Ex Parte Nakada

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 25, 2016

12615804 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 25, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/615,804 11/10/2009
22511 7590 02/29/2016
OSHA LIANG LLP,
TWO HOUSTON CENTER
909 FANNIN, SUITE 3500
HOUSTON, TX 77010
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Yusuke Nakada
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.
17148/038001 1303
EXAMINER
CARTER, WILLIAM JOSEPH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2875
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/29/2016 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):
docketing@oshaliang.com
hathaway@oshaliang.com
dthomas@oshaliang.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte YUSUKE NAKADA
Appeal2014-004045
Application 12/615,804
Technology Center 2800
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, JOHN A. EVANS, and SCOTT E. BAIN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
BAIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL 1
Appellant2 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
final rejection of claims 1-8 and 12-19. The remaining claims in the
application (claims 9-11) have been allowed. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Our Decision refers to Appellant's Appeal Brief filed September 20, 2013
("App. Br.") and Reply Brief filed February 3, 2014 ("Reply"); Examiner's
Answer mailed December 3, 2013 ("Ans."); and Final Office Action dated
April 18, 2013 ("Final Act.").
2 The Appeal Brief identifies Koito Manufacturing Co., Ltd. as the real party
in interest. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2014-004045
Application 12/615,804
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant's invention relates to a projector-type vehicular head lamp
unit featuring reflectors positioned in a manner to improve light distribution
pattern and intensity. See Abstract. Claims 1 and 17 are independent.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the claims on appeal (disputed limitations shown in
italics):
1. A vehicular lamp unit comprising:
a projection lens disposed on an optical axis extending in
a vehicular longitudinal direction;
a light source disposed rearward of a rear side focal point
of the projection lens;
a reflector for reflecting direct light from the light source
forward towards the optical axis;
an additional reflector disposed between the projection
lens and the light source, the additional reflector comprising a
flat upper surface extending rearward along the optical axis
from a front end edge positioned in a vicinity of the rear side
focal point of the projection lens that reflects a part of the
reflected light from the reflector towards the projection lens;
and
a shade portion disposed on the front end edge of the
upper surface of the additional reflector,
wherein the shade portion forms a cut-off line of a light
distribution pattern by blocking a part of the reflected light from
the reflector and a part of the direct light from the light source.
App. Br. 18 (Claims App'x) (emphasis added).
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art:
Ishida US 2003/0198060 Al Oct. 23, 2003
(hereinafter "Ishida '060")
2
Appeal2014-004045
Application 12/615,804
Ishida US 2007/0171650 Al
(hereinafter "Ishida '650")
Tatsukawa US 2007 /0177400 Al
Ishida US 2008/0285297 Al
(hereinafter "Ishida '297")
THE REJECTIONS
July 26, 2007
Aug. 2, 2007
Nov. 20, 2008
Claims 1, 5, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Ishida '060 and Ishida '650. Final Act. 2-3.
Claims 2, 7, 8, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Ishida '060, Ishida '650, and Ishida '297. Final Act. 3-5.
Claims 3, 4, 6, 12-16, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Ishida '060, Ishida '650, Ishida '297, and Tatsukawa.
Final Act. 5-6.
ANALYSIS
On this record, \'l.;e are unpersuaded of error in the Examiner's
rejection of the claims on appeal. We agree with the Examiner that the
subject matter of the claims on appeal are obvious over the cited
combination of references, and we adopt as our own the findings and reasons
set forth in the obviousness rejections from which this appeal is taken and in
the Examiner's Answer. We have considered in this decision only those
arguments Appellant actually raised in the briefs. Any other arguments
which Appellant could have made but chose not to make are deemed to be
waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). We provide the following
explanation to highlight and address specific arguments.
3
Appeal2014-004045
Application 12/615,804
CLAIM 1
The Examiner's obviousness rejection of claim 1 is based upon two
references describing vehicular lamp units (Ishida '060 and Ishida '650),
both of which disclose and illustrate a light source, reflectors, and lens in
particular configurations. Appellant argues that the cited prior art fails to
teach at least two limitations of claim 1, which we address in tum.
Appellant first argues that the prior art does not teach the limitation of
a "shade portion ... blocking ... part of the direct light from the light
source." App. Br. 8. Specifically, Appellant argues that the Examiner erred
in relying upon Ishida '060 because, as shown in Ishida '060, Figure 5, the
shade portion 16a is at the same height as the rest of the reflecting surface -
thus, according to Appellant, the shade portion in Ishida '060 "cannot block
any direct light from the light source 12," as required by Appellant's claim
1. App. Br. 8 (emphasis added).
Ishida '060, Figure 5 is reproduced below.
4
Appeal2014-004045
Application 12/615,804
Figure 5 illustrates a vehicular lamp unit 10 including light source 12,
reflector 14, additional reflector 16, shielding end face 16a, front end
face 16b, third reflecting surface 16c, and projection lens 18.
Appellant argues that the light source 12 in Figure 5 only directs light
above the optical axis. Thus, Appellant claims, the shielding end face 16a
(which the Examiner cites as teaching the "shade portion" of claim 1) cannot
block direct light from the light source 12.
The Examiner, however, did not rely solely upon Ishida '060 as
teaching the disputed limitation, and specifically, did not rely upon the light
source 12 in Ishida '060. Rather, the Examiner asserted that one of ordinary
skill would modify Ishida '060 to utilize the light source and light direction
of Ishida '650. See Ans. 2. In Ishida '650, light is "directed above, along,
and below the optical axis." Id.; see also Ans. 5. With this combination, the
shielding face 16a of Ishida '060 would block a part of the reflected light
and "a part of the direct light from the light source," as required by the claim
language.
Moreover, we find that the Examiner provides ample support for the
rationale of combining the prior art references. Among other factors, the
Examiner cites the enhanced efficiency and optical power that one of skill in
the art would realize, as a result of incorporating the light source of Ishida
'650 into the vehicular lamp unit of Ishida '060. See, e.g., Ans. 4--5 ("The
inherent loss due to reflection and the penumbra effect are well known to
those skilled in the art, as evidenced by the above teachings."); Ans. 5
("[T]he direction/path of light produced by the aiming of Ishida [']650
would produce some direct light from a portion of the light source with
greater optical power in the vehicular lamp of Ishida [']060."). The
5
Appeal2014-004045
Application 12/615,804
Examiner's reasoning is supported throughout Ishida '650, and
uncontroverted by Appellant. See, e.g., Ishida '650, para. 25 ("By the
structure, most of light directly emitted from the light emitting chip can be
made to be incident on the lens, thereby, the efficiency of utilizing the light
flux of the light source can further be increased.") (emphasis added); see
also Ishida '650, paras. 23, 64---65, 73, 97-99; Ishida '650, Fig. 12. 3
We find, therefore, that the record supports the Examiner's conclusion
that a combination of Ishida '650 with Ishida '060 teaches or suggests the
claim limitation of "blocking ... part of the direct light from the light
source."
Appellant next argues that Ishida '060 and Ishida '650 fail to teach the
limitation of "the additional reflector comprising a flat upper surface." App.
Br. 14 (emphasis added). Appellant states that "Ishida [']060 employs a
bent additional reflector" rather than a flat one. App. Br. 14 (emphasis
added).
The "reflector 14" shown in Ishida '060, Figure 5, reproduced and
described on the preceding page 4 herein, is indeed a bent or curved element
as the Appellant argues. The Examiner, however, does not rely on reflector
14 as teaching the "flat upper surface." Rather, the Examiner cites
"additional reflector (16)" as teaching the flat upper surface. Ans. 6. As
illustrated in Figure 5, additional reflector 16 consists of flat surfaces. See
3 After arguing during prosecution that the reflection of light resulted in no
loss in efficiency or intensity, and thus there would be no motivation to
combine the cited references, Appellant now argues that such loss would be
considered "minor" or "negligible" to "one of ordinary skill." App. Br. 9;
Reply 6-7; see also Ans. 4--5. Appellant, however, provides no support for
this assertion, and we find none in the record before us.
6
Appeal2014-004045
Application 12/615,804
Ishida '060, Fig. 5; see also Ishida '060, Fig. 2; Ishida '060, para. 54.
Although the additional reflector 16 includes multiple flat surfaces
connected at a sharp angle, nothing in the claim language precludes such an
angle or multiple surfaces, so long as there is a "flat" surface. In fact, as the
Examiner observes, Appellant's own Specification and Drawings show only
embodiments of the "additional reflector ( 49) having multiple surfaces ( 49a,
59, 58, 60, 49b, etc.) at multiple angles (Figs. 2-4)." Ans. 6. Appellant does
not dispute this characterization, nor point to any error in the Examiner's
analysis. We find that the record supports the Examiner's conclusion that
Ishida '060 teaches the additional reflector "comprising a flat upper
surface."
For the foregoing reasons, we sustain the rejection of claim 1.
CLAIMS 2 AND 18
Claim 2, which depends from claim 1, requires that "the shade portion
comprises a protrusion ... formed as a horizontal surface including the
optical axis along the front end edge." App. Br. 18 (Claims App'x)
(emphasis added). Claim 18, which depends from claim 17, also includes
this "shade portion ... formed as a horizontal surface" limitation. App. Br.
24 (Claims App'x). Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in finding that
Ishida '297 teaches the "horizontal surface" limitation because, according to
Appellant, the "shade 18 of Ishida [']297 has a sloped portion, as clearly
shown in Figs. 1 and 6." See App. Br. 15-16 (emphasis added).
Figure 1 of Ishida '297 is reproduced below.
7
Appeal2014-004045
Application 12/615,804
FIG. 1
m r
' __J
If
Figure 1 illustrates "a lighting unit for a vehicle headlamp" (Ishida
'297, para. 37) including "a shade 18" with "upper end edge 18a," a
"projection lens 12," a "light emitting element 14," and a "reflector 16."
As found by the Examiner (Ans. 6-7), the shade 18 in Figure 1 is
represented by a horizontal line. Figure 6 of Ishida '297 similarly illustrates
the shade 18 as horizontal. See Ans. 7. Appellant gives no further
explanation of the argument on this claim limitation, nor responds to the
Examiner's finding that shade 18 is horizontal, beyond the bald assertion
that shade 18 has a "sloped portion." App. Br. 16. We are not persuaded by
Appellant's unsupported argument.
Moreover, the Examiner asserted in the Answer that, in addition to
Ishida '297, Ishida '060 also discloses the disputed "horizontal surface"
limitation. Ans. 6 (citing Ishida '060, Figs. 2, 5; para. 54). Appellant does
8
Appeal2014-004045
Application 12/615,804
not contest this assertion in the Reply Brie±: and we find it to be supported
by the record. Specifically, for example, Ishida '060 discloses that
"shielding end face 16a has a horizontal cut-off line forming surface 16al
extending horizontally in a leftward direction from the optical axis." Ishida
'060, para. 54 (emphasis added); see also Ishida '060, Fig. 5.
We, therefore, sustain the rejection of claims 2 and 18.
THE REMAINING CLAIMS (3-8, 12-17, AND 19)
Appellant does not argue the patentability of the remaining claims
separately, asserting that "[fJor the purpose of this appeal," the remaining
claims "stand or fall together." App. Br. 7. We, therefore, also sustain the
rejection of the remaining claims 3-8, 12-17, and 19.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 5, and 17 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over Ishida '060 and Ishida '650 is AFFIRMED.
The Examiner's rejection of claims 2, 7, 8, and 18 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over Ishida '060, Ishida '650, and Ishida '297 is
AFFIRMED.
The Examiner's rejection of claims 3, 4, 6, 12-16, and 19 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Ishida '060, Ishida '650, Ishida '297, and
Tatsukawa 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)(l). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv) (2013).
9
Appeal2014-004045
Application 12/615,804
AFFIRMED
10