Ex Parte Mrakovich et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 20, 2017

12949919 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 20, 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.
12/949,919 11/19/2010 Matthew S. Mrakovich 236422 GLOZ 6736
200543US01
27885 7590 03/20/2017
FAY SHARPF T T P
EXAMINER
1228 Euclid Avenue, 5th Floor BANNAN, JULIE A
The Halle Building
Cleveland, OH 44115 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2875
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/20/2017 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 MATTHEW S. MRAKOVICH,
MARK J. MAYER,
and THOMAS E. ZINK
Appeal 2015-005396
Application 12/949,919
Technology Center 2800
Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, LINDA M. GAUDETTE, and
JEFFREY R. SNAY, Administrative Patent Judges.
HANLON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
A. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants filed an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection
of claims 1—3, 5, 6, and 15—25.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
The claims on appeal are directed to a light fixture comprising light engine
modules wherein the modules comprise a plurality of light emitting diodes (LEDs).
1 Claims 7—9 were also finally rejected. Claims 7—9, however, were cancelled in
an amendment dated June 19, 2014. That amendment was entered by the
Examiner in an Advisory Action dated July 7, 2014.
Appeal 2015-005396
Application 12/949,919
Representative claim 1 is reproduced below from the Claims Appendix of the
Appeal Brief dated December 19, 2014 (“App. Br.”). The limitations at issue are
italicized.
1. A light fixture comprising a post adapted to receive at least two
light engine modules, said modules including a plurality of light
emitting diodes disposed on an at least substantially planar surface,
said light emitting diodes being disposed in at least two generally
concentric semi-circular arrays, said arrays disposed at least
substantially in a shared plane, said modules being at least
substantially identical, each module including a light emitting diode
inclusive surface and an opposed surface, said opposed surface
including a plurality of vanes, each module further including an edge
adapted for mounting to said post and allowing each module to be
individually secured to said post, said fixture further comprising an
electrical path for providing electrical power to said modules.
App. Br. 10.
The claims on appeal stand rejected as follows:
(1) claims 1—3, 5, 6, 21, 22, and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Polidor et al.2 in view of Belliveau et al.;3
(2) claim 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Polidor in
view of Belliveau, and further in view of Yang et al.;4
(3) claims 15—18, 20, and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Riesebosch5 in view of Wong et al.;6 and
(4) claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Riesebosch in
view of Wong, and further in view of Kelly.7
2 US 5,690,417, issued November 25, 1997 (“Polidor”).
3 US 2009/0225542 Al, published September 10, 2009 (“Belliveau”).
4 US 2010/0053963 Al, published March 4, 2010 (“Yang”).
5 US 2010/0103688 Al, published April 29, 2010 (“Riesebosch”).
6 US 7,021,803 B2, issued April 4, 2006 (“Wong”).
7 US 6,015,219, issued January 18, 2000 (“Kelly”).
2
Appeal 2015-005396
Application 12/949,919
B. DISCUSSION
1. Rejection (1)
a. Claim 1
The Examiner finds Polidor discloses a light fixture comprising post 12
adapted to receive at least two light engine modules SI—S8.8 The Examiner finds
each module has a light emitting diode surface and an opposed surface. The
Examiner finds Polidor does not disclose that the opposed surface includes a
plurality of vanes as recited in claim 1. Final 2.9
The Examiner finds Belliveau discloses four light emitting diode modules
(i.e., circuit boards 10, 20, 30, 40) comprising a light emitting diode surface and an
opposed surface that includes a plurality of vanes (i.e., heat sink 410). Final 2—3.
The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art to “include a heat sink [in Polidor] for dissipating heat away from LEDs as
well known in the art.” Final 3.
The Appellants argue:
Polidor fails to teach a plurality of modules, particularly modules
including a first edge for mating with a post. More particularly,
Polidor does not teach a modular device. Polidor provides a single
body surface illuminator 10. The fact that Polidor shows (see Figure
2) that the circular arrays of LEDs are arranged into sectors controlled
by different circuits does not make them physically separate units (i.e.
modules).
App. Br. 5.
8 As to claim 6, the Examiner finds modules SI—S8 can be combined to form four
light engine modules SI—2, S3—4, S5—6, and S7—8. Examiner’s Answer dated
February 26, 2015 (“Ans.”), at 3.
9 Final Office Action dated March 19, 2014.
3
Appeal 2015-005396
Application 12/949,919
The Appellants’ argument is not persuasive of reversible error. Belliveau
discloses that using separate LED circuit boards (i.e., circuit boards 10, 20, 30, 40)
reduces the service cost of replacement components. Belliveau 134. The
Examiner finds one of ordinary skill in the art would have considered ease of
assembly, maintenance, or replacement of separate LED circuit boards to be
desirable in Polidor. Final 3; see also Ans. 5—7. Based on that finding, the
Examiner concludes that dividing individually controlled sectors SI—S8 of Polidor
into modules as claimed would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art.10 Final 3.
The Appellants argue that Polidor, which is directed to a surface illuminator
for a microscope, and Belliveau, which is directed to stage lightning, are not
analogous art. For that reason, the Appellants argue that the teachings of Polidor
and Belliveau are not properly combined. App. Br. 6.
To determine whether a reference is from an analogous art “we decide if the
reference is within the field of the inventor’s endeavor[, and i]f it is not, we
proceed to determine whether the reference is reasonably pertinent to the particular
problem with which the inventor was involved.” In re Wood, 599 F.2d 1032, 1036
(CCPA 1979). In this case, the Appellants do not identity error in the Examiner’s
finding that both Polidor and Belliveau are in the inventors’ field of endeavor, or at
least reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventors were
involved, because “both references teach the use of LEDs, both having LEDs
arranged in a circular manner, and both are for illumination.” Ans. 6. In that
10 See KSR Int’l v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007) (“if a technique has been
used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would
recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the
technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill”).
4
Appeal 2015-005396
Application 12/949,919
regard, we note that on appeal, the Appellants do not identify their field of
endeavor or the particular problem with which they were involved. Thus, the
Appellants have failed to show that either Polidor or Belliveau is nonanalogous art.
Finally, the Appellants argue that “the combination of Polidor and Belliveau,
if proper, ignores structural limitations of Appellant’s claims such as ‘each module
further including an edge adapted for mounting to said post and allowing each
module to be individually secured to said post.’”11 App. Br. 6. The Appellants
argue that “the line drawn in the Polidor patent to indicate regions of circuitry is
not a structural edge” and “the segments of Belliveau do not teach or suggest a
separate post mounting edge.” App. Br. 6.
The Appellants’ arguments fail to consider the prior art as a whole. See In
re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981) (test for obviousness is “what the
combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary
skill in the art”). In Polidor, lamps L (e.g., LEDs) are mounted in housing 14 and
the inner circular surface of housing 14 is secured to post 12. Polidor, col. 2,11.
59-61 and col. 2,1. 66—col. 3,1. 4; Polidor Fig. 1. In the modification proposed by
the Examiner, sectors SI—S8 of Polidor’s housing 14 are divided into modules
based on the teachings in Belliveau. Those modules of housing 14 would be
substantially pie-shaped and have an inner arcuate mounting surface including an
edge adapted for mounting to post 12 as claimed.12 See Ans. 6; see also PAR
Pharm., Inc. v. TWIPharm., Inc., 773 F.3d 1186, 1195 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (inherency
11 Similarly, the Appellants argue that the combination of Polidor and Belliveau
ignores the structural limitation “sidewalls extending from said first edge” as
recited in claim 6. App. Br. 6.
12 The Examiner also finds the modified sectors or modules SI—S8 of housing 14
would have sidewalls as recited in claim 6. Ans. 6.
5
Appeal 2015-005396
Application 12/949,919
is present when the limitation at issue is the ‘“natural result’” of the combination of
prior art elements).
The § 103(a) rejection of claim 1 based on the combination of Polidor and
Belliveau is sustained. The Appellants do not present arguments in support of the
separate patentability of dependent claims 2, 5, and 21. Therefore, the § 103(a)
rejection of claims 2, 5, and 21 based on the combination of Polidor and Belliveau
is also sustained.
b. Claim 3
Claim 3 depends from claim 1 and recites “said edge adapted for mounting
to said post resides in at least substantially the same plane as said vanes.” App. Br.
10. The Examiner finds the combination of Polidor and Belliveau teaches that
limitation. Final 4.
The Appellants argue:
Polidor lacks vanes and accordingly, cannot teach vanes having an
edge capable of mounting to said post residing in at least substantially
the same plane as the vanes. Belliveau Figure 4, provides no teaching
of a post or edges secured thereto. Rather, the vanes associated with
heatsink 410 are arranged substantially in the same plane as
electronics connector 305 ... .
App. Br. 7.
The Appellants’ argument fails to consider the prior art as a whole. As
explained by the Examiner, “the vanes of Belliveau have been incorporated into
Pollidor [sic], and the vanes extend (opposite the FEDs) and in the same plane as
the edge of Pollidor [sic] that mates with the post 12 [i.e., an inside mounting edge
at the top surface of housing 14].” Ans. 7. The Appellants do not direct us to any
error in the Examiner’s finding.
6
Appeal 2015-005396
Application 12/949,919
The § 103(a) rejection of claim 3 based on the combination of Polidor and
Belliveau is sustained.
c. Claim 6
The Examiner finds Polidor teaches that housing 14 comprises four
segments (i.e., SI—2, S3 4, S5—6, and S7—8). Ans. 3. The Examiner finds Polidor
teaches mounting housing 14 to post 12. The Examiner, however, finds “Polidor
lacks a specific teaching of the fastening means including a bracket shaped to
cooperatively engage an outer surface of said post.” Ans. 3. Nonetheless, the
Examiner finds that “various fastening means are well known in the art and the
examiner takes official notice that brackets are among the most common means of
fastening components together.” Ans. 4. The Examiner concludes that “one of
ordinary skill in the art would have recognized and appreciated the use of a bracket
for attaching the modules to the post.” Ans. 4—5.
The Appellants argue:
[T]he use of individual circuit boards in Belliveau does not suggest
using individual module brackets in Polidor. Rather, Polidor would
simply employ a separate circuit board. Moreover, even if separate
circuit boards were employed in Polidor, there is no suggest [sic,
suggestion] for each circuit board to include a bracket shaped for
mating with the post.
App. Br. 7.
The Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive of reversible error. As
discussed above, Polidor discloses that lamps L (e.g., LEDs) are mounted in
housing 14. In the modification proposed by the Examiner, sectors SI—2, S3—4,
S5—6, and S7—8 of Polidor housing 14 are divided into four modules based on the
teachings in Belliveau. Polidor discloses that housing 14 is mounted directly to
post 12. Thus, modified sectors or modules SI—2, S3—4, S5—6, and S7—8 of
7
Appeal 2015-005396
Application 12/949,919
housing 14 also would be mounted directly to post 12. The Examiner concludes
that using a bracket to attach the modified sectors or modules to post 12 would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because “brackets are among
the most common means of fastening components together.” Ans. 4. The
Appellants do not direct us to any evidence to the contrary.
The § 103(a) rejection of claim 6 based on the combination of Polidor and
Belliveau is sustained. The Appellants do not present arguments in support of the
separate patentability of dependent claims 22 and 24 in rejection (1) and claim 23
in rejection (2). Therefore, the § 103(a) rejection of claims 22 and 24 based on the
combination of Polidor and Belliveau and the § 103(a) rejection of claim 23 based
on the combination of Polidor, Belliveau, and Yang are sustained for the reasons
set forth above sustaining the § 103(a) rejection of claim 6 based on the
combination of Polidor and Belliveau.
2. Rejection (3)
The Appellants argue:
Riesebosch teaches illuminating elements including a plurality of first
light emitting diodes (LEDs) 110 mounted to a rigid base element
120. Rigid base element 120 is a singular, circular substrate. The fact
that Riesebosch provides horizontal line 150 and vertical line 160 to
illustrate the different hemispheres of the substrate 120 does not make
rigid base element 120 modular. Rather, lines 150 and 160 are merely
drawn to demonstrate how the LEDs can be laid out in different
quadrants. As such, Riesebosch cannot teach or suggest the modules
of claims 15 and 25.
App. Br. 8.
Significantly, the Examiner does not rely on horizontal line 150 and vertical
line 160 in Riesebosch Figure 1A as suggesting the modules recited in claims 15
and 25. Rather, in the rejection on appeal, the Examiner relies on first LEDs 110
8
Appeal 2015-005396
Application 12/949,919
and second LEDs 130, which are independently controlled, to suggest the claimed
modules. Final 7 (citing Riesebosch 136); see also Ans. 8. Because the
Appellants’ argument does not address the § 103(a) rejection on appeal, the
Appellants’ argument is not persuasive of reversible error.
The § 103(a) rejection of claims 15 and 25 based on the combination of
Riesebosch and Wong is sustained. The Appellants do not present arguments in
support of the separate patentability of dependent claims 16—18 and 20 in rejection
(3) and claim 19 in rejection (4). Therefore, the § 103(a) rejection of claims 16—18
and 20 based on the combination of Riesebosch and Wong and the § 103(a)
rejection of claim 19 based on the combination of Riesebosch, Wong, and Kelly
are sustained for the reasons set forth above sustaining the § 103(a) rejection of
claim 15 based on the combination of Riesebosch and Wong.
C. DECISION
The Examiner’s decision is affirmed.
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
9