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.
90/019,269 10/10/2023 10327524 G1225US00 9972
148826 7590 07/29/2025
FisherBroyles LLP - C Mueller
Craig W. Mueller
10162 E. 29th Ave.
Denver, CO 80238
EXAMINER
KASZTEJNA, MATTHEW JOHN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3993
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/29/2025 PAPER
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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
1
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
——————
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
——————
Ex parte CRADL, LTD.
Patent Owner and Appellant
——————
Appeal 2025-000827
Reexamination Control 90/019,269 Patent 10,327,524 B21
Technology Center 3900 ——————
Before JEFFREY B. ROBERTSON, DANIEL S. SONG, and JILL D. HILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
SONG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 134(a) and 306, Patent Owner (Appellant)2 appeals from the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-50. See Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
2
Appeal 2025-000827 Reexamination Control 90/019,269 Patent 10,327,524 B2
2
We affirm in part.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a protective case for a portable electronic device. Claim 1, reproduced below, illustrates the claimed subject matter:
1. A case for an electronic device, comprising:
a first panel, two short edge panels each having matching heights, and two long edge panels each having matching heights different than the heights of the two short edge panels, wherein the two long edge panels have a length greater than the two short edge panels, and wherein the two short edge panels and two long edge panels extend from the first panel;
each of the two short edge panels have a first height and each of the two long edge panels have a second height, wherein the second height is less than the first height; an edge corner located at each intersection of the short and long edge panels, wherein the edge corners have a third height and include transitions to the second height of the long edge panels, and wherein the maximum height of each of the transitions is not greater than the third height of the edge corners and the minimum height of each of the transitions is not less than the second height of the long edge panels;
wherein the two short edge panels have only one height that continuously spans the entire distance between the corners; and
and [sic] wherein the two long edge panels have only one height that continuously spans the entire distance between the transitions of the edge corners.
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies on the following references to reject the claims:
Name Reference Date
Goradesky US D685,361 S July 2, 2013 Poon US 2015/0264822 A1 Sept. 17, 2015 KR '406 (as translated) KR 300719406 S Dec. 09, 2013
3
Appeal 2025-000827 Reexamination Control 90/019,269 Patent 10,327,524 B2
3
REJECTIONS
The Examiner maintains the following rejections:
Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis
1-5, 7-9, 12-14, 17-19, 22-25, 28, 30- 36, 38-41, 43-49
102(a)(1) KR '406
1-5, 7-9, 12-14, 17-19, 22-25, 28, 30- 36, 38-41, 43-49
103 KR '406, Goradesky
6, 10, 11, 15, 16, 20, 21, 26, 27, 29, 37,
42, 50
103 KR '406, Goradesky, Poon
OPINION
Anticipation--Claims 1-5, 7-9, 12-14, 17-19, 22-25, 28, 30-36, 38-41, and 43-49 (KR '406)
In rejecting claims 1-5, 7-9, 12-14, 17-19, 22-25, 28, 30-36, 38-41, and 43-49 as being anticipated, the Examiner finds that KR '406 discloses the limitation "the two long edge panels have only one height that continuously spans the entire distance between the transitions of the edge corners" recited in independent claim 1, and discloses the limitation "the first and second side edges have a second, continuous height spanning the entire distance between the first and second transitions" recited in dependent claim 28. Final Act. 4-5. In that regard, the Examiner explains that "[t]he two short edge/upper and lower panels have a first height which is greater than the second height of the two long/side edge panels. It appears from the drawings of KR '406 that the first and second heights have a single continuous height spanning between corners/transitions of each side." Final Act. 5 (referring to the figures of KR '406 that show a front view, a side view, a rear perspective view, and a top view). The Examiner also finds that
4
Appeal 2025-000827 Reexamination Control 90/019,269 Patent 10,327,524 B2
4
KR '406 discloses the limitation of claims 36 and 41, which ultimately depend from claim 28 and recite "first and second side edges do not have any other change in height other than the transitions to the second height."
Final Act. 4-5.
The Examiner's rejection refers to the figures of KR '406 showing the front view, side view, rear perspective view, and top view, which are reproduced below.
5
Appeal 2025-000827 Reexamination Control 90/019,269 Patent 10,327,524 B2
5
The figures reproduced above include a front view, a side view, a rear perspective view, and a top view of the case disclosed by KR '406, which are referenced by the Examiner.
Appellant disagrees with the Examiner's findings and argues that:
KR [']406 does not have "two long edge panels" - nor does KR [']406 have "two long edge panels hav[ing] a length greater than the two short edge panels" or "two long edge panels hav[ing] only one height that continuously spans the entire distance between the transitions," as claimed. Indeed, the case shown in KR [']406 does not have any side panels.
Appeal Br. 10.
In short, Appellant argues that "despite the absence of long side edge panels, KR [']406 does not have 'only one height' or 'continuous' height
6
Appeal 2025-000827 Reexamination Control 90/019,269 Patent 10,327,524 B2
6
along the lond [sic, long] side edges as required by Claim 1." Appeal Br. 12-13.
Appellant's initial contention is that there is no height to side edges in the above shown case of KR '406, but the preponderance of the evidence before us favors the Examiner.
Initially, it is worth noting that Appellant's contentions regarding drawings used as prior art are unavailing. As Appellant acknowledges,
"drawings in a foreign reference (as in KR [']406) must be evaluated for what they reasonably disclose and suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art."
Appeal Br. 11 (citing In re Aslanian, 590 F.2d 911 (CCPA 1979)). The Examiner relies on the drawings in KR '406 for relative dimensions and to compare a height of one part to another, namely, that of the side edges and their height relative to the height of the upper and lower edges. Final Act. 5. Here, the drawings reasonably disclose the relative heights relied on by the Examiner.
The other figures from KR '406, including a perspective rear view of the case reproduced below, further support the Examiner's position.
7
Appeal 2025-000827 Reexamination Control 90/019,269 Patent 10,327,524 B2
7
The figure reproduced above is a perspective rear view of the case from KR '406. The openings at the back of the case illustrate the relative thickness of the panel of the case, which can be compared to the height of its side edge panels. The opening at the top (also shown in the annotated first through fourth figures reproduced above) further supports the Examiner's position that KR '406 discloses side panels.
Appellant additionally contends:
The word "panel" is commonly understood to mean "1. A flat, usually rectangular piece forming a raised, recessed, or framed part of the surface in which it is set." See The Am. Heritage Dictionary, 3rd ed., 1994 (emphasis in original). This
8
Appeal 2025-000827 Reexamination Control 90/019,269 Patent 10,327,524 B2
8
definition is reinforced in the instant U.S. Patent No. 10,327,524 (the "[']524 Patent") wherein "enveloping edges 124 . . . substantially surround or envelop the turned edges 110 of the inner layer 102. The edges 124 also envelope at least a portion of the smartphone."
Appeal Br. 12. Based on this alleged requirement, Appellant contends that
"[r]ather than having two long edge panels (about the long sides of the case), KR [']406 merely has a curved back panel." Id. at 11.
We do not agree that the term "panel" should be construed so narrowly. Initially, we note that whereas Appellant alleges the term "panel"
requires "[a] flat, usually rectangular piece," Appellant, itself, undercuts this position and characterizes KR '406 as having a "curved back panel."
Appeal Br. 11 (emphasis added), 12. Appellant directs us to nothing in the Specification mandating such a narrow reading of "panel." Nor does Appellant offer any explanation as to why one skilled in the art would understand "panel" to have such a narrow meaning. Rather, Appellant simply provides a self-serving dictionary definition.
Further, we note that Appellant's Specification does not use the term
"panel." But in the Appeal Brief's Summary of Claimed Subject Matter, Appellant identifies "first panel (124, FIG. 1A)" with "each of the two short edge panels have a first height (H, FIG. IF) and each of the two long edge panels have a second height (h, FIG. IF)." Appeal Br. 5. And contrary to the provided definition, the edge panels of Appellant's disclosed protective case are not flat, as seen in Figures 1A and 1E-1H, reproduced below.
9
Appeal 2025-000827 Reexamination Control 90/019,269 Patent 10,327,524 B2
9
Figure 1A, above, is a perspective view of Appellant's protective case.
10
Appeal 2025-000827 Reexamination Control 90/019,269 Patent 10,327,524 B2
10
Figure 1E, above (left figure), is a first side view of the protective case from Figure 1A, and Figure 1F, above (right figure), is a second side view of the protective case from Figure 1A.
11
Appeal 2025-000827 Reexamination Control 90/019,269 Patent 10,327,524 B2
11
Figure 1G, above (upper figure), is a first end view of the protective case from Figure 1A, and Figure 1H, above (lower figure), is a second end view of the protective case from Figure 1A. Figures 1G and 1H, reproduced above, include our annotations (including a rectangular box around a portion of the case) denoting the region that corresponds to the side edge panel regions having height "h" shown in Figure 1F. That region of the edge panels has a curved/angled profile relative to the back of the case. As seen in Figure 1F above, heights "H" and "h" represent heights of different portions of the side edge panels on Appellant's protective case. And as seen in Figures 1A and 1E-H, those side edge panels defined by heights "H" and "h" do not meet the definition of "panel" asserted by Appellant because they are not flat rectangular panels. For at least these reasons, Appellant's contentions disputing the Examiner's findings based on its alleged meaning of "panel" do not identify Examiner error.
12
Appeal 2025-000827 Reexamination Control 90/019,269 Patent 10,327,524 B2
12
Appellant also alleges that "[t]he case of KR [']406 is designed to operate by snapping a phone between the top and bottom edges, which grip the phone at its top and bottom edges." Appeal Br. 12 (citing Declaration of Ms. Elizabeth Joy Dining ("Dining Decl."), ¶ 14). Appeal Br. 12. It is unclear what Appellant is attempting to convey with this allegation relative to the anticipation rejection of claim 1. Moreover, we note that the declaration cited by Appellant is from the inventor, Elizabeth Joy Dining, and the cited paragraph of that declaration appears to address an obviousness combination. That cited portion of the declaration also appears to be based on a commercial product alleged to be based on the KR '406 disclosure. Nevertheless, the rejection is based on what is disclosed in KR '406, itself, rather than a commercial product allegedly related to that disclosure. For at least these reasons, Appellant's contention that the case in KR '406 lacks side panels does not identify Examiner error. As to independent claim 1, Appellant further argues that KR '406 does not disclose that the two long edge panels "have only one height that continuously spans the entire distance between the transitions of the edge corners" as required because "the curvature of the back panel causes the profile between the raised corners to be arcuate in shape." Appeal Br. 12. As noted above, the Examiner stated that "[i]t appears from the drawings of KR [']406 that the first and second heights have a single continuous height spanning between corners/transitions of each side." Final Act. 5. In response to Appellant's argument, the Examiner again refers to the figures of KR '406 to find that its side edge panels have only one height. Ans. 5-6. However, it is evident from examination of the figures of KR '406 that these figures are insufficient to clearly establish that the side edge
13
Appeal 2025-000827 Reexamination Control 90/019,269 Patent 10,327,524 B2
13
panels have "only one height" as required by claim 1. KR '406 Figs. Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner's anticipation rejection of independent claim 1, and of claims 2-5, 7-9, 12-14, 17-19, and 22-25 that ultimately depend from claim 1.
Appellant further argues that as to independent claim 28 and dependent claims 36, and 41, "KR [']406 does not disclose: 'plurality of turned edges comprising upper and lower edges and a first and a second side edges' or 'wherein the first and second side edges have a second, continuous height spanning the entire distance between the first and second transitions'" as required. Appeal Br. 13. According to Appellant, "[w]hile the language in these claims is not identical, the Patentee submits that the equivalent elements of Claims 28, 36 and 41 are not shown by KR [']406."
Appeal Br. 13.
We are not persuaded by Appellant's argument with respect to independent claim 28. Unlike claim 1, claim 28 is broader in that it does not require a single height for the side edge panels. Appellant's reiteration of its contentions that KR '406 allegedly has no side edge panels is unpersuasive for the reasons explained above. In addition, the second height of the first and second side edge panels in the case of KR '406 is continuous from the first to the second transition because it is non-zero along that extent. In its argument, Appellant appears to improperly interpret claim 28 as requiring a single height for the side edge panels. In that regard, we observe that both claims 36 and 41 ultimately depend from claim 28, and both of these claims recite "wherein the first and second side edges do not have any other change in height other than the transitions to the second height." In other words, both claims 36 and 41 require the first and second side edges to have only
14
Appeal 2025-000827 Reexamination Control 90/019,269 Patent 10,327,524 B2
14
one height. Indeed, Appellant has argued that claims 36 and 41 recite
"equivalent elements" as claim 1. Appeal Br. 13. Thus, in accordance with the doctrine of claim differentiation, claim 28 should be interpreted to be broader so as to not require the first and second side edges to have only one height. Nazomi Commc'ns, Inc. v. Arm Holdings, PLC., 403 F.3d 1364, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ("[C]laim differentiation normally means that limitations stated in dependent claims are not to be read into the independent claim from which they depend.").
Therefore, we affirm the Examiner's anticipation rejection of claims 28, 30-33, 35, 38-40, and 43-49, but reverse the rejection as to claims 36 and 41. We address Appellant's further arguments directed specifically to claim 34 below.
Dependent claim 34 recites "the first panel has a central opening with one or more bridges spanning the central opening." In rejecting claim 34, the Examiner finds that "KR '406 discloses a case for an electronic device, wherein the first panel has a central opening with one or more bridges spanning the central opening" referring to figure of KR '406 showing the rear perspective view of the case. Final Act. 7. We reproduce the annotated figure of KR '406 relied upon by the Examiner below.
15
Appeal 2025-000827 Reexamination Control 90/019,269 Patent 10,327,524 B2
15
The figure reproduced above shows the rear perspective view of the case of KR '406 including the Examiner's annotations identifying the
"Central opening" and "Bridge." Final Act. 7. The Examiner also finds that "[a]lternatively, as broadly as claimed, the camera lens openings of KR [']406 may be interpreted as being a 'central opening' with one or more bridges spanning therebetween." Ans. 13.
16
Appeal 2025-000827 Reexamination Control 90/019,269 Patent 10,327,524 B2
16
The figure reproduced above shows the front view of the case of KR '406 including the Examiner's annotations identifying the "Central opening"
and "Bridges." Ans. 13.
Referring to the figure of showing the front view, Appellant argues that there is no "central opening" where the stand is located in the case of KR '406. Appeal Br. 14. Appellant also cites to the photograph of the commercial product alleged to be based on the KR '406 disclosure in support of its contention. Appeal Br. 15 (citing Dining Decl. ¶ 11). We are not persuaded by Appellant's argument. As the Examiner explained, "KR [']406 illustrates a central opening into which a bridge element is configured to slide, from a flat position into a folded position, allowing the phone/case to 'stand' on one long edge panel." Final Act. 12. Appellant does not persuasively establish why there is no "opening." As further explained by the Examiner, "[i]f there was no opening as argued by the Applicant, the 'bridge' element would not be able to lay in a flat configuration as illustrated in KR [']406." Final Act. 13. In addition, Appellant does not address the Examiner's alternative finding that the camera lens openings of KR '406 can be considered an opening with two bridges spanning therein, the opening being a through hole. Therefore, we affirm the rejection of dependent claim 34 as well.
In summary, we reverse the Examiner's anticipation rejection as to claims 1-5, 7-9, 12-14, 17-19, 22-25, 36, and 41, and affirm this rejection as to claims 28, 30-35, 38-40, and 43-49.
17
Appeal 2025-000827 Reexamination Control 90/019,269 Patent 10,327,524 B2
17
Obviousness--Claims 1-5, 7-9, 12-14, 17-19, 22-25, 28, 30-36, 38-41, and 43-49 (KR '406, Goradesky)
The Examiner alternatively rejects the same claims discussed above relative to the anticipation rejection as being obvious over the combination of KR '406 and Goradesky, concluding that "it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the side edges of the case whatever form or shape was desired or expedient." Final Act. 5. In support, the Examiner finds that Goradesky is evidence that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a phone case with "two long/side edge panels each having only one height that continuously spans along the length thereof between corners/transitions of each side." Final Act. 5-6 (citing Goradesky Figs. 5, 6; citing In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669 (CCPA 1966)). Appellant argues that "Goradesky teaches away from the invention of Claim 1" and that a person of ordinary skill in the art "would have no motivation to combine Goradesky with KR [']406" because in contrast to KR '406, "Goradesky has a rugged design with . . . wrap-around style case"
of the type described in the '524 Patent. Appeal Br. 15-16 (citing Dining Decl. ¶ 3). According to Appellant, "[b]ecause there is no second height on the first and second side/long edges [in Goradesky], there is no reason to incorporate the first and second side/long edges of Goradesky into KR '406." Reply Br. 2. Appellant also argues that "In re Dailey is inapplicable, at least because the heights of the two short edge panels and two long edge panels are functional, and because there is no differently shaped element equivalent to the four edge panels recited in claim 1." Appeal Br. 16. According to Appellant, the higher first height of the short edge panels
"helps prevent scratches to the display" while the reduced height of the long
18
Appeal 2025-000827 Reexamination Control 90/019,269 Patent 10,327,524 B2
18
edge panels "allows the screen to be completely accessed by the user, for finger-swiping, icon selection, and other actions" as well as be completely visible. Appeal Br. 16-17.
Appellant's arguments are unpersuasive. The assertion of teaching away is unpersuasive. An alternative arrangement is not a teaching away
"because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed." In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004); see also Meiresonne v. Google, 849 F.3d 1379, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ("[a] reference that 'merely expresses a general preference for an alternative invention but does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage investigation into' the claimed invention does not teach away."). Appellant's argued inapplicability of In re Daily based on asserted functional significance of the short and long edge panels is also unpersuasive. The features of the height differential between the short and long edge panels, and the height of the long edge panels being less than that of the short edge panels, as well as the function provided thereby, are already provided in the case of KR '406. As the Examiner explains, "[e]ven though Goradesky may teach all four side edge panels the same size, KR [']406 has already taught the first height for the upper and lower edge panels versus the second height of the first and second side panels which serve the same function as instant invention." Ans. 14. As the Examiner further explains, "Goradesky is relied upon solely as a teaching that it would be well known to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a continuous second height between transitions on side edge panels." Ans. 14. In other words, the two long edge panels having only one height as recited in claim 1 is the feature that the Examiner finds to be an obvious design choice as evidenced
19
Appeal 2025-000827 Reexamination Control 90/019,269 Patent 10,327,524 B2
19
by Goradesky. Appellant does not explain what functional significance this
"only one height" feature provides beyond the side edge panels of KR '406. Although we are not persuaded by the Examiner's finding that having only one height for the long edge panels would save money and would be easier to manufacture, we agree that such a construction would have been an obvious matter of design choice as evidenced by Goradesky. Ans. 14. Finally, Appellant asserts that "[t]aking away material from KR '406 would not be obvious because the ability for the case to remain securely on the electronic device would be compromised." Reply Br. 2. However, this argument is speculative and conclusory, and thus, unpersuasive. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have the requisite knowledge and skill to implement the change of the side edge panels of KR '406 to have only one height such that the case remains securely on the electronic device and not obviate the main function of the case, i.e., to protect the electronic device, which would require the case to stay on the electronic device. Appellant does not submit arguments directed to any other claims. Therefore, we affirm this rejection.
Obviousness--Claims 6, 10, 11, 15, 16, 20, 21, 26, 27, 29, 37, 42, and 50 (KR '406, Goradesky, Poon)
The Examiner rejects these claims, further relying on Poon for disclosing various limitations recited in these claims. Final Act. 7-9. As to the Examiner's reliance on Poon, Appellant argues that "Poon teaches away from the claimed invention of the [']524 Patent even more so than Goradesky, because Poon requires a 3-piece, rugged construction that completely encapsulates the phone and restricts access to the screen,
20
Appeal 2025-000827 Reexamination Control 90/019,269 Patent 10,327,524 B2
20
controls, etc." Appeal Br. 19. However, this argument is unpersuasive for substantially the same reasons discussed above relative to Goradesky. The Examiner only relied upon Poon for the specifically recited limitations of these claims. We address the Examiner's rejection and Appellant's arguments directed to the specifically argued claims below. Claim 6 recites "wherein the third height of the edge corners is less than the first height of the short edge panels and includes a second transition to the first height of the short edge panels." The Examiner finds that KR '406 and Goradesky are "silent with respect to wherein the third height of the edge corners is less than the first height of the short edge panels and includes a second transition to the first height of the short edge panels."
Final Act. 7-8. However, the Examiner finds that Poon teaches "[t]he corners are provided with edge corners having a height that is less than the height of the short edges of the case (see Fig. 1)," and concludes that "[i]t would have been an obvious matter of design choice to construct the phone case of KR '406 and Goradesky . . . with an edge corner having a height that is less than the height of the short edge, to ensure the edges of the case do not snag/snare on articles of clothing" and that such a "change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results." Final Act. 8. Appellant argues that the rejection is "without sufficient evidence, that Poon discloses corners 'having a height that is less than the height of the short edges of the case . . . ,'" and instead, Poon discloses "a corner that is the same or greater height than the short edges, as seen from Figure 1."
Appeal Br. 20. Appellant also argues that the "Examiner[] do[es] not give
21
Appeal 2025-000827 Reexamination Control 90/019,269 Patent 10,327,524 B2
21
any explanation as to how including numerous heights to a phone case would prevent snagging or snaring on clothes." Appeal Br. 20. The Examiner explains the finding that Poon discloses the limitation of claim 6 using an annotated Figure 1 of Poon, which is reproduced below. The annotated Figure 1 of Poon reproduced above shows the perspective view of the case of Poon including the Examiner's annotations
"1st Height," "3rd height," and "Transition/taper." Ans. 18. According to the Examiner, "the 'third height of the edge corner' is interpreted as being the lower portion of the tapered edge of the phone cover corner. This lowest/3rd height, which abuts the surface of the phone, transitions to the 'first height of the short edge panels'." Ans. 18.
In view of the Examiner's clarification, Appellant argues that "[t]he Board should reject the Examiner's position because it relies on an unreasonable claim construction" in "identif[ing] the highest portion of the corner/edge corner as a first height and a lower portion of the same point of
22
Appeal 2025-000827 Reexamination Control 90/019,269 Patent 10,327,524 B2
22
corner/edge corner as a third height." Reply Br. 4. We agree with Appellant. While we appreciate the Examiner's statement that in view of the disclosure of the '524 Patent, "it is unclear what part of the phone case is considered to constitute a third height of an edge corner and how the third height includes a second transition to the first height of the short edge panels," it is unreasonable to utilize the highest portion a corner/edge corner as a first height, and a lower portion of the same corner/edge corner as a third height. Ans. 17-18. We observe that neither the Specification nor the Examiner's rejections of the remaining claims rely on such interpretation of different "height[s]." Appellant is also correct that the applied interpretation
"also fails to account for every requirement of claim 6'" which also requires
"the third height of the edge corners to include . . . a transition to a second height on a long edge panel (due to its dependence on claim 1)." Reply Br. 4. Therefore, we reverse the rejection of claim 6.
Claims 11, 16, 21, 27, and 29 each require that "the first panel comprises a window to expose one of a name and a logo" that is associated with an electronic device. The Examiner finds that KR '406 and Goradesky do not disclose this recitation, but finds that "Poon discloses 'the openings 51 assist in removing the phone 4 from the back frame 10 when disassembling the case 2. . . . '" Final Act. 9. Based on this finding, the Examiner concludes that "[i]t would have been an obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide an opening within the back of the case of KR [']406 and Goradesky et al. to enable a user to easily and quickly separate a phone from the case, as taught by Poon." Final Act. 9. The Examiner further explains that "upon removal of the phone/electronic device from the case itself, a name or log an [sic, logo] associated with the
23
Appeal 2025-000827 Reexamination Control 90/019,269 Patent 10,327,524 B2
23
phone/electronic device would undoubtedly be visibly exposed." Final Act.
9.
Appellant correctly points out that the case of Poon "completely covers the electronic device," and that the rejection relies on "removal of the phone/electronic device from the case [to] expose a name or logo." Appeal Br. 21. Appellant argues that the necessity for removal of the device from the case "proves that this limitation has not been met by Poon." Appeal Br. 21. The Examiner responds that the claims "do[] not require the window 'to expose' the phone name and/or logo associated with the electronic device while the phone case encapsulates/holds the phone/electronic device."
Ans. 20 (emphasis added). Accordingly, the Examiner concludes that "upon removal of the phone/electronic device from the case itself, a name or logo an associated with the phone/electronic device would undoubtedly be visibly exposed." Ans. 20.
Appellant has the better position. We are persuaded that "[t]he Examiner's position is based on an unreasonable claim construction." Reply Br. 5. As Appellant argues, broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims
"require[s] that a first panel must have a window capable of exposing the name and/or logo that is typically on the back of an electronic device," and this interpretation is supported by the Specification. Reply Br. 6 (citing '524 Patent, col. 6, l. 63-col. 7, l. 4). The rejection does not establish, nor is it apparent to us, how the case of KR '406, as modified by Goradesky and Poon as suggested, is capable of exposing a name or a logo associated with an electronic device when used as intended. Therefore, we reverse this rejection as to claims 11, 16, 21, 27, and 29 as well.
24
Appeal 2025-000827 Reexamination Control 90/019,269 Patent 10,327,524 B2
24
Appellant does not submit arguments specifically directed to the remaining claims subject to this rejection. Thus, in summary, we affirm the Examiner's rejection as to claims 10, 15, 20, 26, 37, 42, and 50, but reverse this rejection as to claims 6, 11, 16, 21, 27, and 29.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner's rejections are affirmed in part. In particular, we affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-5, 7-10, 12-15, 17-20, 22-26, 28, and 30-50, but reverse the rejection of claims 6, 11, 16, 21, 27, and 29.
DECISION SUMMARY
The following table summarizes our decision:
Claim(s) Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/ Basis Affirmed Reversed
1-5, 7-9, 12-14, 17-19, 22-25, 28, 30-36, 38- 41, 43-49
102(a)(1) KR '406 28, 30-35, 38- 40, 43-49
1-5, 7-9, 12-
14, 17-19,
22-25, 36, 41
1-5, 7-9, 12-14,
17-19, 22-25,
28, 30-36, 38-
41, 43-49
103 KR '406, Goradesky 1-5, 7-9, 12-14, 17-19, 22-25, 28, 30-36, 38- 41, 43-49
6, 10, 11, 15, 16,
20, 21, 26, 27,
29, 37, 42, 50
103 KR '406, Goradesky, Poon
10, 15, 20, 26,
37, 42, 50
6, 11, 16, 21,
27, 29
Overall Outcome
1-5, 7-10, 12- 15, 17-20, 22- 26, 28, 30-50
6, 11, 16, 21,
27, 29
25
Appeal 2025-000827 Reexamination Control 90/019,269 Patent 10,327,524 B2
25
REQUESTS FOR EXTENSIONS OF TIME
Requests for extensions of time in this ex parte reexamination proceeding are governed by 37 C.F.R. § 1.550(c). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED IN PART
26
Appeal 2025-000827 Reexamination Control 90/019,269 Patent 10,327,524 B2
26
THIRD PARTY REQUESTER:
IDEA INTELLECTUAL LIMITED
10/F-1, NO.70-1, SECTION 1, CHENGDE ROAD
DATONG, DISTRICT
TAIPEI, 103622
TAIWAN
27