Ex Parte Hoelen et alDownload PDFBoard of Patent Appeals and InterferencesMay 20, 200910506276 (B.P.A.I. May. 20, 2009) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________ Ex parte CHRISTOPH GERARD AUGUST HOELEN, CORNELIS JOJAKIM JALINK, NICOLA BETTINA PFEFFER, JELLE HILBRAND SCHUURMANS and STEFAN MARCUS VERBRUGH ____________ Appeal 2009-002457 Application 10/506,276 Technology Center 2800 ____________ Decided: May 21, 2009 ____________ Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, PETER F. KRATZ, and LINDA M. GAUDETTE, Administrative Patent Judges. KRATZ, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1-5, 7, and 10-14. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Appeal 2009-002457 Application 10/506,276 Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to an illumination system including a solid light guide having reflecting surfaces with varying slopes arranged to direct light flux or illumination via a light extraction surface to a desired reading plane or position of restricted area or spot size. Claims 1 and 11 are illustrative and reproduced below: 1. An illumination system comprising at least one plain or slightly curved, solid light guide made of transparent material, said at least one solid light guide receiving light from a light source, said at least one solid light guide being provided with a light extraction surface through which light emerges from the light guide, and means for extracting light from said one solid light guide through the light extraction surface, wherein the means for extracting light from said one solid light guide has reflecting surfaces with slopes, the slope of each reflecting surface being different from the slopes of the other reflecting surfaces, the slopes being varied as a function of the position of the extracting means in the light guide as well as the position of a reading plane, so as to direct the light flux to a desired reading plane position, said reading plane being a restricted area with respect to the light extraction surface. 11. An illumination system comprising at least one plain or slightly curved, solid light guide made of transparent material, said at lest one solid light guide receiving light from a light source, said at least one solid light guide being provided with a light extraction surface through which light emerges from the light guide, and means for directing light from said one slid light guide through the light extraction surface to illuminate a selected spot of limited size at any particular distance from the light extraction surface, wherein the means for directing light from said one solid light guide through the light extraction surface has reflecting surfaces with slopes, the slope of each reflecting surface being different from the slopes of the other reflecting surfaces, the slopes being varied as a function of the position of the extracting means in the light guide so as to direct the light through the light extraction surface to the selected spot. The Examiner relies on the following prior art references as evidence in rejecting the appealed claims: 2 Appeal 2009-002457 Application 10/506,276 Qiao 5,485,291 Jan. 16, 1996 Egawa 6,286,970 B1 Sep. 11, 2001 Greiner 6,547,408 B1 Apr. 15, 2003 Farah 6,563,998 B1 May 13, 2003 The Examiner maintains the following grounds of rejection: Claims 1, 3, 7, 11, and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Qiao. Claims 2 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Qiao in view of Greiner. Claims 4 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Qiao in view of Farah. Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Qiao in view of Greiner and Egawa. Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Qiao. We reverse the stated rejections for reasons set forth in the Appeal Brief and Reply Brief. Our reasoning follows. Anticipation Rejection Appellants argue independent claims 1 and 11 separately (App. Br. 5- 7). Appellants contend that Qiao discloses a light guide that furnishes a uniform illumination projection for large area lighting rather than a light guide that includes reflecting surfaces with varied slopes arranged to direct light flux to a selected spot of limited size or a reading plane position, of restricted area, as required by the rejected claims (see claims 1 and 11; App. Br. 2-7; Reply Br. 2-6). The Examiner argues that Qiao discloses a light guide with reflecting surfaces that directs light through a light extraction surface to a particular spot (appealed independent claim 11) or a particular reading plane position 3 Appeal 2009-002457 Application 10/506,276 of a restricted area, as recited in appealed independent claim 1 but does not point to any specific columns and lines of Qiao that convey such a disclosure (Ans. 4-6). In this regard, the Examiner maintains that the rejected claims do not require any specific restricted area size for the light guide and asserts that uniform illumination of an entire surface can be considered to be a restricted surface, as claimed (Ans. 9-10). PRINCIPAL ISSUE Has the Examiner established that the light guide depicted in Figure 7 of Qiao prima facie discloses reflecting surfaces with varying slopes that direct light flux to a particular spot or reading plane or position, as required by the appealed claims? PRINCIPLES OF LAW It is well settled that the burden of establishing a prima facie case of non-patentability resides with the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO). See In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472 (Fed. Cir. 1984). “To anticipate a claim, a prior art reference must disclose every limitation of the claimed invention, either explicitly or inherently.” In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Pending claim terms are given their broadest reasonable construction as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art when read in light of and consistently with the Specification. “When the applicant states [in his or her specification] the meaning that the claim terms are intended to have, the claims are examined with that meaning . . . .” In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321 (Fed. Cir. 1989). 4 Appeal 2009-002457 Application 10/506,276 FINDINGS OF FACT The Specification distinguishes between a light guide having reflecting surfaces with slopes that vary so as to direct the light to a spot or restricted area of a desired reading position and a light guide constructed to produce large area homogeneous lighting, albeit both types of guides may be used together to yield both spot lighting and homogeneous illumination (Specification 1-2). Qiao discloses a lighting panel that employs facets to reflect light out through a major planar surface so as to provide uniform illumination (Abs.; col. 2, l. 44 –col. 3, l. 18, col. 4, ll. 25-42). The Examiner has not identified where Qiao describes a light guide with facets (reflecting surfaces) having different slopes that are varied such that light flux is directed to a reading plane position of any particular restricted area with respect to a light extracting surface or to a spot having limited size in the Patent Specification thereof (see Answer in its entirety). ANALYSIS Giving anticipatorily rejected independent claims 1 and 11 their broadest reasonable construction consistent with the Specification, it is plain that each of these claims requires a light guide structure having means for extracting light through a light extraction surface that includes reflecting surfaces of slopes that differ so as to direct light to a restricted reading plane area (claim 1) or a selected spot of limited size (claim 11) as opposed to emitting light to a large area in a homogeneous manner. The Examiner has not articulated how the relied upon drawing Figure 7 of Qiao, which figure depicts light rays (arrows) exiting an upper major surface (21) of a light guide structure in multi-variant directions for uniform 5 Appeal 2009-002457 Application 10/506,276 lighting of a large area rather than spot lighting of a restricted area, describes reflecting surfaces that are arranged to direct light flux to a reading plane position of restricted area or spot size with respect to the light extraction surface of the depicted light guide, as the rejected claims require. CONCLUSION The Examiner has not established that the light guide depicted in Figure 7 of Qiao prima facie discloses reflecting surfaces with varying slopes that direct light flux to a particular spot or reading plane or position so as to anticipate the subject matter required by the appealed claims. Obviousness Rejections In each of the obviousness rejections, the Examiner relies on Qiao, as discussed above, and does not persuasively explain how Qiao with or without the additionally applied references, teaches or suggests a light guide having reflecting surfaces of differing slope configured to direct light to a limited spot or restricted area as claimed herein. It follows that, on this record, we shall also reverse the obviousness rejections. ORDER The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 3, 7, 11, and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Qiao; to reject claims 2 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Qiao in view of Greiner; to reject claims 4 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Qiao in view of Farah; to reject 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Qiao in view of Greiner and Egawa; and to reject claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Qiao is reversed. 6 Appeal 2009-002457 Application 10/506,276 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a)(v). REVERSED tc PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS P.O. BOX 3001 BRIARCLIFF MANOR, NY 10510 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation