Ex parte Herst

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 4, 2001

08400325 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 4, 2001)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written
for publication in a law journal and is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 16
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte DOUGLAS J. HERST
____________
Appeal No. 1998-2376
Application No. 08/400,325
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before THOMAS, BARRETT, and BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
BARRY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from
the rejection of claims 1-7. We reverse.
BACKGROUND
The invention at issue in this appeal relates to linear
direct-indirect lighting fixtures. Such fixtures have bottom
openings for providing direct lighting a top opening for
providing indirect lighting. The fixtures are used in
Appeal No. 1998-2376 Page 2
Application No. 08/400,325
institutional and commercial settings where they are subject
to periodic cleaning and maintenance.
Heretofore, extruded housings for linear direct-indirect
lighting fixtures have been fabricated in extruded, co-linear
aluminum parts held together by cross braces to provide a
linear lighting fixture of a desired length. The cross braces
held the extruded parts in parallel such that parallel
openings ran the length of the housing over which elongated
light screens having a desired perforation or aperture pattern
were placed to prevent viewers from looking directly into the
interior of the fixture. The screens were made in perforated
sections of sheet metal or plastic and were attached to
adjacent co-linear housing elements by spring clips. Such a
multiple-part construction was relatively cumbersome to
assemble, however, and required a large inventory of parts.
Furthermore, unsightly seams appeared along the edges and
between the ends of abutting light screens thereby leaking
light.
Appeal No. 1998-2376 Page 3
Application No. 08/400,325
The appellant's invention is a housing for a linear
direct-indirect lighting fixture wherein all of the components
of the housing including the light screens are fabricated from
a single extruded part. The housing includes opaque,
elongated sidewalls having a top edge defining a top opening
for providing indirect lighting, a corresponding elongated
opaque central housing structure extending in parallel with
the sidewalls, and an elongated light baffle plate
interconnecting the sidewalls and central housing structure.
The single extrusion construction of the invention greatly
simplifies the assembly and manufacture of the fixture and
eliminates unsightly seams and leakage points in the fixture
housing.
Claim 1, which is representative for our purposes,
follows:
1. An extruded housing for an elongated direct-
indirect lighting fixture comprising
an opaque elongated sidewall portion having a
top edge defining a top opening for providing
indirect lighting,
an elongated opaque central housing structure in
co-linear relation with said sidewall portion, and
Appeal No. 1998-2376 Page 4
Application No. 08/400,325
an elongated light baffle plate interconnecting
said sidewall portion and central housing structure,
said baffle plate having a pattern of apertures for
providing a direct lighting component from the
luminaire,
said sidewall portion, central housing structure
and baffle plate being a unitary part fabricated
from a single extrusion.
The references relied on in rejecting the claims follow:
Brennan 2,824,216 Feb. 18, 1958
Lipscomb 2,874,271 Feb. 17, 1959
Griffin 4,698,733 Oct. 6, 1987
.

Claims 1 and 3-4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
obvious over Lipscomb in view of Griffin. Claims 2 and 5-7
stand rejected as obvious over Lipscomb in view of Griffin
further in view of Brennan. Rather than repeat the arguments
of the appellant or examiner in toto, we refer the reader to
the brief and answer for the respective details thereof.
OPINION
In deciding this appeal, we considered the subject matter
on appeal and the rejection advanced by the examiner.
Appeal No. 1998-2376 Page 5
Application No. 08/400,325
Furthermore, we duly considered the arguments and evidence of
the appellant and examiner. After considering the totality of
the record, we are persuaded that the examiner erred in
rejecting claims 1-7. Accordingly, we reverse.
We begin by noting the following principles from
In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1532, 28 USPQ2d 1955, 1956 (Fed.
Cir. 1993).
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. Section 103, the
examiner bears the initial burden of presenting a
prima facie case of obviousness. In re Oetiker, 977
F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir.
1992).... "A prima facie case of obviousness is
established when the teachings from the prior art
itself would appear to have suggested the claimed
subject matter to a person of ordinary skill in the
art." In re Bell, 991 F.2d 781, 782, 26 USPQ2d
1529, 1531 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (quoting In re Rinehart,
531 F.2d 1048, 1051, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976)).
With these principles and finding in mind, we consider the
examiner's rejection and appellant's argument.
The examiner asserts, "[i]t would have been obvious ...
to make the unitary housing 58 of Lipscomb by way of an
extrusion process ...." (Examiner's Answer at 5.) The
Appeal No. 1998-2376 Page 6
Application No. 08/400,325
appellant argues, "Griffin does not disclose or suggest an
extruded housing for a linear direct-indirect housing feature
where the sidewalls, central housing structure and baffle
plates are all fabricated as one part." (Appeal Br. at 7.)
Claims 1-6 recite a product by process. "If the product
in a product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a
product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even
though the prior product was made by a different process."
In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 697, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir.
1985) (citing In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 799, 803, 218 USPQ 289,
292-93 (Fed. Cir. 1983); Johnson & Johnson v. W.L. Gore,
Appeal No. 1998-2376 Page 7
Application No. 08/400,325
436 F.Supp. 704, 726, 195 USPQ 487, 506 (D. Del. 1977);
In re Fessman, 489 F.2d 742, 180 USPQ 324 (CCPA 1974)).
The examiner fails to show that the product in claims 1-6
is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art.
The claims specify in pertinent part the following
limitations: "sidewall portion, central housing structure and
baffle plate being a unitary part fabricated from a single
extrusion."
The examiner admits that Lipscomb's side angle plate,
integral center panel, and cellular lattice are not
"extruded." (Examiner's Answer at 4.) To the contrary, the
parts are "molded plastics to produce a unitary structure
...." Col. 3, ll. 2-3.
Although Griffin teaches a "housing 11 ... constructed of
extruded aluminum," col. 3, ll. 41-42, the housing does not
comprise a central housing structure or a baffle plate. To
the contrary, the "extruded housing 11 [is] formed with a back
Appeal No. 1998-2376 Page 8
Application No. 08/400,325
wall 13 and oppositely disposed side walls 15 and 17." Col.
2, ll. 54-56. Accordingly, Griffin would not have suggested
extruding Lipscomb's side angle plate, integral center panel,
and cellular lattice. Furthermore, the examiner does not show
that it would be possible to extrude, as a single part, the
cellular lattice of Lipscomb. To the contrary, pulling the
"egg crates" of the lattice, which are at right angles to the
housing walls, through an extrusion die seems impossible.
Relying on Brennan only to teach "a diffuser plate 1 being
perforated across the length of the plate," (Examiner's Answer
at 5), the examiner fails to allege, let alone show, that the
reference cures the deficiency of Lipscomb and Griffin.
Because the examiner has not shown that the product in
claims 1-6 is the same as or obvious from a product of
Lipscomb, Griffin, and Brennan, we are not persuaded that
teachings from the prior art would have suggested the
limitations of "sidewall portion, central housing structure
and baffle plate being a unitary part fabricated from a single
extrusion." Therefore, we reverse the rejection of claims 1
and 3-4 as obvious over Lipscomb in view of Griffin and the
Appeal No. 1998-2376 Page 9
Application No. 08/400,325
rejection of claims 2, 5, and 6 obvious over Lipscomb in view
of Griffin further in view of Brennan.
Claim 7 recite a process. The claim specifies in
pertinent part the following limitations: "extruding a unitary
housing structure including a sidewall portion, a central
housing structure, and a baffle plate interconnecting said
sidewall portion and central housing structure ...."
As aforementioned, the examiner admits that Lipscomb's
side angle plate, integral center panel, and cellular lattice
are not extruded. Because Griffin teaches extruding only a
housing formed with a back wall and oppositely disposed side
walls, we are not persuaded that teachings from the prior art
would have suggested the limitations of "extruding a unitary
housing structure including a sidewall portion, a central
housing structure, and a baffle plate interconnecting said
sidewall portion and central housing structure ...."
Therefore, we reverse the rejection of claim 7 as obvious over
Lipscomb in view of Griffin further in view of Brennan.
Appeal No. 1998-2376 Page 10
Application No. 08/400,325
CONCLUSION
In summary, the rejection of claims 1 and 3-4 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Lipscomb in view of Griffin is
reversed. The rejection of claims 2 and 5-7 as obvious over
Lipscomb in view of Griffin further in view of Brennan is also
reversed.
REVERSED
JAMES D. THOMAS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
LEE E. BARRETT ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
LANCE LEONARD BARRY )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 1998-2376 Page 11
Application No. 08/400,325
DONALD L BEESON
ONE KAISER PLAZA
SUITE 2360
OAKLAND, CA 94612
LLB/dal