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.

15/381,229 12/16/2016 Cyan Godfrey RPS920160039- 8326

US-CIP 32US2
124906 7590 07/28/2021 EXAMINER
The Small Patent Law Group LLC
DANG, HUNG Q
1423 Strassner Dr.
Suite 100
Brentwood, MO 63144 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER

2835

NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE

07/28/2021 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 CYAN GODFREY

Appeal 2021-000204
Application 15/381,229
Technology Center 2800

Before GEORGE C. BEST, SHELDON M. MCGEE, and

JANE E. INGLESE, Administrative Patent Judges.

MCGEE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant 1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–21. We have jurisdiction.
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

1
“Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant
identifies the real party in interest as Lenovo (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. Appeal
Br. 3.
Appeal 2021-000204
Application 15/381,229

CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER

The claims are directed to electronic assemblies, such as a laptop or
tablet computer, and various subassemblies contained within the electronic
assemblies. See, e.g., independent claims 1, 10, and 18; Spec. ¶¶ 3, 6, 7.
Independent claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed subject matter, and
is reproduced below with key limitations on appeal italicized:
1. An electronic apparatus comprising:
a display subassembly including display device that
visually presents information, a housing, and a connector, the
housing comprising opposite first and second edges and a display
surface extending therebetween;
a base subassembly including a housing having a
connector recess that receives the connector of the display
subassembly; and
one or more processors that control presentation of the
information on the display subassembly, at least one processor
of the one or more processors located in the base subassembly;
wherein the connector of the display subassembly is sized
to be at least partially received into the connector recess of the
base subassembly to connect the display subassembly in an
operable configuration with the base subassembly and the at least
one processor located in the base subassembly while allowing the
display subassembly to pivot relative to the base subassembly;
and
wherein a first portion of the display surface of the display
subassembly is configured to move in a direction towards the
base subassembly while a second portion of the display surface
of the display subassembly is configured to move in a direction
away from the base subassembly responsive to the display
subassembly pivoting relative to the base subassembly.
Independent claim 10 is similar to claim 1 and recites, inter alia, that
“the connector recess . . . is sized to at least partially receive the connector of
the display subassembly . . . while allowing a first portion of the display
surface of the display subassembly to pivot . . . and while allowing a second

2
Appeal 2021-000204
Application 15/381,229

portion of the display surface of the display subassembly to pivot.” Appeal

Br. 41–42 (Claims App.).
Independent claim 18 similarly requires “a connector sized to be at
least partially received into a connector recess of a base subassembly to
connect the housing . . . while allowing the display surface of the housing to
pivot about the connector relative to the base subassembly.” Id. at 43.
For each of these limitations, Appellant points to Figure 21 of the
Drawings, reproduced below, as illustrative. Appeal Br. 7–9.

Figure 21 illustrates a side view of electronic apparatus 1800, and

depicts display subassembly 1802 with top portion 2106 and bottom portion

3
Appeal 2021-000204
Application 15/381,229

2104, base assembly 1804, and connector 1930. Spec. ¶ 96. “The
connection between the connector assembly allows . . . display subassembly
1802 and the base subassembly 1804 to pivot relative to each other in
directions around or about . . . axis 1901 (shown in Figure 19) extending
along . . . connector assembly 1930.” Id.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

The Examiner rejects each of the independent claims 1, 10, and 18
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) as anticipated by Matsuda. 2 Final Act. 6–12.
The Examiner advances subsidiary rejections of the dependent claims under
35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) or § 103, relying on Matsuda alone or in combination
with other prior art. Id. at 6–18.
Relevant to this appeal, the Examiner finds that Matsuda discloses the
requirement recited in claim 1 that “the connector of the display
subassembly is sized to be at least partially received into the connector
recess of the base subassembly . . . while allowing the display subassembly
to pivot relative to the base subassembly.” Final Act. 6–7. Specifically, the
Examiner relies on Matsuda’s elements 15 and 16 to evince the claimed
“connector” and recesses 15a and 16a to evince the claimed “connector
recess.” Id. (citing Figs. 3 and 4). The Examiner makes similar findings
with respect to the “connector” and “connector recess” limitations set forth
in the other independent claims. Id. at 9–10, 12.

2
US 2013/0135352 A1; pub. May 30, 2013.
4
Appeal 2021-000204
Application 15/381,229

Matsuda’s Figure 4, which illustrates elements 15, 15a, 16, and 16a, is
reproduced below:

Matsuda’s Figure 4 illustrates a right-side perspective view of an

information processing apparatus in transition from notebook mode to tablet
mode, and depicts support member 15, groove 15a, coupling portion 16, and
groove 16a. Matsuda ¶¶ 10, 35.

OPINION
Appellant argues, inter alia, that “[w]hen the connecting portion 16 is
received in the recess 16a, the display unit 12 is unable to allow ‘the display
subassembly to pivot relative to the base subassembly’” as recited in claim

5
Appeal 2021-000204
Application 15/381,229

1. Appeal Br. 19. Appellant makes similar arguments regarding the

rejections of independent claims 10 and 18. Id. at 26, 32.
We agree with Appellant and reverse the rejections.
The Specification discloses that “[t]he connection between the
connector assembly allows the display subassembly 1802 and the base
subassembly 1804 to pivot relative to each other.” Spec. ¶ 96. This
“connection between the connector assembly 1930 and the connector
receptacle 1906 provides for a pivoting connection between the display and
base subassemblies 1802, 1804.” Id. ¶ 97 (emphasis added). Figures 27–32
illustrate various pivoting “orientations or angles at which the display
subassembly 1802 may be relative to the base subassembly 1804 while the
subassemblies 1802, 1804 are coupled with each other.” Id. ¶ 98 (emphasis
added).
Thus, consistent with the Specification, independent claims 1 and 10
require the display subassembly to be able to pivot relative to the base
subassembly when the connector is coupled to (i.e., “at least partially
received into”) the connector recess. Similarly, independent claim 18
requires “allowing the display surface of the housing to pivot about the
connector relative to the base subassembly” when the connector is received
into the connector recess.
On this appeal record, the Examiner does not explain, nor do we
discern, how Matsuda’s apparatus allows for such contemporaneous
connection and pivotability. Rather, once connectors 15 and 16 are
accommodated in grooves 15a and 16a, respectively, the computer is set in

6
 Appeal 2021-000204
Application 15/381,229

“tablet mode in which the rear surface of the display unit 12 covers the
upper surface of the base unit 11.” Matsuda ¶ 35.
For these reasons, we do not sustain the rejections.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections are reversed.

DECISION SUMMARY
Claim(s) 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
Rejected
1, 3, 4, 6– 102(a)(2) Matsuda 1, 3, 4, 6–
10, 12, 14– 10, 12, 14–
18, 21 18, 21
20 103 Matsuda 20
2, 11, 19 103 Matsuda, Myung 2, 11, 19

5, 13 103 Matsuda, Wang 5, 13

Overall 1–21
Outcome

REVERSED