Current Lighting Solutions, LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 1, 2021

2021001534 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 1, 2021)

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.
15/032,609 04/27/2016 Suping WANG 271843-US-5 (C28.004) 9972
160598 7590 12/01/2021
CURRENT LIGHTING SOLUTIONS, LLC
c/o BUCKLEY, MASCHOFF & TALWALKAR LLC
50 LOCUST AVENUE
NEW CANAAN, CT 06840
EXAMINER
PAYNE, SHARON E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2875
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/01/2021 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):
CurrentBMT@bmtpatent.com
peter.dimauro@gecurrent.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte SUPING WANG, JEFFREY MARC NALL,
BRIAN MORGAN SPAHNIE, XIAOJUAN ZHANG, YAN NI, and
SHANSHAN XIE1
____________

Appeal 2021-001534
Application 15/032,609
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before CHRISTOPHER C. KENNEDY, LILAN REN, and
JANE E. INGLESE, Administrative Patent Judges.

KENNEDY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 1–4, 6–8, 10–16, 19, 22, and 23. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM.
BACKGROUND
The subject matter on appeal relates to backlighting systems for
channel letter signs. E.g., Spec. ¶ 1; Claim 1. Claim 1 is reproduced below

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. The Appellant identifies the real party in interest as
CURRENT LIGHTING SOLUTIONS, LLC. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2021-001534
Application 15/032,609

2
from page 21 (Claims Appendix) of the Appeal Brief:
1. A backlighting system comprising:
a plurality of LED light modules electrically coupled with one
another and disposed within a channel letter sign, one of the
plurality of LED light modules comprising:
a first LED source;
a second LED source disposed adjacent to the first LED source;
a first lens covering the first LED source, the first lens configured
to direct first light beams emitted from the first light source to a
target plane; and
a second lens covering the second LED source, the second lens
configured to direct second light beams emitted from the second
light source to the target plane;
wherein at least one of the first and second lenses is shaped to
have an asymmetrical profile and comprises:
a curved outer surface for diverging, in a first direction in the
target plane, the light beams from the corresponding LED light
source towards the target place in a first light pattern; and first
and second parallel planar side surfaces connected to the curved
outer surface, the planar side surfaces configured to redirect the
light beams from the corresponding LED light source towards
the target plane in a second light pattern along a second direction,
the first and second direction being substantially perpendicular
to each other, wherein the first light pattern has a larger light
intensity than the second light pattern.
REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
The claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as follows:
1. Claims 1–4, 6–8, 10–12, 14–16, 19, 22, and 23 over Nall
(US 2013/0042510 A1, published Feb. 21, 2013), Wilcox
(US 2009/0290360 A1, published Nov. 26, 2009), and Yaphe
(US 2013/0033859 A1, published Feb. 7, 2013).
Appeal 2021-001534
Application 15/032,609

3
2. Claim 13 over Nall, Wilcox, Yaphe, and Householder
(US 2011/0280014 A1, published Nov. 17, 2011).
ANALYSIS
The Appellant argues the claims as a group. We select claim 1 as
representative, and the remaining claims on appeal will stand or fall with
claim 1. After review of the cited evidence in the appeal record and the
opposing positions of the Appellant and the Examiner, we determine that the
Appellant has not identified reversible error in the Examiner’s rejections.
Accordingly, we affirm the rejections for reasons set forth below, in the
Final Action dated August 19, 2019, and in the Examiner’s Answer.
The Examiner finds that Nall teaches each element of claim 1 except
that Nall’s lenses are not “shaped to have an asymmetrical profile,” as
recited by claim 1, and do not have the specific shape recited by claim 1
(i.e., first and second parallel planar side surfaces connected to the curved
outer surface). Final Act. 3–4. The Examiner finds that Wilcox teaches
lenses with asymmetrical profiles, and that Yaphe teaches lenses with the
specific shape recited by claim 1. Id. at 4–6. The Examiner determines that
a person of ordinary skill in the art would have used the asymmetrical profile
of Wilcox and the shape of Yaphe in the system of Nall to provide a more
compact LED light module and to achieve desired light distribution. Id. at
5–6.
The Appellant argues that the proposed combination “render[s] [the
prior art] unsatisfactory for [its] intended purpose” or “change[s] the
principle of operation shown in Nall, Wilcox, and/or Yaphe.” Appeal
Br. 12. The Appellant repeatedly emphasizes that Nall concerns small
LEDs, whereas Wilcox and Yaphe allegedly concern “relatively large” light
Appeal 2021-001534
Application 15/032,609

4
fixtures. E.g., id. at 13. The Appellant relies on that difference to argue that
the problem addressed by the prior art is not the same as the problem
addressed by the application on appeal.
Those arguments are not persuasive of reversible error for reasons
stated by the Examiner in the Answer. See Ans. 3–7. The Examiner relies
on Wilcox and Yaphe for disclosures concerning lens shape and light
distribution. See Final Act. 5–6. Nall is also concerned with modifying
light distribution to achieve desired goals. E.g., Nall ¶ 3 (describing lighting
applications that “require the LED device to distribute emitted light at wide
angles in order to illuminate the entire backlit surface within the shallow
distance”). Nall also recognizes that lens shape and spacing affect light
distribution. E.g., id. ¶ 4 (“The lens shapes differ in a form of different
internal cross-sectional profiles or similar said profiles with different light
distribution patterns.”).
The Examiner’s proposal is simply the use of Yaphe’s known lens
shape in the light system of Nall to achieve desired light distribution, where
Nall expressly recognizes that lens shape affects light distribution. The use
of known elements according to their established functions typically does
not result in nonobvious subject matter. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
550 U.S. 398, 416–21 (2007) (“The combination of familiar elements
according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more
than yield predictable results.”); see also id. at 416 (“[W]hen a patent claims
a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere
substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination
must do more than yield a predictable result.”).
Appeal 2021-001534
Application 15/032,609

5
That Wilcox and Yaphe may concern larger light fixtures or LED
modules than Nall does not negate the prior art’s disclosures concerning lens
shape and light distribution. Nor does it indicate a change in principle of
operation or that the lenses would be rendered unsatisfactory for their
intended purpose. The Examiner’s proposed modification uses the lenses to
achieve desired light distribution in lighting systems, just as they are used in
Wilcox and Yaphe. That the light system of the combined prior art may be
smaller than the light system of Wilcox or Yaphe does not indicate error in
the Examiner’s rejection.
Additionally, even accepting the Appellant’s position that the prior art
is not concerned with precisely the same problem as that addressed by the
application on appeal, that does not indicate reversible error in the rejection
because, “[i]n determining whether the subject matter of a patent claim is
obvious, neither the particular motivation nor the avowed purpose of the
patentee controls.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 419.
On this record, the Appellant has not identified reversible error in the
Examiner’s rejection. See 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 alleged error in the examiner’s rejections . . . .”).
Appeal 2021-001534
Application 15/032,609

6
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35
U.S.C.
§
References Affirmed Reversed
1–4, 6–8, 10–
12, 14–16,
19, 22, 23
103 Nall, Wilcox, Yaphe
1–4, 6–8, 10–
12, 14–16,
19, 22, 23

13 103 Nall, Wilcox, Yaphe, Householder 13
Overall
Outcome
1–4, 6–8, 10–
16, 19, 22, 23
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this
appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED