12942053 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 26, 2018)

Ex Parte Kuenzler

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 26, 2018

12942053 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 26, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 121942,053 11/09/2010 27885 7590 FAY SHARPE LLP 1228 Euclid Avenue, 5th Floor The Halle Building Cleveland, OH 44115 03/27/2018 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Glenn Howard Kuenzler 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. GLOZ 200546US01 238658 CONFIRMATION NO. 1965 EXAMINER FAROKHROOZ,FATIMAN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2875 MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE 03/27/2018 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte GLENN HOWARD KUENZLER Appeal2017-005493 Application 12/942,053 Technology Center 2800 Before TERRY J. OWENS, GEORGE C. BEST, and CHRISTOPHER L. OGDEN, Administrative Patent Judges. OGDEN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant 1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Examiner's final decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 5-15, 17, 18, and 20-23 in the above- identified application. 2 We have authority pursuant to 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We reverse. 1 According to Appellant, Lumination LLC is the real party in interest. Appeal Brief 1, June 20, 2016 (hereinafter Appeal Br.). 2 Final Office Action 1, Sept. 18, 2015 (hereinafter Final Action); see also Examiner's Answer, Dec. 13, 2016 (hereinafter Answer); Reply Brief, Feb. 13, 2017 (hereinafter Reply Br.). Appeal2017-005493 Application 12/942,053 BACKGROUND We reproduce Figure 2 of Appellant's disclosure below: Figure 2 is a perspective view depicting a lamp 10 in the shape of a familiar A19 light bulb. Spec. 3 i-fi-f 18, 36. Lamp 10 includes an elongated columnar body (12) and a plurality of heat fins (18) for dissipating heat. Id. i-fi-125, 27. Optics 20, which include phosphors and/or light scattering materials, are disposed between adjacent fins 18, and cover light-producing LEDs (not shown). Id. i1 31. The lamp also includes electronics module 22 within columnar body 12, and standard Edison screw base 24 at the bottom. Id. i132. Representative claim 1 is as follows: 1. A lamp comprised of an at least substantially hollow columnar body having a longitudinal axis, a plurality of light emitting diodes disposed on said columnar body, a plurality of fins including a first edge disposed on said columnar body and a second edge remote from the columnar body, said first edge oriented at least generally parallel to the 3 Specification, Nov. 9, 2010 [hereinafter Spec.]. 2 Appeal2017-005493 Application 12/942,053 longitudinal axis of the columnar body, opposed first end second side walls extending between the first edge and the second edge, said first and second side walls being disposed in at least substantially parallel planes, a light dispersing optic element overlapping and spaced from said diodes, said optic element including at least one of a phosphor and light scattering material, said optic element comprising a plurality of wedge- shaped optic elements, each element being disposed between a pair of adjacent fins and configured such that the exterior surfaces of the optic elements in combination form an at least substantially spherical body, a base member disposed at a first end of the columnar body and providing a means for electrical connection, and an electronics module disposed within the columnar body and in electrical communication with the base member. Appeal Br. 9 (emphasis of key limitations added). Apparatus claim 23 is also independent, notable differences from claim 1 being that the optic elements are not constrained to form a substantially spherical body, and "the second edges of said fins in combination form an exterior portion of said lamp and provide a general A19 outline." Id. at 12. We reproduce method claim 17 below: 1 7. A method of manufacturing a lamp comprising extruding an elongated hollow body including a plurality of fins having a first edge integrally formed on said elongated hollow body and an opposed free edge, said body comprised of a material having a thermal conductivity greater than 100 W /mK, cutting said body to a predetermined length, attaching a plurality of light emitting diodes to said elongated hollow body and providing one of an Edison screw base and a wedge base and electrical circuitry suitable for powering said light emitting diode. Appeal Br. 11 (emphasis of key limitation added). 3 Appeal2017-005493 Application 12/942,053 The Examiner maintains the following grounds of rejection: 1. Claims 1, 23, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as being unpatentable over Pickard. 4 See Final Action 2--4. 2. Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Zheng5 in view of Shemitz. 6 See id. at 4--5. 3. Claims 1, 2, 5-13, 15, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Zheng in view of Pickard and Zhang. 7 See id. at 5-10. 4. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Zheng in view of Pickard, Zhang, and Ratcliffe. 8 See id. at 9. 5. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Zheng in view of Shemitz and Vetrovec. 9 See id. at 9-10. 6. Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Zheng in view of Shemitz and Pickard. See id. at 10. 4 Pickard et al., US 2011/0089830 Al (published Apr. 21, 2011). 5 Zheng et al., US 7,434,964 Bl (issued Oct. 14, 2008). 6 Shemitz et al., US 2005/0111229 Al (published May 26, 2005). 7 Zhang et al., US 2009/0168417 Al (published July 2, 2009). 8 Ratcliffe, US 2009/0251882 Al (published Oct. 8, 2009). 9 Vetrovec, US 2010/0148652 Al (published June 17, 2010). 4 Appeal2017-005493 Application 12/942,053 DISCUSSION Rejection 1 (Claims 1, 23, and 26) We reproduce Figure 6 of Pickard below: Pickard's Figure 6 depicts an exploded view of a compact solid-state lamp. Pickard i-f 66; see also id., Fig. 4 (top perspective view). The lamp includes 5 Appeal2017-005493 Application 12/942,053 heat sink 420, which "has a plurality of inward facing fins that extend into a cavity defined by a body section of the heat sink." Id. i-f 293. LEDs 450 are mounted on the outward-facing surfaces of heat sink 420. Id. Side lenses 460, which may be diffusive, are placed over the LEDs by sliding or snapping them into corresponding grooves 423 of comer mounts 425 of heat sink 420. Id. i-fi-f 296, 307. The Examiner finds that Pickard's comer mounts 425 are "fins" as recited in claim 1, although Pickard does not teach that optical elements ( 460) are wedge shaped, or that they in combination form at least a substantially spherical body. Final Action 3. However, the Examiner finds that in a separate embodiment, shown in Figures 13-15, Pickard teaches a lamp having optic elements forming a substantially spherical shape to cover the LEDs. Final Action 3; see also Answer 15-16. The Examiner determines that it would have been obvious to modify Pickard' s embodiment in Figure 6 to incorporate spherical optic elements "in order to be look-alike of conventional light bulbs, and to keep more distance with the LEDs with the spherical shape in place of cylindrical shape." Final Action 3. With regard to claim 23, the Examiner also appears to identify the "fins" as comer mounts 425 on heat sink 420. See id. at 4. Appellant argues that the Examiner improperly characterizes comer mounts 425 as being the "fins" recited in claims 1 and 23. Appeal Br. 5; Reply Br. 3. Appellant also argues, with respect to claim 1, that nothing in either of the two embodiments of Pickard would suggest forming a spherical lens in multiple, wedge-shaped components spaced horizontally between the fins. See Appeal Br. 5; Reply Br. 4. 6 Appeal2017-005493 Application 12/942,053 We agree with Appellant that the Examiner has not persuasively shown that a skilled artisan would reasonably interpret comer mounts 425 as "fins," in light of the Specification. The Examiner has not pointed to any part of Pickard that refers to mounts 425 as fins, or even implies that they function as fins. Pickard's heat sink 420 contains fins, but those fins are directed inwardly from the columnar body, and thus fall outside the scope of the "fin" limitations in claim 1 or 23. See Pickard i-f 283. We also agree with Appellant that Figure 6 of Pickard, combined only with the teaching of a multi-part spherical shape in Figures 13-15, does not motivate the specific structure recited in claim 1, in which wedge-shaped optic elements, spaced between adjacent fins, form at least a substantially spherical body. Pickard teaches that the bulb-shaped lens 660 in Figures 13- 15 may be a composite structure by, e.g., making a "cap" portion on the top to allow the heat sink assembly to be inserted. Pickard i-f 314. However, this disclosure does not motivate dividing the structure to form wedges between adjacent fins. For the above reasons, we reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 23, and 26 (which depends from claim 23) underÂ§ 103(a) over Pickard. 7 Appeal2017-005493 Application 12/942,053 Rejections 2, 5, and 6 (Claims 17, 18, 20, and 22) We reproduce Figure 3 of Zheng below: 32D 38 FIG~ 3 Zheng's Figure 3 depicts heat sink 30 made of a single piece of a metal such as aluminum. Zheng 2: 18-20. It is a hexagonal prism that includes radially facing rectangular fins 34 and base 32 at the bottom, adjacent to which there are protrusions 38 and short, additional fins 36. See id. at 2:20-60. 8 Appeal2017-005493 Application 12/942,053 Regarding claim 1 7, the Examiner finds that Zheng does not disclose forming the integral structure shown in Figure 3 by extrusion; however, the Examiner finds that Shemitz "teaches the technique of extruding and length wise cutting of heat dissipation elements." Final Action 5 (citing Shemitz i-fi-125-26). Thus, the Examiner determines that it would have been obvious "to use the step of extrusion and cutting of the heat sink element, as disclosed by Shemitz in the device of Zheng in order to achieve standard size [l]ight emitting devices." Id. This rationale is insufficient for substantially the reasons argued by Appellant. See Appeal Br. 6-7; Reply Br. 4. In particular, the Examiner has not persuasively shown that a skilled artisan could manufacture the unmodified structure shown in Zheng's Figure 3 by extrusion. To the extent that modifications to Zheng's structure are necessary in order to allow for extrusion as part of forming an operable device, the Examiner has not shown that such modifications would have been obvious in view of the prior art. For the above reasons, we reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims 17 and 18 (which depends from claim 17) underÂ§ 103(a) over Zheng in view of Shemitz. Because claims 20 and 22 depend from claim 17 and the Examiner's rejections of these claims do not cure the reversible error discussed above, we also reverse the rejections of claims 20 and 22. Rejections 3 and 4 (Claims 1, 2, 5-15, and 21) The Examiner rejects claim 1 on an alternative basis, based on Zheng in view of Pickard and Zhang. See Final Action 5-7. The Examiner finds that Zheng, in view of Pickard and Zhang, "does not teach the optic elements being wedge-shaped, the exterior surfaces of the optic elements in combination to form an at least substantially spherical body." Id. at 6-7. 9 Appeal2017-005493 Application 12/942,053 However, Examiner determines that Packard's embodiment in Figures 13- 15 teaches a lens, in multiple sections, "formed in a spherical shape to cover the LED with the benefit of keeping more distance with the LEDs with the spherical shape." Id. at 7 (citing Pickard i-fi-1 314--15). For the reasons discussed above, we agree with Appellant that the teaching of a multi-part spherical shape in Pickard's Figures 13-15 does not motivate the specific structure recited in claim 1, in which wedge-shaped optic elements, spaced between adjacent fins, form at least a substantially spherical body. The Examiner has not directed us to any teaching in either Zheng or Zhang that remedies this deficiency in the cited teachings of the prior art. For the above reasons, we reverse the Examiner's rejection of claim 1 underÂ§ 103(a) over Zheng in view of Pickard and Zhang, as well as claims 2, 5-15, and 21, which depend directly or indirectly from claim 1. The Examiner's rejection of claim 14 underÂ§ 103(a) over Zheng in view of Pickard, Zhang, and Ratcliffe does not remedy the reversible error as to claim 1. 10 Appeal2017-005493 Application 12/942,053 CONCLUSION In summary: Claims Re"ected 1, 23, and Â§ 103(a) Pickard 26 17 and 18 Â§ 103(a) Zhen and Shemitz 1, 2, 5-13, Â§ 103(a) Zheng, Pickard, 15, and 21 and Zhan 14 Â§ 103(a) Zheng, Pickard, 20 22 Summary Zhang, and Ratcliffe Â§ 103(a) Zheng, Shemitz, and Vetrovec Â§ 103(a) Zheng, Shemitz, and Pickard DECISION The Examiner's decision is reversed. REVERSED 11 1, 23, and 26 17 and 18 1, 2, 5-13, 15, and21 14 20 22 1, 2, 5-15, 17, 18, and 20-23