Ex Parte Le et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 17, 201612889719 (P.T.A.B. May. 17, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/889,719 09/24/2010 24239 7590 05/19/2016 MOORE & VAN ALLEN PLLC P.O. BOX 13706 3015 Carrington Mill Boulevard, Suite 400 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Long Larry Le 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. CONFIRMATION NO. 034643-000274 6855 EXAMINER BANNAN, TIJLIE A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2875 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/19/2016 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): iplaw@mvalaw.com usptomail@mvalaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) OUNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PA TENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte LONG LARRY LE 1 and Curt Progl Appeal2014-007406 Application 12/889,719 Technology Center 2800 Before ROMULO H. DELMENDO, MARK NAGUMO, and JULIA HEANEY, Administrative Patent Judges. NAGUMO, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Long Larry Le and Curt Progl ("Le") timely appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection2 of claims 1-33, which are all of the pending claims. We have jurisdiction. 35 U.S.C. § 6. We affirm. 1 The real party in interest is listed as Cree, Inc. (Appeal Brief, filed 27 January 2014 ("Br."), 1.) 2 Office action mailed 27 August 2013 ("Final Rejection"; cited as "FR"). Appeal2014-007406 Application 12/889,719 A. Introduction3 OPINION The subject matter on appeal relates to light emitting diode ("LED") lighting systems, especially replacements for standard threaded incandescent bulbs or their fluorescent lamp replacements. According to the '719 Specification, "[a ]lthough LED bulbs typically include a heat sink, the heat generated by the LEDs can raise the temperature of the power supply components, and the resulting temperature increase must be taken into account in the power supply design." (Spec. 1 [0003].) Le solves this problem by providing an "isolation device [that] can be sized and shaped in accordance with the profile of the other lamp components." (Id. at 6 [0019].) An exemplary isolation device 2004 is shown in Figs. 2A and 2B, reproduced below, FIG. 2A FIG. '.<'8 {Fig. 2A shows isolation structures 208 facing the LED assembly} {Fig. 2B shows isolation structures 212 facing the power supply assembly} 3 Application 12/889,719, LED lamp, filed 24 September 2010. We refer to the '"719 Specification," which we cite as "Spec." 4 Throughout this Opinion, for clarity, labels to elements are presented in bold font, regardless of their presentation in the original document. 2 Appeal2014-007406 Application 12/889,719 The isolation structures are said to be triangular ridges "to minimize the contact area and maintain a thermal transfer gap between the device and other portions of the lamp." (Id. at 6 [0020].) Claim 1 reads: A thermal isolation device for an LED lamp, the thermal isolation device comprising: a first face disposed to be proximate to an LED assembly and a second face disposed to be proximate to a power supply for the LED lamp; and contact features arranged on the first face and the second face to maintain one thermal transfer gap between the power supply and the second face of the thermal isolation device and another thermal transfer gap between the LED assembly and the first face of the thermal isolation device wherein the thermal transfer gap between the power supply and the secondface measures from 0.1 mm to 5 mm. (Claims App., Br. 7; some indentation, paragraphing, and emphasis added.) Claim 28 reads: A modular LED lamp comprising: an LED assembly module; a power supply module; and a thermal isolation device having a radius from about 15 mm to about 20 mm disposed to maintain one thermal isolation gap between the LED assembly module and a first face of the thermal isolation device and another thermal isolation gap between a second face of the thermal isolation device and the power supply module. (Claims App., Br. 10-11, some indentation, paragraphing, and emphasis added.) 3 Appeal2014-007406 Application 12/889,719 The Examiner maintains the following grounds of rejection5 : A. Claims 1-14, 16-19, 22, and 24-30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of Chinniah6. Al. Claims 15, 20, 21, 23, 31-33 (and claims 14, 19, 25, and 27 alternatively) stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of the combined teachings of Chinniah and Meyer 7. B. Discussion Findings of fact throughout this Opinion are supported by a preponderance of the evidence of record. Initially, we find that Le has not presented substantively distinct arguments for the patentability of the appealed claims apart from independent claims 1 and 28. Accordingly, the remaining claims stand or fall with these claims. Le contends Chinniah does not disclose "modules." Le urges that the Specification discloses that "[i]n some embodiments, each of the thermal isolation device, the power supply portion, the optical element(s), and LED assembly portion of the lamp work as independent modules or subassemblies that can be put together into a finished lamp." (Spec. 14 [0037].) "In some such modular designs," the Specification continues, "some portions of the modular LED lamp can be broken down further into additional independent modules." (Id.) In Le's view, "Chinniah 5 Examiner's Answer mailed 24 April 2014 ("Ans."). 6 Chinniah Viswanathan et al., Method and apparatus for enhancing LED display 's performance via thermal management thereof, WO 02/19303 Al (2002). 7 William E. Meyer, LED lamp with heat sink optic, U.S. Patent No. 7,588,351 B2 (15 September 2009). 4 Appeal2014-007406 Application 12/889,719 does not include a thermal isolation device, but rather a cover for an 'optical module."' (Br. 4, 11. 3--4.) Chinniah teaches, however, that [ t ]he isolation of the optical module minimizes the fluctuation in temperature of the LED devices and hence ensures a greater luminous output from the optical module . . . . The compartmentalization of the power module not only offers better thermal management of the LED display system but allows upgrade of the transformer without the need to retire the optical module." [Chinniah 4, 11. 7-13.] The LED optical head 5 described by Chinniah is shown in a side elevational plan view in Fig. 2, below: 5 2, SS a { Chinniah Fig. 2 shows a LED optical head 5 comprising LED module 9 and a power module 15.} 5 Appeal2014-007406 Application 12/889,719 According to Chinniah, optical module 9 isolates LED board 6 from the environment by encasing it with protective cover 2 and optical module cover 8, which is separated from LED board 6 by legs 42. (Chinniah 6, 11. 19-23.) On the surface opposing the LED board are spacers 40 "for coupling detachably the optical module 9 with the power module 15." (Id. at 11. 23-25.) Claim 1 does not define the terms "thermal isolation device," "LED assembly," or "power supply" with sufficient structural or functional specificity to distinguish over various components described in Chinniah that perform the same or similar functions. Nor does the supporting '719 Specification provide definitions of these terms, or of the terms "LED assembly module" and "power supply module" recited in claim 28 that suffice to distinguish the LED head and components described by Chinniah. Moreover, the claims do not recite sufficient structural or functional relations between these components to distinguish over Chinniah. In any event, we decline to read limitations from preferred embodiments disclosed in the Specification into the claims. With regard to the specific dimensions recited in claims 1 and 28, we are not persuaded that the particular application to traffic signal lights described by Chinniah would have distracted the routineer from recognizing that the magnitude of the gap between a thermal shield and the power supply component, or the radius of that shield, would be adapted to the requirements of a particular LED lamp. The size is not unusual, and there is no disclosure in the '719 Specification indicating that special technical problems needed to be overcome to realize the claimed embodiment. As the Court has instructed, "[ w ]hen a work is available in one field of endeavor, 6 Appeal2014-007406 Application 12/889,719 design incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one. If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, § 103 likely bars its patentability." KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007). On the present record, the selection of the dimensions recited in the appealed claims appears to be the result of no more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions, and hence obvious. We are not persuaded of harmful error in the appealed rejections. C. Order It is ORDERED that the rejection of claims 1-33 is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § l.136(a). AFFIRivIED 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation