Ex Parte Garcia

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 31, 2017

13600678 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 31, 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.
13/600,678 08/31/2012 Joseph Garcia 2012P00309US 4851
24737 7590 08/02/2017
PTTTT TPS TNTFT T FfTTTAT PROPFRTY fr STANDARDS
EXAMINER
465 Columbus Avenue HARRIS, WILLIAM N
Suite 340
Valhalla, NY 10595 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2875
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/02/2017 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):
marianne. fox @ philips, com
debbie.henn @philips .com
patti. demichele @ Philips, com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL
AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JOSEPH GARCIA
Appeal 2016-005459
Application 13/600,678
Technology Center 2800
Before KAREN M. HASTINGS, MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, and
MICHAEL G. McMANUS, Administrative Patent Judges.
COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2016-005459
Application 13/600,678
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 the final rejection of claims
1—4 and 7—20. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §
6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Appellant’s invention is directed to an optical system for control of
light output from light emitting diodes (LEDs) (Spec. 11).
Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. An LED optical system placeable over top of LEDs,
comprising:
a plurality of optical pieces, each of said optical pieces
including a free form LED cavity on a first side thereof and a
free form protrusion on a second side thereof over said LED
cavity, each said LED cavity sized to receive at least a portion
of at least one of said LEDs; wherein each of said optical
pieces is configured to direct a first light portion of a light
output received from said at least one of said LEDs in a
desired illumination range toward a desired illumination
direction and to direct a second light portion of said light
output in a stray illumination range away from said desired
illumination direction, said first light portion being a majority
of said light output; and
a reflector array placed over said optical pieces, said
reflector array including a plurality of openings each sized to
receive at least one of said optical pieces and a plurality of
reflectors each extending upward from and provided partially
over one of said openings;
wherein each of said reflectors includes a reflective
interior surface generally facing said desired illumination
direction, each said reflective interior surface provided
partially over one of said openings opposite said desired
illumination direction and reflecting a majority of said second
light portion of said light output transmitted from a
corresponding at least one of said optical pieces, said second
light portion of said light output reflected generally toward
said desired illumination direction; and,
2
Appeal 2016-005459
Application 13/600,678
wherein at least one of said optical pieces comprises a
first component for refracting light in said desired illumination
direction and a second component for refracting light away
from said desired illumination direction, and the first
component and the second component each has a substantially
planar adjoining section that joins the first component and the
second component to each other.
Appellant appeals the following rejections:
1. Claims 1—3, 8, 9, 11, 13, 14, 16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
102(b) as unpatentable over Wilcox (US 2009/0262532 Al, pub. Oct.
22, 2009).
2. Claims 7, 10, 12, and 17—19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Wilcox.
3. Claims 4 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Wilcox in view of Tu (US 2012/0008320 Al, pub. Jan. 12,
2012).
Appellant argues the claims together with the focus on subject matter
common to independent claims 1, 9 and 16 (App. Br. 6—10). We select
claim 1 as representative.
FINDINGS OF FACT & ANALYSIS
Appellant argues that Wilcox fails to teach that each of the first and
second components of the optical pieces has a substantially planar adjoining
section that joins the first and second component to each other (App. Br. 7).
Appellant contends that Wilcox’s secondary lens 20 is one-piece structure
lacking two discrete components where each such component has a planar
3
Appeal 2016-005459
Application 13/600,678
section that joins the two to each other as claimed (App. Br. 7). Appellant
contends that the planar top and bottom surfaces of Wilcox’s flange 34 are
not part of the lens portion (App. Br. 8; Reply Br. 4). Appellant argues that
Wilcox’s planar flange section 34 is not used to join the sections of the
secondary lens 20 together (App. Br. 8). Appellant contends that the
Examiner has used the broadest definition of the term adjoining in finding
that Wilcox teaches a substantially planar adjoining section that joins the
first and second component together (Reply Br. 4). Appellant argues that
claim 1 does require that the substantially planar adjoining portions are part
of the first and second components themselves. Id.
Claim 1 recites in relevant part that “optical pieces comprises a first
component for refracting light. . . and a second component for refracting
light. . ., and the first component and the second component each has a
substantially planar adjoining section that joins the first component and the
second component to each other.” The Examiner finds that “adjoining”
means that two items are “either in contact, or . . . connected or neighboring
to each other” (Ans. 5). Although Appellant argues that the Examiner’s
application of the definition is broad, Appellant does not argue that the
definition is unreasonable or wrong (Reply Br. 4). In re Academy of Science
Tech. Center, 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“During examination
‘claims ... are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent
with the specification and . . . claim language should be read in light of the
specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.’”).
Therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 1 requires that the
first component and the second component each have a substantially planar
section connected to, neighboring, or in contact with the first component and
4
Appeal 2016-005459
Application 13/600,678
second component that joins the first component and second component of
the optical piece.
As noted by the Examiner on page 5 of the Answer, Wilcox’s
secondary lens 20 “includes a substantially planar flange portion 34 . . .
[that] surrounds and is in contact with both the first component and the
second component of the optical piece 20 .. . and thus adjoins both the first
component and the second component.” The Examiner correctly finds that
“flange 34 adjoins both the first and the second component and joins them to
each other, since the flange is always in constant contact with both halves of
the optical piece 20 to define a single structure.” Id. The flange 34 is
substantially planar and is in contact with what the Examiner characterizes
as a first portion and a second portion of the lens 20 as indicated in the
Examiner’s annotation of Wilcox’s Figure 11 shown below (Ans. 3).
A copy of the Examiner’s annotations to Wilcox’s Figure 11.
5
Appeal 2016-005459
Application 13/600,678
Wilcox’s flange 34 joins the first portion and second portion of
Wilcox’s lens 20 at some level in that it connects the two portions together.
Although Appellant argues that lens 20 has a one-piece construction and
therefore the flange does not join the first and second portions, we find that
Appellant discloses that the optical pieces may be manufactured as a single
piece via injection molding (Spec. 148). In other words, the optical piece
shown in Appellant’s Figures 3 and 9 may be formed as a single piece too
such that the substantially planar adjoining portion may be said to join the
first and second components even though it is formed as a single piece.
Based upon this proper construction of the disputed limitation in claim
1, we find that Wilcox anticipates claim 1 that includes this feature. We
affirm the Examiner’s § 102(b) rejection over Wilcox. Appellant relies on
the same arguments made regarding the § 102(b) rejection to address the §
103 rejections (2) and (3). Because we find Appellant’s arguments
unpersuasive of reversible error, we affirm the Examiner’s § 103 rejections
(2) and (3).
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision 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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
ORDER
AFFIRMED
6