Ex Parte Hoelen et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 20, 2009

10506276 (B.P.A.I. May. 20, 2009)

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