Ex Parte Ellis

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 14, 2017

13134229 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 14, 2017)

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.
13/134,229 05/30/2011 Mary L. Ellis Ellis-1 3943
27899 7590 04/18/2017
WTT T TAMT RF.N1VTAN
EXAMINER
1875 CENTURY PARK EAST BANNAN, JULIE A
SUITE 700
LOS ANGELES, CA 90067 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2875
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/18/2017 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):
wbenman @ pacbell. net
wbenman @ gmail .com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MARY L. ELLIS
Appeal 2016-001720
Application 13/134,229
Technology Center 2800
Before CHUNG K. PAK, DONNA M. PRAISS, and
MICHAEL G. McMANUS, Administrative Patent Judges.
McMANUS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
The Examiner finally rejected claims 1-15 and 17-20 of Application
13/134,229 (“the ’229 Application”) under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious.
Final Act. 2-5. Appellant1 seeks reversal of these rejections pursuant to
35 U.S.C. § 134(a). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.
For the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM.
1 Mary L. Ellis is identified as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2016-001720
Application 13/134,229
BACKGROUND
The ’229 Application relates to a lighting system including an
illuminated mirror configured so that one may adjust the color temperature
and intensity of the light. Spec. 3. The lighting system is intended to
provide an improved illumination for use with mirrors in retail dressing
rooms. Id. at 3.
Claim 1 is representative of the ’229 Application’s claims and is
reproduced below from the Claims Appendix to the Appeal Brief:
1. A system comprising:
an elongate reflective surface and
at least one light source disposed in close proximity to said
surface, said light source including: an array of light emitting
diodes and a diffuser in optical alignment with said diodes,
said light source being optimized to deliver a light output in the
range of 20 to 50 foot-candles at a range of 4 feet from the
surface of the mirror with a color rendering index of at least 90
at a temperature of 2700-3500 degrees Kelvin.
Appeal Br. 10 (Claims App.).
REJECTION
On appeal, the Examiner maintains the following rejections:
1. Claims 1-10, 12-15, 17, 18, and 20 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Meuller et al.
(US 7,572,028 B2, iss. Aug. 11, 2009) (hereinafter “Mueller”) in view of
Roberts et al. (US 2008/0225512 Al, pub. Sept. 18, 2008) (hereinafter
“Roberts”). Final Act. 2-5.
3. Claims 11 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Mueller and Roberts and further in
2
Appeal 2016-001720
Application 13/134,229
view of Lynch et al. (US 2009/0086488 Al, pub. Apr. 2, 2009) (hereinafter
“Lynch”). Id. at 5.
DISCUSSION
The Examiner rejected claim 1 over Mueller in view of Roberts. Final
Act. 2-4. Appellant argues that neither of these references, taken alone or in
combination, teach or suggest a mirror system with a light source optimized
to deliver a light output in the range of 20 to 50 foot-candles at a range of 4
feet from the surface of the mirror with a color rendering index of at least 90
at a temperature of 2700 - 3500 degrees Kelvin. Appeal Br. 6.
The Examiner finds that Mueller teaches adjusting LED light output
to obtain light with color temperatures of 2300 - 4500 degrees Kelvin and a
color rendering index (CRI) above 80. Final Act. 3; Answer 4. The
Examiner further finds that light output and CRI are result-effective
variables. Id. The Examiner additionally takes official notice “that these
ranges are obvious and known light output ranges.” Final Act. 3. In support
of such official notice, the Examiner cites to Clemente (US 6,969,379), Kit
(US 7,507,001), and McGrath (US 2009/030720). Final Act. 3; Answer 5.
Appellant asserts that “there is no evidence in the art that the claimed
parameters have been recognized in the art as result-effective variables.”
Appeal Br. 7 (emphasis in original). “A recognition in the prior art that a
property is affected by the variable is sufficient to find the variable result-
effective.” In re Applied Materials, Inc., 692 F.3d 1289, 1297 (Fed. Cir.
2012). “In cases in which the disclosure in the prior art was insufficient to
find a variable result-effective, there was essentially no disclosure of the
3
Appeal 2016-001720
Application 13/134,229
relationship between the variable and the result in the prior art.” In re
Applied Materials, Inc., 692 F.3d 1289, 1297 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (emphasis in
original).
In regard to color temperature, Mueller teaches as follows:
The color temperature of viewing light depends on the color
content of the viewing light as shown by line (104) [of Fig. 1],
Thus, early morning daylight has a color temperature of about
3,000 K while overcast midday skies have a white color
temperature of about 10,000 K. A fire has a color temperature
of about 1,800 K and an incandescent bulb about 2848 K. A color
image viewed at 3,000 K will have a relatively reddish tone,
whereas the same color image viewed at 10,000 K will have a
relatively bluish tone. All of this light is called "white," but it has
varying spectral content.
Mueller 2:24-33. Thus, Mueller teaches a relationship between color
temperature and light spectral content. Mueller also includes a lengthy
explanation of color rendering index. See id. at 2:34-63. That explanation
indicates, inter alia, that
the CRI is scaled so that a perfect score equals 100, where perfect
would be using a source spectrally equal to the reference source
(often sunlight or full spectrum white light). For example a
tungsten-halogen source compared to full spectrum white light
might have a [CRI] of 99 while a warm white fluorescent lamp
would have a CRI of 50.
Id. at 2:51-56. Accordingly, Mueller also teaches that color rendering index
affects light output. Indeed, Mueller specifically discusses color temperature
and CRI in the context of LED dressing room lighting. Id. at 32:40-59. In
this regard, Mueller recognizes that dressing room
lighting conditions are, many times, sub standard or at a color
temperature and/or CRI that does not match the setting where the
article will actually be put to use by the customer once purchased
4
Appeal 2016-001720
Application 13/134,229
(e.g., the outdoor party next Saturday). So, the customer is left
to make the decision without optimal lighting conditions. ... A
system according to the present invention would allow, the
customer to change the lighting conditions (e.g., via a user
interface 3510) and view the article under the lighting conditions
that are of primary concerns to this particular user.
Mueller 32:46-52.
Further, the Specification suggests that the parameters at issue are
result-effective variables:
the light output may vary from an optimal range of 20 fc to 50
fc, as appropriate for the lighting effect desired assuming a user
will be standing anywhere from a minimum of two (2) ft to a
maximum of approximately seven (7) ft from the unit, totally
depending on the size of the space. This relates to tunability.
One of ordinary skill in the art can determine the best
setting based on the requirements of a given application.
Spec. 6 (emphasis added). Terms such as “optimal range” and “tunability”
indicate that discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only
ordinary skill in the art.
In view of Mueller’s teachings regarding light output, color
temperature, and CRI, the Appellant has failed to show error in the
Examiner’s finding that color temperature and CRI are result-effective
variables.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, we affirm the rejection of claims 1-15
and 17-20 of the ’229 Application as obvious.
5
Appeal 2016-001720
Application 13/134,229
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
6