Ex Parte Nourbakhsh

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 9, 2018

13829536 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 9, 2018)

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.
13/829,536 03/14/2013 Farhad Nourbakhsh 1060.022US1 3753
21186 7590 03/13/2018
SCHWEGMAN LUNDBERG & WOESSNER, P.A.
P.O. BOX 2938
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402
EXAMINER
YANG, JIANXUN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2647
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/13/2018 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):
uspto@slwip.com
SLW @blackhillsip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte FARHAD NOURBAKHSH1
Appeal 2017-007254
Application 13/829,536
Technology Center 2600
Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, JAMES R. HUGHES, and
JASON M. REPKO, Administrative Patent Judges.
HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s Non-Final Rejection of claims 1, 2, and 4-20. Claim 3 has been
canceled. Non-Final Act. 1-2.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We reverse.
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is BBY Solutions, Inc.
App. Br. 2.
2 We refer to Appellant’s Specification (“Spec.”) filed Mar. 14, 2013;
Appeal Brief (“App. Br.”) filed Mar. 25, 2016; and Reply Brief (“Reply
Br.”) filed April 10, 2017. We also refer to the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”)
mailed Feb. 9, 2017; and Non-Final Office Action (Non-Final Rejection)
(“Non-Final Act.”) mailed Oct. 22, 2015.
Appeal 2017-007254
Application 13/829,536
Appellant’s Invention
The invention at issue on appeal generally concerns wireless
networking equipment and, more particularly, networking equipment
integrated into a light bulb. The apparatus (lamp, Light-Emitting Diode
(LED) light bulb, or solid-state light bulb) includes a base with a connector
for connecting to a power source, a bulb, a first heat sink coupled to a solid-
state lighting element electrically connected to the connector and disposed
on the bulb, and a second heat sink coupled to a second solid-state lighting
element electrically connected to the connector and disposed on the bulb.
The apparatus also includes a radio frequency (RF) transceiver coupled to
the first heat sink, utilizing the first heat sink as a first antenna, and the
second heat sink, utilizing the second heat sink as a second antenna, such
that the heat sinks are isolated from each other and the heat sinks function
independently in a multi-antenna configuration. Spec. 1-3, 13, 21-23,
28-31; Abstract.
Illustrative Claim
Independent claim 1, reproduced below with key disputed limitations
emphasized, further illustrates the invention:
1. A lamp device, comprising:
a base, the base including a connector to connect with a
power source;
a bulb, the bulb extended from the base to define an
interior chamber;
a solid-state lighting element included within the interior
chamber defined by the bulb, the solid-state lighting element
electrically connected to the connector of the base to receive
electrical power from the power source;
2
Appeal 2017-007254
Application 13/829,536
a first heat sink coupled to the solid-state lighting element
and disposed on a surface of the bulb,
a second heat sink coupled to a second solid-state lighting
element and disposed on the surface of the bulb, wherein the first
heat sink provides a first antenna and the second heat sink
provides a second antenna, wherein the first and second
antennas are isolated from each other and function
independently in a multi-antenna configuration, and wherein the
solid-state lighting element and the second solid-state lighting
element are electrically connected to the connector of the base to
receive electrical power from the power source; and
a radio frequency (RF) transceiver included within the
interior chamber defined by the bulb, the RF transceiver being
coupled to the first heat sink and the second heat sink, wherein
the RF transceiver is arranged to use the first heat sink as the first
antenna and the second heat sink as the second antenna in the
multi-antenna configuration to provide transmission and
reception of respective RF signals.
Rejection on Appeal
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 2, and 4-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Jonsson (US 2011/0095687 Al, published Apr.
28, 2011), Carroll et al. (US 8,013,501 B2, issued Sept. 6, 2011) (“Carroll”),
Williams (US 2013/0148341 Al, published June 13, 2013), Kruest et al. (US
2011/0006898 Al, published Jan. 13, 2011) (“Kruest”), and Berkman (US
2007/0201540 Al, published Aug. 30, 2007).
ISSUE
Based upon our review of the record, Appellant’s contentions, and the
Examiner’s findings and conclusions, the issue before us is as follows:
Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Jonsson,
Carroll, Williams, Kruest, and Berkman would have collectively taught or
suggested displaying a complementary image corresponding to “a first heat
3
Appeal 2017-007254
Application 13/829,536
sink” and “a second heat sink coupled to” “solid-state lighting elements]”
“wherein the first heat sink provides a first antenna and the second heat sink
provides a second antenna, wherein the first and second antennas are
isolated from each other and function independently in a multi-antenna
configuration” as recited in Appellant’s claim 1 and the commensurate
limitations of claims 8 and 14?
ANALYSIS
The Examiner rejects independent claim 1 as being obvious in view of
Jonsson, Carroll, Williams, Kruest, and Berkman. See Non-Final Act. 2-8;
Ans. 15-17. The Examiner cites Kruest as teaching a first heat sink
providing a first antenna and a second heat sink providing a second antenna.
See Non-Final Act. 6 (citing Kruest H 27; Fig. 3). The Examiner further
cites Berkman as teaching a wireless access point integrated into a light bulb
as well as a multiple antenna array. See Non-Final Act. 7-8 (citing Berkman
HI 102, 114; Figs. 2, 5,11).
Appellant contends that Jonsson, Carroll, Williams, Kruest, and
Berkman do not teach the disputed features of claim 1. See App. Br. 8-15;
Reply Br. 2-5. Specifically, Appellant contends, inter alia, that Kruest and
Berkman do not teach a first heat sink providing a first antenna and a second
heat sink providing a second antenna, such that the first and second antennas
are isolated from one another and function independently in a multi-antenna
configuration as required by claim 1. See App. Br. 10-15; Reply Br. 2-5.
We agree with Appellant that the Examiner does not sufficiently
explain how Kruest and Berkman (in combination with Jonsson, Carroll, and
Williams) teach or suggest the independent heat sink antennas of claim 1. It
is well known that FED elements utilize heat sinks in a light bulb
4
Appeal 2017-007254
Application 13/829,536
configuration. See Kruest Fig. 3; Carroll Fig. 1. Further, it is well known
that wireless access points may utilize multiple antenna elements, a phased
array antenna, or a multiple-in, multiple-out (MIMO) antenna. See Berkman
114. It is also well known, and Appellant admits, that LED light bulbs
may include wireless access points. See Jonsson 43; Figs. 1, 2, 3B, 4; and
Spec. ^ 2. We agree with Appellant, however, that none of the cited prior art
references, including Kruest (see Kruest, Fig. 3), teach two or more separate
(independent) heat sinks that are isolated (thermally or electrically) from
each other. See App. Br. 11-12. Kruest teaches a single heat sink with ribs.
See id. (Kruest, Fig. 3). Further, while it may be well known to have a
wireless access point utilizing multiple antennas {supra), none of the cited
prior art references describe utilizing heat sinks in such a configuration.
Berkman teaches a conventional incandescent light bulb with a wireless
access point (Berkman, Fig. 11) and, in a separate embodiment, that wireless
access points may have multiple antenna elements (Berkman ^ 114).
The Examiner points erroneously {see supra) to Kruest as teaching
independent heat sinks {see Non-Final Act. 6; Ans. 16), and points to
Berkman as teaching a light bulb including a wireless access point having
multiple antennas {see Non-Final Act. 7-8; Ans. 16-17). Kruest and
Berkman, however, at best, suggest including a wireless access point
utilizing multiple antennas in a light bulb having LEDs (solid-state lighting
elements) coupled to a single (ribbed) heat sink. The Examiner does not
explain in any detail how the prior art describes multiple independent heat
sinks or connecting such heat sinks to a wireless network adapter to create a
wireless access point with multiple heat sink antenna elements. Because the
Examiner has not fully developed the record to establish how Kruest and
5
Appeal 2017-007254
Application 13/829,536
Berkman (in combination with Jonsson, Carroll, and Williams) teach or
suggest the disputed limitation, we find speculation would be required to
affirm the Examiner on this record.
We decline to engage in speculation. “A rejection . . . must rest on a
factual basis . . . In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011,1017 (CCPA 1967). “The
Patent Office has the initial duty of supplying the factual basis for its
rejection. It may not. . . resort to speculation, unfounded assumptions or
hindsight reconstruction to supply deficiencies in its factual basis.” Id.
Consequently, we are constrained by the record before us to find that
the Examiner erred in concluding that the combination of Jonsson, Carroll,
Williams, Kruest, and Berkman renders obvious Appellant’s claim 1.
Independent claims 8 and 14 include limitations of commensurate scope.
Dependent claims 2, 4-7, 9-13, and 15-20 depend from, and stand with,
claims 1, 8, and 14, respectively. Accordingly, we do not sustain the
Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 1, 2, and 4-20.
CONCLUSION
Appellant has shown the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1,2, and
4-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 2, and 4-20.
REVERSED
6