Ex Parte Fleischmann et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 28, 2011

10731344 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 28, 2011)

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.
10/731,344 12/09/2003 Walter Fleischmann 17240 3553
23389 7590 03/01/2011
SCULLY SCOTT MURPHY & PRESSER, PC
400 GARDEN CITY PLAZA
SUITE 300
GARDEN CITY, NY 11530
EXAMINER
SAWHNEY, HARGOBIND S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2885
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/01/2011 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)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte WALTER FLEISCHMANN,
MARKUS STOFFLER, and DIRK-ACHIM SCHEVARDO
____________________

Appeal 2009-013384
Application 10/731,344
Technology Center 2800
____________________

Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, ALLEN R. MacDONALD, and
MARC S. HOFF, Administrative Patent Judges.

MacDONALD, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE”
(paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery
mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.
Appeal 2009-013384
Application 10/731,344

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of
claims 1, 3, 7, 9-15, 17-23, and 25-27. Claims 2, 4-6, 8, 16, and 24 have
been canceled. Claims 12-15 and 17-19 have been objected to for
informalities.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Exemplary Claim
Exemplary independent claim 1 under appeal reads as follows:

1. A lighting system for the illumination of the interior of aircraft
cabins, comprising an arrangement of light emitting diodes (8.1 - 8.5, 9.1 -
9.5, 10.1 - 10.5, 11.1 - 11.5) which are mounted selectively at or in a cabin
wall or ceiling of said aircraft cabins to direct light to the interiors of said
aircraft cabins, characterized in that there are provided a plurality of lighting
units (4 - 7) which each have a plurality of light emitting diodes connected
in series (8.1 - 8.5, 9.1 - 9.5, 10.1 - 10.5, 11.1 - 11.5), the light emitting
diodes (8.1 - 8.5, 9.1 - 9.5, 10.1 - 10.5, 11.1 - 11.5) are actuatable by means
of pulse width modulation so as to selectively represent flashing, twinkling
color change or moving lights, a control device (1) which has a plurality of
outputs (2.1 - 2.3), wherein lighting units (4 - 7) to be selectively actuated in
various ways are connected to respectively different outputs (2.1 - 2.3) of
said control device, and a plurality of regulating modules (12 - 15) are
interposed between said control device and said lighting units, each of said
regulating modules being connected to respectively one of the outputs (2.1 -
2.3) of said control device, each one of said regulating modules having an
output connected to, respectively, a separate one of said lighting units,
wherein actuation of the lighting units (4 - 7) is effected independently of
each other through operation of the control device (1), each said regulating
module (12 - 15) holding the current passing through the light emitting

2 Appellants seek our review of the Examiner’s objection to claims 12-15
and 17-19 (Br. 7-8). We do not consider this objection herein, because
claim objections are petitionable and not appealable. MPEP §§
706.01, 1002.02(c), 1201 (“Board will not ordinarily hear a question that
should be decided by the Director on petition”), 8th ed., rev. July 2008.
Appeal 2009-013384
Application 10/731,344

3
diodes (8.1 - 8.5, 9.1 - 9.5, 10.1 - 10.5, 11.1 - 11.5) of a therewith associated
lighting unit (4 - 7) at a constant value.
Examiner’s Rejection
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3, 7, 9-15, 17-23, and 25-27 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Alexanderson
(US 6,871,981 B2) and Pross (US 6,396,466 B1).
Appellants’ Contentions
Appellants contend (Br. 8-13) that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 1, 3, 7, 9-15, 17-23, and 25-27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Alexanderson and Pross for a number
of reasons, including: (1) Pross fails to describe independent actuation of
LED chains/series, each LED chain/series having a regulating module;
(2) there is no motivation to combine Pross with Alexanderson because
Pross relates to automobiles and not aircraft; (3) Alexanderson fails to teach
a basic lighting system which cannot selectively operate LEDs using
separate regulating components to control the LEDs; (4) Alexanderson and
Pross, whether taken singly or in combination, fail to teach or suggest using
pulse width modulation to actuate LEDs with a central control device by
regulating individual LED chains/series with constant current.
Issue on Appeal
Has the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 3, 7, 9-15, 17-23, and
25-27 as being obvious over Alexanderson and Pross?

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiners’ rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments that the Examiner has erred.
Appeal 2009-013384
Application 10/731,344

4
We disagree with Appellants’ above conclusion. We adopt as our
own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action
from which this appeal is taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner
in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief. We
concur with the conclusion reached by the Examiner.

CONCLUSIONS
(1) The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1, 3, 7, 9-15, 17-23,
and 25-27 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
(2) Claims 1, 3, 7, 9-15, 17-23, and 25-27 are not patentable.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3, 7, 9-15, 17-23, and 25-27
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

kis

SCULLY SCOTT MURPHY & PRESSER, PC
400 GARDEN CITY PLAZA
SUITE 300
GARDEN CITY, NY 11530