMINER
HENZE-GONGOLA, DAVID V
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2859
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/05/2020 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):
PTOMAIL@nixonvan.com
pair_nixon@firsttofile.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SHINJI HIROSE,
DAISUKE KUMAZAKI, and TAKAFUMI NISHIDA

Appeal 2019-006742
Application 15/879,180
Technology Center 2800
Before GEORGE C. BEST, BRIAN D. RANGE, and
MICHAEL G. McMANUS, Administrative Patent Judges.
RANGE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–13 and 15–28. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

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 NINTENDO
CO., LTD. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2019-006742
Application 15/879,180

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER2
Appellant describes the invention as relating to a charger and charge
system for charging an electronic device placed on a pedestal. Spec. 1:9–10.
Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A charger that charges an electronic device that includes
a first electrical connector with a first electrical contact, a first
fitting portion offset from a first surface, and a second fitting
portion offset from a second surface different from the first
surface, the charger comprising:
a third fitting portion configured to fit within the first
fitting portion, the third fitting portion being non-conductive;
a fourth fitting portion configured to fit within the second
fitting portion simultaneously with the third fitting portion
being fit within the first fitting portion, the fourth fitting portion
being non-conductive;
a second electrical connector, with a second electrical
contact, configured to be electrically connected to the first
electrical connector of the electronic device simultaneously
with the fourth fitting portion being fitted to the second fitting
portion; and
a placement portion that includes the third fitting portion,
the fourth fitting portion and the second electrical connector,
and the placement portion is configured to receive the
electronic device and hold the electronic device in a
predetermined orientation, wherein
the first electrical connector and the second electrical
connector are configured to engage in an engaging direction;
the third fitting portion is configured to partially fit
within the first fitting portion due to movement of the charger

2 In this Decision, we refer to the Non-Final Office Action dated January 22,
2019 (“Non-Final Act.”), the Appeal Brief filed June 11, 2019 (“Appeal
Br.”), the Examiner’s Answer dated July 16, 2019 (“Ans.”), and the Reply
Brief filed September 13, 2019 (“Reply Br.”).
Appeal 2019-006742
Application 15/879,180

3
and the electronic device towards each other along the engaging
direction before the first electrical connector and the second
electrical connector are electrically connected; and
the third fitting portion roughly aligns the first electrical
connector with the second electrical connector and the fourth
fitting portion aligns the first electrical connector with the
second electrical connector more precisely than the third fitting
portion.
Appeal Br. 15 (Claims App.).
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies upon the prior art below in rejecting the claims
on appeal:
Name Reference Date
Léman et al.
(“Léman”) US 5,229,701 July 20, 1993
Shindo et al.
(“Shindo”) US 2015/0362953 A1 Dec. 17, 2015
REJECTION
The Examiner maintains (Ans. 3) the following rejection on appeal:
Claims 1–13 and 15–28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Shindo in
view of Léman. Non-Final Act. 5.
OPINION
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellant and in light of the arguments and evidence produced
thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential),
cited with approval in In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[I]t
has long been the Board’s practice to require an applicant to identify the
Appeal 2019-006742
Application 15/879,180

4
alleged error in the examiner’s rejections.”). After considering the evidence
presented in this Appeal and each of Appellant’s arguments, we are not
persuaded that Appellant identifies reversible error. Thus, we affirm the
Examiner’s rejections for the reasons expressed in the Final Office Action
and the Answer. We add the following primarily for emphasis.
Appellant argues all claims as a group. See Appeal Br. 8–14.
Therefore, consistent with the provisions of 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv)
(2013), we limit our discussion to claim 1, and all other claims on appeal
stand or fall together with claim 1.
The Examiner finds that Shindo teaches a charger that charges an
electronic device having most of the structure of claim 1. Non-Final Act. 5–
8 (citing Shindo). The Examiner finds that Shindo does not teach that the
first fitting portion is offset from the first surface and does not teach that the
third fitting portion fits within the first fitting portion. Id. at 8. The Examiner
finds, however, that Léman teaches a portable electronic device and
charging stand comprising a first fitting portion offset from the first surface
and the third fitting portion fits within the first fitting portion. Id. (citing
Léman). The Examiner determines that it would have been obvious to
modify Shindo to include Léman’s offset first fitting portion and Léman’s
third fitting portion “for the purpose of properly aligning the device to be
charged with the charging contacts.” Id.
Appellant first argues that Shindo does not disclose or suggest “a third
fitting portion configured to fit within the first fitting portion” according to
claim 1. Appeal Br. 8. The Appellant and the Examiner dispute whether or
not the lower back of Shindo’s device is a “fitting portion” within the
meaning of claim 1 and whether, relatedly, Shindo would have a
Appeal 2019-006742
Application 15/879,180

5
corresponding third fitting portion as claim 1 recites. Appeal Br. 8–10; Ans.
5–6; Reply Br. 1–4. This dispute is not important to the rejection at hand.
The Examiner relies on Léman rather than Shindo to reach claim 1’s recited
“third fitting portion configured to fit within the first fitting portion.” Non-
Final Act. 8; Ans. 6–7. Appellant does not persuasively dispute that Léman
teaches such a fitting portion. Appellant’s argument is, therefore,
unpersuasive of error.
Appellant also presents two arguments why the Examiner’s stated
rationale for combining the teachings of Shindo and Léman is unreasonable.
Appeal Br. 10–13; Reply Br. 4–5. First, Appellant argues that there is no
reason to add Léman’s features to achieve alignment into Shindo because
Shindo already includes features to provide proper alignment. Id. at 10–11
(quoting Shindo ¶ 8). The Examiner, however, determines that a person of
skill in the art would have combined Léman’s protrusion 5 and groove 6 to
improve Shindo’s alignment “including guiding and maintenance in an
alternative dimension (laterally).” Ans. 8. Also, Léman’s structure would
“prevent the equipment from falling and the electric contacts from
disengaging even if the equipment or the charger should be tilted.” Id.
(quoting Léman 2:29–34).
The Examiner’s position is supported by the preponderance of the
evidence. Léman’s structure allows proper alignment when inserting the
device because its alignment grooves extend from the bottom of the charger
upwards to the first insertion point. See, e.g., Léman Fig. 1, 2:29–34. These
alignment grooves would also, as the Examiner finds, prevent the device
from falling out of the charger if the charger is tipped. Id.; Ans. 8.
Appeal 2019-006742
Application 15/879,180

6
Second, Appellant argues that combining Léman’s alignment structure
into Shindo would introduce misalignment due to locational tolerances (i.e.,
errors) in manufacture. Appeal Br. 11–13; Reply Br. 5–6. The Examiner,
however, determines that additional manufacturing tolerance considerations
might be a worthy sacrifice given the Léman structure’s additional benefits.
Ans. 9–10. Moreover, Shindo’s deformable electrodes (Shindo Fig. 6B,
¶ 70) would have helped compensate slight locational error during
manufacture. We agree with the Examiner that a person of skill in the art
would have weighed the advantages and disadvantages of combining the
Léman structure with Shindo and made an appropriate judgment based on a
given application. Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1165
(Fed. Cir. 2006) (“a given course of action often has simultaneous
advantages and disadvantages, and this does not necessarily obviate
motivation to combine”). Appellant’s argument is therefore unpersuasive.
Because Appellant’s arguments do not identify error, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection.
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§ Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–13, 15–28 103 Shindo, Léman 1–13, 15–28
Appeal 2019-006742
Application 15/879,180

7
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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED