Application No. 16/140,300
`
`Attorney Docket No. P31139USC2
`
`REMARKS
`
`This responds to the Office Action dated 19 December 2018. Claims 1, 5, 8 and
`
`14 are currently amended. No new claims have been added. The amendments are
`
`supported throughout the specification, drawings and original claims of the application,
`
`such as, for example, paragraphs 49, 59, 117—125, 130, 138—144, 156 and 157 of the
`
`specification and figures 13—19 and 27A—30B and their related descriptions in the
`
`specification. No new matter has been added. Claim 12 is canceled. Thus, claims 1—11
`
`and 13—20 are currently pending. Applicant respectfully requests reconsideration of the
`
`application in view of the foregoing amendments and following remarks.
`
`Claim Re'ections — 35 U.S.C.
`
`102
`
`Claims 1 and 3—7 stand rejected under pre—AIA 35 U.S.C. §102(b) as allegedly
`
`being anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 7,842,895 to Lee. Claims 8—9 and 11 stand rejected
`
`under Section 102 as allegedly being anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 8,581,127 to Jhuang.
`
`Applicant respectfully traverses these rejections.
`
`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
`
`Brothers v. Union Oil Co. of California, 2 USPQ2d 1051, 1053 (Fed. Cir. 1987). The
`
`identical invention must be shown in as complete detail as is contained in the claim.
`
`Richardson v. Suzuki Motor Co., 9 USPQ2d 1913, 1920 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
`
`Unless a single prior art reference describes “all of the limitations claimed” and
`
`“all of the limitations arranged or combined in the same way as recited in the claim, it
`
`cannot be said to prove prior invention of the thing claimed and, thus, cannot anticipate
`
`4811—7317—9273\1
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No. P31139USC2
`
`REMARKS
`
`This responds to the Office Action dated 19 December 2018. Claims 1, 5, 8 and
`
`14 are currently amended. No new claims have been added. The amendments are
`
`supported throughout the specification, drawings and original claims of the application,
`
`such as, for example, paragraphs 49, 59, 117—125, 130, 138—144, 156 and 157 of the
`
`specification and figures 13—19 and 27A—30B and their related descriptions in the
`
`specification. No new matter has been added. Claim 12 is canceled. Thus, claims 1—11
`
`and 13—20 are currently pending. Applicant respectfully requests reconsideration of the
`
`application in view of the foregoing amendments and following remarks.
`
`Claim Re'ections — 35 U.S.C.
`
`102
`
`Claims 1 and 3—7 stand rejected under pre—AIA 35 U.S.C. §102(b) as allegedly
`
`being anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 7,842,895 to Lee. Claims 8—9 and 11 stand rejected
`
`under Section 102 as allegedly being anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 8,581,127 to Jhuang.
`
`Applicant respectfully traverses these rejections.
`
`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
`
`Brothers v. Union Oil Co. of California, 2 USPQ2d 1051, 1053 (Fed. Cir. 1987). The
`
`identical invention must be shown in as complete detail as is contained in the claim.
`
`Richardson v. Suzuki Motor Co., 9 USPQ2d 1913, 1920 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
`
`Unless a single prior art reference describes “all of the limitations claimed” and
`
`“all of the limitations arranged or combined in the same way as recited in the claim, it
`
`cannot be said to prove prior invention of the thing claimed and, thus, cannot anticipate
`
`4811—7317—9273\1
`
`
`
`Application No. 16/140,300
`
`Attorney Docket No. P31139USC2
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 102.” Net MoneyIN Inc. v. VeriSign Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2008). A single prior art reference must “clearly and unequivocally” describe the
`
`claimed invention “without any need for picking, choosing, and combining various
`
`disclosures not directly related to each other by the teachings of the cited reference.” Id.
`
`(citing In re Arkley, 455 F.2d 586, 587 (C.C.P.A. 1972)).
`
`Claim 1 as amended recites, inter alia, “wherein a hinge of the pair of hinges
`
`extends into an opening of the set of openings when the keycap is in an unactuated state
`
`and wherein a retention clip of the set of retention clips extends into another opening of
`
`the set of openings when the keycap is in an actuated state.”
`
`The Lee reference does not describe the above limitations of claim 1. A hinge of
`
`the alleged pair of hinges of Lee (alleged by the Examiner to include oblique bearing
`
`portions 323, locating notches 3331, and chamfered edges 3333) does not extend “into an
`
`opening of the set of openings [in the substrate] when the keycap is in an unactuated
`
`state,” as recited in claim 1.
`
`Instead,
`
`the oblique bearing portions 323 of Lee are
`
`respectively received by the locating notches 3331 and chamfered edges 3333 above the
`
`alleged substrate (circuit board 11). As illustrated in FIG. 5 below, the first link 32 is
`
`coupled to the second link 33. This coupling is positioned well above the circuit board
`
`11 prior to a user pressing the keycap 2. Moreover, the circuit board 11 of Lee does not
`
`comprise any openings. Lee does not, therefore, describe “wherein a hinge of the pair of
`
`hinges extends into an opening of the set of openings when the keycap is in an unactuated
`
`state,” as recited in claim 1.
`
`4811—7317—9273\1
`
`
`
`Application No. 16/140,300
`
`Attorney Docket No. P31139USC2
`
`
`
`Fififi'
`
`FIG. 5 of Lee
`
`6
`
`Lee also does not describe ‘wherein a retention clip of the set of retention clips
`
`extends into another opening of the set of openings [in the substrate] when the keycap is
`
`in an actuated state,” as recited in claim 1.
`
`Instead,
`
`the Lee reference utilizes a
`
`positioning board 31 positioned above the circuit board 11 which would prevent any
`
`element of the keycap 2 from contacting the circuit board 11 (see FIG. 5 above).
`
`Moreover, as discussed above,
`
`the circuit board 11 of Lee does not comprise any
`
`openings. The Lee reference does not, therefore, describe “wherein a retention clip of
`
`the set of retention clips extends into another opening of the set of openings when the
`
`keycap is in an actuated state,” as recited in claim 1. Therefore, the Lee reference does
`
`not describe the above—indicated limitations of claim 1.
`
`Claim 8 as amended recites, inter alia, “a pair of wings joined by a living hinge,
`
`the pair of wings being pivotable relative to each other about a pivot axis extending
`
`through the living hinge.”
`
`The Jhuang reference does not teach or suggest the above limitations of claim 8.
`
`The alleged pair of wings (scissors—type connecting member 21) of Jhuang are not “a pair
`
`4811—7317—9273\1
`
`9
`
`
`
`Application No. 16/140,300
`
`Attorney Docket No. P31139USC2
`
`of wings joined by a living hinge, the pair of wings being pivotable relative to each other
`
`about a pivot axis extending through the living hinge,” as recited in claim 8. Instead, the
`
`scissors—type connecting member 21 of Jhuang appears to be connected by some kind of
`
`interlocking protrusion (see FIG. 5 of Jhuang). Outside of the connection depicted in
`
`FIG. 5, Jhuang does not appear to describe the pivoting mechanism associated with the
`
`scissors—type connecting member 21.
`
`Indeed, Applicant fails find a single reference to
`
`this means of connection within Jhuang’s specification. Therefore, the Jhuang reference
`
`does not describe the above—indicated limitations of claim 8.
`
`For at least these reasons, the cited references do not describe every limitation of
`
`the rejected claims. Applicant therefore respectfully requests withdrawal of the section
`
`102 rejection of claims 1 and 8 and any claims dependent upon them.
`
`Claim Re'ections — 35 U.S.C.
`
`103
`
`Claims 14—20 stand rejected under Section 103 as allegedly being unpatentable
`
`over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2013/0334021 to Lan in view of U.S. Patent Publication
`
`No. 2015/0179358 to Nakatani. Applicant respectfully traverses these rejections.
`
`To establish a prima facie case of obviousness, the prior art reference itself (or
`
`references when combined) or “the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art would [have] employ[ed]” at the time of the invention must teach or
`
`suggest all of the claim elements. K.S.R. Intern. Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418,
`
`82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385 (2007); see also M.P.E.P. § 2143.03. Additionally, the Examiner
`
`must determine whether there is “an apparent reason to combine the known elements in
`
`the fashion claimed by the patent at issue.” Id.
`
`“[A] patent composed of several
`
`4811—7317—9273\1
`
`10
`
`
`
`Application No. 16/140,300
`
`Attorney Docket No. P31139USC2
`
`elements is not proved obvious merely by demonstrating that each of its elements was,
`
`independently, known in the prior art.” Id. Further, rejections on obviousness grounds
`
`“cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements;
`
`instead,
`
`there must be some
`
`articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
`
`obviousness.” Id. (quoting In re Kahn, 441, F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).
`
`To establish a prima facie case of obviousness there must be a reasonable
`
`expectation of success.
`
`In re Merck & C0., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1986). Furthermore,
`
`the reason that would have prompted the combination and the
`
`reasonable expectation of success must be found in the prior art, common knowledge, or
`
`the nature of the problem itself, and not based on the Applicant’s disclosure. DyStar
`
`Textilfarben GmbH & C0. Deutschland KG v. C. H. Patrick C0,, 464 F.3d 1356, 1367
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2006); MPEP § 2144. Underlying the obvious determination is the fact that
`
`hindsight cannot be used. K.S.R., 550 U.S. at 421; DyStar, 464 F.3d at 1367.
`
`Claim 14 as amended recites, inter alia, “a set of mechanical supports operably
`
`coupled to the base plate, the set of mechanical supports positioned between the base
`
`plate and the set of keycaps, each mechanical support of the set of mechanical supports
`
`including: a pair of wings joined by a hinge, the pair of wings being pivotable relative to
`
`each other about a pivot axis extending through the hinge; wherein the pair of wings is
`
`movable between an unactuated position and an actuated position,
`
`the hinge being
`
`positioned in an opening of the set of openings when the pair of wings is in the unactuated
`
`position.”
`
`The Lan and Nakatani references, viewed either alone or in combination, fail to
`
`teach or suggest
`
`the above—indicated limitations of claim 14.
`
`The alleged set of
`
`4811—7317—9273\1
`
`11
`
`
`
`Application No. 16/140,300
`
`Attorney Docket No. P31139USC2
`
`mechanical supports (scissors structure 6) of the Lan reference are not
`
`a set of
`
`6L
`
`mechanical supports operably coupled to the base plate [and] positioned between the base
`
`plate and the set of keycaps,” as recited in claim 14.
`
`Indeed, the scissors structure 6 of
`
`Lan is not operably coupled to the alleged base plate (limit board 2). Instead, the scissors
`
`structure 6 of Lan is movably mounted to a base board 3, which does not include the set
`
`of openings recited in claim 14. See para [0030] of Lan.
`
`The Examiner asserts that the limit board 2 teaches or suggests the base plate of
`
`claim 14 (see Office Action p. 7), however, the Lan reference states, “[t]he limit board 2
`
`is provided with a plurality of openings 22 corresponding to the keycaps 7
`
`[t]he
`
`keycaps 7 pass through the openings 22” and “[t]he limit board 2 covers the locking parts
`
`73” (see para. [0031]). Hence, the limit board 2 is described as a casing or enclosure for
`
`the keycaps 7, not an alleged base plate, as asserted by the Examiner (see Office Action
`
`p. 7). Regardless,
`
`the Lan reference still fails to teach or suggest that the scissors
`
`structure 6 is operably coupled to the limit board 2 and therefore does not teach or suggest
`
`the above—indicated limitation of claim 14.
`
`The Nakatani
`
`reference does not overcome the deficiencies of Lan.
`
`The
`
`combination of the housing of Nakatani and the limit board 2 of Lan nevertheless fails to
`
`teach or suggest the limitations of claim 14 because Lan does not teach or suggest that
`
`the scissors structure 6 is operably coupled to the limit board 2. Incorporating the alleged
`
`housing of Nakatani with the limit board 2 of Lan as proposed by the Examiner still fails
`
`to teach or suggest that the scissors structure 6 is operably coupled to the limit board 2
`
`(which is asserted by the Examiner to read on the base plate of claim 14). Therefore, the
`
`4811—7317—9273\1
`
`12
`
`
`
`Application No. 16/140,300
`
`Attorney Docket No. P31139USC2
`
`Lan and Nakatani references, viewed either alone or in any combination, do not teach or
`
`suggest the above—indicated limitations of claim 14.
`
`For at least these reasons,
`
`the cited references do not teach or suggest every
`
`limitation of the rejected claims. Applicant therefore respectfully requests withdrawal of
`
`the section 103 rejection of claim 14 and any claims dependent upon them.
`
`Claim 2 stands rejected under pre—AIA 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as allegedly being
`
`unpatentable over Lee in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2014/0375141 to Nakajima.
`
`Claim 10 stands rejected under Section 103 as allegedly being unpatentable over Jhuang.
`
`Claim 12 stands rejected under Section 103 as allegedly being unpatentable over Jhuang
`
`in view of Nakajima.
`
`As explained above, independent claims 1 and 8 are allowable over the prior art
`
`of record. Claims 2, 10 and 12 depend from claims 1 and 8, respectively, and therefore
`
`should also be allowed at least for the reason that they depend from an allowable base
`
`claim. Furthermore, the Nakajima reference fails to provide any teaching or suggestion
`
`that would overcome the deficiencies of Lee and Jhuang discussed above with respect to
`
`claims 1 and 8. Applicant therefore respectfully requests withdrawal of the section 103
`
`rejection of claims 2, 10 and 12.
`
`Conclusion
`
`For at least the foregoing reasons, Applicant believes that each of the presently
`
`pending claims in this application is in immediate condition for allowance. Accordingly,
`
`Applicant respectfully requests a favorable action on the merits. If the Examiner has any
`
`4811—7317—9273\1
`
`13
`
`
`
`Application No. 16/140,300
`
`Attorney Docket No. P31139USC2
`
`further comments or suggestions, Applicant
`
`invites the Examiner
`
`to contact
`
`the
`
`undersigned attorney to expedite the handling of this matter.
`
`Applicant expressly disclaims all arguments, representations, and/or amendments
`
`presented or contained in any other patent or patent application, including any patents or
`
`patent applications claimed for priority purposes by the present application or any patents
`
`or patent applications that claim priority to this patent application. Moreover, all
`
`arguments, representations, and/or amendments presented or contained in the present
`
`patent application are only applicable to the present patent application and should not be
`
`considered when evaluating any other patent or patent application.
`
`The Commissioner is hereby authorized to charge any additional fees which may
`
`be required for this application, or credit any overpayment,
`
`to Deposit Account No.
`
`506181.
`
`If any extensions of time are needed for timely acceptance of these documents,
`
`such an extension is hereby requested and payment of any such extension fees is
`
`authorized from Deposit Account No. 506181.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP
`
`Customer No. 145730
`
`Date:
`
`15 March 2019
`
`/L. Grant Foster/
`
`L. Grant Foster
`
`Registration No. 33,236
`111 South Main Street, Suite 2100
`
`Salt Lake City, UT 84111
`Tel:
`(801) 933—4077
`
`4811—7317—9273\1
`
`14
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
