Ex Parte LeichnerDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 28, 201713653999 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 28, 2017) Copy Citation 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. 13/653,999 10/17/2012 Eric S. Leichner ECON-0002-U01 1018 78298 7590 Jay M. Brown JAY BROWN LAW FIRM P.O. Box 1407 Cary, NC 27512 09/29/2017 EXAMINER DUNAY, CHRISTOPHER E ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2875 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/29/2017 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 ERIC S. LEICHNER Applicant-Appellant-. ECOSENSE LIGHTING INC.1 Appeal 2016-006799 Application 13/653,999 Technology Center 2800 Before TERRY J. OWENS, BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, and CHRISTOPHER L. OGDEN, Administrative Patent Judges. OGDEN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant appeals2 under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final decision rejecting claims 1—17 in the above-identified application.3 We have jurisdiction pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM-IN-PART. 1 Appellant identifies Ecosense Lighting Inc. as the real party in interest. See Appeal Br. 2, Jan. 4, 2016. 2 See Appeal Br.; see also Reply Br., June 28, 2016. 3 Final Office Action, April 22, 2015 [hereinafter Final Action]; Examiner’s Answer, April 28, 2016 [hereinafter Answer], Appeal 2016-006799 Application 13/653,999 BACKGROUND Appellant’s invention relates to “providing an LED lighting facility that is configurable to a variety of applications.” Spec.412. Independent claim 1 is illustrative: 1. A modular linear LED lighting system, comprising: a multiple attachment configurable linear LED light housing module, wherein the linear LED light housing module is configured with removable and replaceable mounting attachments on at least two sides of the housing for mounting the linear LED light housing module; multiple housing compartments within the linear LED light housing module, including a compartment for LED driver electronics, a compartment for LEDs, and a compartment for containing wires that traverse the housing, wherein the housing compartments provide both separate mounting surfaces and separate heat sinking for the LEDs and LED driver electronics; a linear series internal mechanical attachment within the linear LED light housing module, wherein the linear LED light housing module is configured with at least one open side end exposing a mechanical attachment point while isolating a user from internal electronics for abutting and mechanically securing a second linear LED light housing module to form an extended length linear LED light housing modular assembly; and a linear series internal electrical interconnect within the linear LED light housing module, wherein the linear LED light housing module has a quick connect electrical connection in the at least one open side end mounted for electrically connecting the second linear LED light housing module with a matching open end. Appeal Br. 20 (emphasis of key limitations added). 4 Specification, Oct. 17, 2012 [hereinafter Spec.]. 2 Appeal 2016-006799 Application 13/653,999 The Examiner maintains the following grounds of rejection: 1. Claims 1—4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Zampini.5 See Final Action 2-4. 2. Claims 5—8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Zampini. See id. at 5—7. 3. Claims 9-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Zampini in view of Hirsch.6 See id. at 7—10. In the Appeal Brief, Appellant argues independent claims 1 and 4—13 as a group. See Appeal Br. 7—15. Appellant separately argues claims 2 and 3, see id. at 15—18, and argues that the rejection of claims 13—17 is in error for the same reasons as claim 1, see id. at 18—19. Therefore, consistent with 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2016), we limit our discussion to claims 1—3. Claims 4—17 stand or fall with claim 1. 5 Zampini, II et al, US 2009/0310354 A1 (published Dec. 17, 2009) [hereinafter Zampini], 6 Hirsch, US 5,658,066 (issued Aug. 19, 1997). 3 Appeal 2016-006799 Application 13/653,999 DISCUSSION Claims 1 and 4^17 Figure 4 of Zampini is reproduced below: Figure 4 depicts a lighting fixture, missing side walls, that includes LEDs 106 supported on a board 1061, and circuitry 108 used to control the LED, which is disposed on a second board 1081. See Zampini || 86—87. The Examiner identifies multiple housing compartments in Zampini, including a compartment between board 1061 and optics 104. See Answer 3. The Examiner finds that 108 in Zampini is a “compartment for LED driver electronics” as recited in claim 1, and that 108 is also a “compartment for containing wires that traverse the housing.” Final Action 3. The Examiner also finds that boards 1061 and 1081 contain circuit traces, which may be interpreted as “wires that traverse the housing” as recited in claim 1. See Final Action 3; Answer 5—6. Appellant does not 4 Appeal 2016-006799 Application 13/653,999 dispute this. See Appeal Br. 10—11. However, Appellant argues that according to the Examiner’s interpretation, item 108 contains both the LED driver electronics and wires that traverse the housing. See Appeal Br. 8—10. Appellant also argues that according to the Examiner’s interpretation, both the upper compartment bounded by circuit board 1061 and the lower compartment bounded by circuit board 1081 contain wires that traverse the housing. See id. at 10-11. Appellant argues that neither of these combinations is consistent with the language of claim 1. See id. at 8—11. Appellant further argues, based on Figures 3 and 4 of Zampini, that there is flex circuitry between the two circuit boards, and connectors. See id. at 11— 14. Thus, Appellant argues that Zampini does not teach the “multiple housing compartments” limitation of claim 1. See id. at 14. We do not find these arguments persuasive of reversible error. When we interpret claim terms, we use “the broadest reasonable meaning of the words in their ordinary usage as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, taking into account whatever enlightenment by way of definitions or otherwise that may be afforded by the written description contained in the applicant’s specification.” In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Here, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “compartment for LED driver electronics” and “compartment for containing wires that traverse the housing” only requires that a compartment meeting each description be found among the “multiple housing compartments within the linear LED light housing module” as recited in claim 1. Appeal Br. 20. Appellant’s arguments in the Reply Brief as to the meaning of “compartment” are also unpersuasive. Appellant attaches a dictionary 5 Appeal 2016-006799 Application 13/653,999 definition of the term “compartment” as meaning “a separate section of part of something, in particular,” and “a section of a container in which certain items can be kept separate from others.” Reply Br. 5. While these definitions define a compartment as a section that is separate from other compartments, the definitions do not determine whether or not a compartment for one purpose can also be a compartment for another purpose in the same device within the scope of claim 1. Similarly, we have considered Appellant’s submission of a dictionary definition of the term “containing” as “have or hold (something or something) within.” Reply Br. 6. However, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the Specification, a “compartment for containing wires” is need not be a single-function compartment, and may perform other functions. Moreover, we find nothing in the claims or the Specification that would reasonably prohibit two compartments from sharing the function of containing wires. For the above reasons, Appellant has not persuasively identified reversible error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 over Zampini. Therefore, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 4—17. Claims 2 and 3 Claim 2 depends from claim 1 and further recites the following limitations: a mechanical assembly connection device to hold the linear LED lighting housing module and the second linear LED light housing module together during assembly of the extended length linear LED light housing modular assembly, such that when the me chanical assembly connection device is in place in a first config uration between the two housing modules there is a space be- 6 Appeal 2016-006799 Application 13/653,999 tween the two housing modules to facilitate electrical intercon nection while maintaining a structurally rigid temporary assem bly. Appeal Br. 20 (emphasis added as shown at Appeal Br. 16). In the Final Action, the Examiner finds that Zampini discloses such a mechanical assembly as item 1001 in Figure 4. See Final Action 4. However, the Examiner does not specifically point to where in Zampini there is a space between the two housing modules in the first configuration to facilitate electrical interconnection. In the Answer, the Examiner refers to a “dovetail” mentioned in paragraph 94 of Zampini, but does not explain how the dovetail provides a space between the two housing modules to facilitate electrical interconnection. Answer 3^4. Appellant argues that the Examiner has not explained how Zampini disclosed the limitation in claim 2 emphasized above, and presents arguments that the accessories disclosed in Zampini, Figs. 7—22, would not allow for any space between two housing modules. See Appeal Br. 17. The Examiner did not specifically respond to these arguments in the Answer. See Answer 3^4. Based on the evidence on this appeal record, the Examiner has not persuasively shown that one may find every element of claim 2 within the disclosure of Zampini. Therefore, we reverse the rejection of claim 2. Claim 3 depends from claim 2, and inherits the same limitations. See Appeal Br. 20—21. Thus, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 3 for the same reasons as for claim 2. 7 Appeal 2016-006799 Application 13/653,999 DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 4—17. We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2 and 3. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal maybe extended. See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv) (2016). AFFIRMED-IN-PART 8 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation