Ex Parte Laakkio

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 28, 2017

13789939 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 28, 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.
13/789,939 03/08/2013 Olli-Pekka LAAKKIO 3540-1047 8456
466 7590 01/02/2018
YOUNG fr THOMPSON
EXAMINER
209 Madison Street ENDO, JAMES M
Suite 500
Alexandria, VA 22314 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2875
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/02/2018 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):
DocketingDept@young-thompson.com
y andtpair @ firsttofile. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte OLLI-PEKKA LAAKKIO
Appeal 2017-001834
Application 13/789,939
Technology Center 2800
Before CATHERINE Q. TIMM, CHRISTOPHER L. OGDEN, and
DEBRA L. DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
TIMM, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL1
STATEMENT OF CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-3, 7, 9, 12, 15, and 18 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Kelley3 in view of Huang4 and claims 4, 13,
1 In explaining our Decision, we cite to the Specification dated March 8,
2013 (Spec.), the Final Office Action dated November 5, 2015 (Final), the
Appeal Brief dated June 2, 2016 (Appeal Br.), the Examiner’s Answer dated
September 12, 2016 (Ans.), and the Reply Brief dated November 14, 2016
(Reply Br.).
2 Appellant is Applicant, Ledil Oy, which according to the Appeal Brief, is
also the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1.
3 Kelley, US 2012/0287649 Al, published Nov. 15, 2012.
4 Huang et al., US 2010/0165658 Al, published July 1, 2010.
Appeal 2017-001834
Application 13/789,939
14, 16, 17, and 20 over those references further in view of additional prior
art. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
The claims are directed to a light guide element comprising a
transparent piece (see, e.g., claim 1), an illuminator device including the
light guide element (see, e.g., claim 15), a mold suitable for making a
transparent piece (see, e.g., claim 18), and a system comprising a road and a
streetlamp including a light guide element (see, e.g., claim 20).
All of the claims require the light guide element or transparent piece
include mutually parallel grooves. Such grooves are shown, for instance, at
213 in Appellant’s Figure 2a. These mutually parallel grooves 213 reside on
reflective surface 208, which is shown in Figure 2b. Spec. 6:16-19.
The issue on appeal focuses on these grooves and, particularly, on the
question of whether Appellant has identified a reversible error in the
Examiner’s finding of a reason to include such grooves in the light guide
element of Kelley. Compare Final 2-6, and Ans. 2-12, with Appeal Br. 7-
22, and Reply Br. 2-16. The issue is the same for all the rejections, and we
will focus our discussion of the issue on claim 1. Appeal Br. 22-24. Claim
1, with the limitation at issue highlighted, is reproduced below:
1. A light guide element for modifying a light
distribution pattern of a light source radiating first light beams
to a first quarter-space and second light beams to a second
quarter-space, the first and second quarter-spaces being defined
by mutually perpendicular spatial planes so that one of the
spatial planes constitutes a planar boundary between the first
and second quarter-spaces, the light guide element comprising:
a transparent piece made of transparent material having a
refractive index greater than 1.00, the transparent piece
comprising:
2
Appeal 2017-001834
Application 13/789,939
a first cavity for the light source and a second cavity
whose surface constitutes a reflective surface for reflecting at
least a part of the second light beams to the first quarter-space
so that a total reflection takes place when the at least part of the
second light beams arrive, from inside the transparent piece, at
the surface of the second cavity; and
a portion for modifying a light distribution pattern of the
first light beams when the first light beams travel through the
portion of the transparent piece,
wherein a surface of the transparent material on a route
of the second light beams comprises mutually parallel grooves
for spreading a light distribution pattern of the second light
beams in a direction of a section line between the spatial
planes, the grooves being substantially perpendicular to the
section line.
Claims Appendix, Appeal Br. 25-26.
OPINION
Kelley teaches a light guide element that directs light from an LED
through the element to form a desired lighting profile. Kelley ]} 119. Like
Appellant’s light guide element, it is useful for redirecting light towards the
street when used in a streetlamp. Kelley ]}]} 119, 120. There is no dispute
that Kelley’s light directing apparatus is a light guide element having all the
structures required by claim 1 expect for the mutually parallel grooves.
Compare Final 2-6, and Ans. 2-12, with Appeal Br. 7-22, and Reply Br. 2-
16.
Like Appellant’s light guide element, Kelley’s light directing
apparatus includes a second cavity with surfaces for reflecting light (surfaces
of reflective indentations 161, 162). Compare Spec. 6:16-19, and Fig. 2b,
with Kelley]} 125, and Fig. 18. Kelley’s Figure 18, for instance, shows a
light beam reflecting off the surface of indentation 162.
3
Appeal 2017-001834
Application 13/789,939
The Examiner acknowledges that Kelley does not disclose the
mutually parallel grooves recited in Appellant’s claims. Final 4. But,
according to the Examiner, including such grooves on the reflective surface
of Kelley would have been obvious based on the teachings of Huang. Final
5.
Appellant calls into question the Examiner’s finding of a reason for
making the combination on the basis that there is no reason to modify
Kelley’s light guide element because it is already capable of providing the
desired total internal reflections. Appeal Br. 13; Reply Br. 9-10.
Appellant’s argument is not persuasive. Kelley desires total
reflection, but there is no convincing evidence that Kelley actually achieves
total reflection. Kelley states that “substantially total internal reflection” is
achieved through a combination of the collimator 106 and the first and
second protrusions 103, 104. Kelley]} 142 (emphasis added). Collimator
106 includes reflective indentations 161 and 162. Kelley]} 125. Kelley
states that “reflective indentations 161 and 162 reflect internal, incident light
to one or both of the first and second protrusions 103, 104.” Kelley ]} 143.
But Kelley does not indicate that all light is so reflected. Although
Appellant argues that those light rays that fall on the surfaces of Kelley,
where total internal is desired, arrive at angles that result in total internal
reflection (Reply Br. 6-7), there is no convincing evidence in support, and
Kelley’s use of the word “substantially” before “total internal reflection”
cuts against Appellant’s argument.
Appellant argues that total internal reflection takes place at every
surface in Kelley where total internal reflection is wanted. Reply Br. 6-7.
However, Appellant does not support this argument with factual evidence.
4
Appeal 2017-001834
Application 13/789,939
Also, the argument is not persuasive because the light rays depicted in
Kelley’s Figure 18, as acknowledged by Appellant (Reply Br. 7), are not the
only light rays emitted from the light source. Light rays otherwise scattered
may reach the reflective surfaces at any number of possible angles some of
which will not be reflected. Given that Kelley desires reflection and Huang
teaches using mutually parallel grooves (prisms 230 of Fig. 2) to reflect
light, a preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner’s finding of a
reason to add the prisms 230 of Huang to Kelley’s reflective indentations
161 and 162 to increase total internal reflectance.
Appellant further contends that Huang does not teach using mutually
parallel grooves for spreading the light distribution pattern in any
given/desired direction. Appeal Br. 14. As pointed out by Appellant, Huang
teaches using the grooves to make surfaces reflective. Id. But this fact does
not overcome the Examiner’s finding of a reason within Huang for using the
grooves to increase internal surface reflection. “As long as some motivation
or suggestion to combine the references is provided by the prior art taken as
a whole, the law does not require that the references be combined for the
reasons contemplated by the inventor.” In re Beattie, 974 F.2d 1309, 1312
(Fed. Cir. 1992).
Appellant further contends that Huang does not provide any teaching
that would lead a skilled person to place the grooves on the light guide
element of Kelley in the way defined by the independent claims because
Huang teaches various groove orientations. Appeal Br. 19-20. But there is
no dispute that Huang specifically discloses a groove orientation
perpendicular to the section line as required by the claims. Id. The fact
remains that perpendicular grooves are taught by Huang, albeit as one of
5
Appeal 2017-001834
Application 13/789,939
several options. It would have been obvious to use the specifically taught
perpendicular grooves in Kelley’s reflective surfaces for their known and
predictable purpose of increasing reflection. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007) (“[A] combination of familiar elements according
to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield
predictable results.”). So orienting the grooves would necessarily result in
additional light spreading due to the light reflecting off the prism surfaces.
Appellant acknowledges that it was known in the art to control the light
distribution pattern by varying the dimensions of the grooves. Appeal Br.
21.
A preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner’s finding of a
reason to include mutually parallel grooves of the structure required by
claim 1 in the light guide element of Kelley.
CONCLUSION
We sustain the Examiner’s rejections.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision is affirmed.
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1).
AFFIRMED
6