Appeal 2007-1106
Application 10/965,055
1 protruding battery of Shin had an irregular shape like Fuchida's, then Shin's
2 recess would also need an irregular shape. The breadth of "receiving" as
3 used in HP's claims and disclosure is sufficient to encompass the indentation
4 in the L-shaped battery of Fuchida receiving the protrusion of the docking
5 station into the docking station recess to form a corresponding L-shaped
6 recess.
7 More broadly, those skilled in the art understood the interplay
8 between docking station and protruding battery to avoid physical obstruction
9 of docking. The problem immediately suggests three solutions. First, the
10 modification of the docking station to receive the protruding battery (as
11 shown in Shin). Second, the modification of the battery to receive the
12 docking station. Third, the modification of each to accommodate the other
13 (as suggested by the shapes in Fuchida). Note that the claims encompass
14 both the second and third alternatives,23 that is, they do not exclude
15 embodiments in which both the battery housing and the docking station have
16 corresponding protrusions and recesses.
17 The reason for combining the teachings of the references need not be
18 the same as the ones that inspired the applicant.24 Fuchida uses a battery
19 with an interlocking shape, presumably to ensure proper orientation. If
20 Fuchida's battery were bulkier to provide additional power as Shin teaches,
21 the need for proper orientation would still exist. In the case of orthogonal
22 interlocking members, more members would further constrain the possible
23 Indeed, the protruding docking portion of HP's Figure 3 appears to be
custom-fitted to the recess in the battery housing.
24 In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 692-94, 16 USPQ2d 1897, 1901-02 (Fed. Cir.
1990) (en banc).
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013