Ex Parte Bailey et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 6, 2016

12900159 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 6, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/900, 159 10/07/2010
128168 7590 04/08/2016
Michael Best & Friedrich LLP (Hubbell)
100 East Wisconsin A venue
Suite 3300
Milwaukee, WI 53202
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Christopher L. Bailey
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
55849 7227
EXAMINER
TUMEBO, TSION M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2875
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/08/2016 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):
mkeipdocket@michaelbest.com
kmbarner@michaelbest.com
webradley@michaelbest.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CHRISTOPHER L. BAILEY, ADAM J. CLARK, and
PERRY ROMAN0 1
Appeal2014-005767
Application 12/900, 159
Technology Center 2800
Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, CHUNG K. PAK, and
BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
GARRIS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134, Appellants appeal from the Examiner's
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 1, 4--6, 8, 10, 11, 13-17, 19-22,
24, 25, 27, 29-32, 35, 36, and 39--44 as unpatentable over Kuo et al. (US
2010/0220476 Al, published Sept. 2, 2010) ("Kuo") in view of Liu et al.
(US 2010/0171404 Al, published July 8, 2010) ("Liu") and Klus (US
1 Hubbell Inc. is identified as the real party in interest. App. Br. 3.
Appeal2014-005767
Application 12/900, 159
D625,463 S, issued Oct. 12, 2010). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6.
We REVERSE.
Appellants claim a luminaire housing 10 comprising a core having
vertically spaced, substantially parallel cooling fins 18 projecting laterally
outwardly in a downward slope (sole independent claim 1, Fig. 5).
According to Appellants' Specification, "[t]he cooling fins slope laterally
downwardly at a shallow angle, preferably about 5 degrees, primarily to
facilitate shedding of moisture and entrained dust or debris" (Spec. i-f 61 ).
Further details regarding this claim subject matter are set forth in
representative claim 1, a copy of which taken from the Claims Appendix of
the Appeal Brief appears below.
1. A luminaire housing made of thermally conductive material and
compnsmg:
a longitudinally extending core having a substantially flat top wall, a
substantially flat bottom wall and two opposite side walls connecting the top
wall to the bottom wall, the core having a mean external width and a medial
longitudinal vertical plane, and
at least five external, vertically spaced, substantially parallel cooling
fins carried by each side wall, said cooling fins extending longitudinally and
projecting laterally outwardly in a downward slope, each cooling fin
terminating laterally in a distal edge and having a lateral cantilevered length
and a reach defined by the lateral distance of its distal edge from said medial
longitudinal vertical plane,
wherein the reaches of a group of at least four consecutive cooling
fins of each side wall increase progressively from the top cooling fin of the
group to the bottom cooling fin of the group and the lateral cantilevered
length of the majority of the cooling fins of each side wall is at least about
35% of the mean external width of the core.
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds that Kuo discloses a luminaire
housing having cooling fins 101 projecting laterally outwardly in a
2
Appeal2014-005767
Application 12/900, 159
downward slope as claimed (Final Action 2-3 (citing Figs. 1-3 i-fi-1 21, 23,
27)) but not the claim 1 features wherein the top wall of the housing core is
substantially flat and the lateral cantilevered length of the majority of the
cooling fins is at least about 35% of the mean external width of the core (id.
at 3). The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to provide
Kuo's luminaire housing with these features in view of Liu and Klus (id. at
4).
Appellants challenge the Examiner's finding that the cooling fins of
Kuo project laterally outwardly in a downward slope as required by claim 1
(App. Br. 11 ). According to Appellants, "it does not appear that the fins 101
have a downward slope" (id.).
In response, the Examiner states that Kuo' s Figure 2 shows "the fins
have a downwards slope" (Ans. 12) and that Figure 3 of Klus also discloses
fins having "a downwards slope" (id.). 2
Appellants reply by arguing that neither Kuo nor Klus teaches the
claim limitation under review (Reply Br. 6).
We find convincing merit in Appellants' argument. The cooling fins
shown in Figure 2 of Kuo and Figure 3 of Klus appear to project laterally
outwardly in a horizontal direction rather than in a downward slope as
claimed. The Examiner does not provide any explanatory support for
considering these Figures to show the downward slope required by claim 1.
For these reasons and because the Examiner does not even attempt to
establish that it would have been obvious to modify Kuo' s fins to have a
2 The Examiner does not embellish the statement regarding Klus with any
explanation why the asserted disclosure of Figure 3 would have suggested
providing Kuo' s fins with a downward slope.
3
Appeal2014-005767
Application 12/900, 159
downward slope, the § 103 rejection of sole independent claim 1 and the
claims which depend therefrom will not be sustained.
The decision of the Examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
4