Ex Parte Page et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 27, 2013

12031740 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 27, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
12/031,740 02/15/2008 David J. Page LUMEP0144USA 3127
23908 7590 02/27/2013
RENNER OTTO BOISSELLE & SKLAR, LLP
1621 EUCLID AVENUE
NINETEENTH FLOOR
CLEVELAND, OH 44115
EXAMINER
CHIEM, DINH D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2883
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/27/2013 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 DAVID J. PAGE and BRIAN M. SPAHNIE
_____________

Appeal 2010-010253
Application 12/031,740
Technology Center 2800
______________

Before ERIC B. CHEN, BRYAN F. MOORE, and LARRY J. HUME,
Administrative Patent Judges.

MOORE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-010253
Application 12/031,740

2
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Final
Rejection of claims 1-24 which represent all the pending claims. Br. 2. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

INVENTION
The invention is directed to light emitting members made of flat
optical fibers that emit light received through one or both ends out one or
both sides to provide a desired light output distribution. See Spec. 1:11-13.
Claim 1 is exemplary of the invention and is reproduced below:
1. A light emitter comprising a plurality of individual flat optical
fibers each having opposite flat sides and opposite side edges and
opposite ends, the fibers being disposed in a common plane in side-
by-side relation to one another, at least one surface mount light source
optically coupled to an end of each of the fibers, each light source
having substantially the same thickness as each of the fibers to which
each light source is optically coupled, each of the fibers having a light
conducting core that is cladded by an outer cladding to keep light in
for conducting light entering the end of the fibers, and disruptions
along at least a portion of the length of the fibers to cause conducted
light to be emitted from at least one side of each of the fibers.

REFERENCES
Appeldorn US 5,659,643 Aug. 19, 1997
Parker US 6,079,838 Jun. 27, 2000
Parker US 6,158,867 Dec. 12, 2000
Mabuchi US 6,565,225 B2 May 20, 2003
Williams US 2003/0095781 May 22, 2003

Appeal 2010-010253
Application 12/031,740

3
REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
Claims 1-3 and 5-10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Parker ‘838 and Appeldorn. Ans. 3-4.
Claims 11 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Parker ‘838 and Williams. Ans. 5-6.
Claims 14, 17, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Parker ‘838 and Williams. Ans. 6-7.
Claims 15, 16, and 19-24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Parker ‘838. Ans. 7-8.
Claim 1 stands alternately, rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Appeldorn and Mabuchi. Ans. 8-9.
Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
the combination of Parker ‘838 and Parker ‘867. Ans. 9.
Claims 11, 12, 14, and 18 stand alternately rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Parker ‘838 and Williams.
Ans. 9-10. 1
ISSUES
1. Did the Examiner err in finding that Parker ‘838 and Appeldorn
teach the limitations of claim 1; and

1 Appellants acknowledge that independent claim 13 stands rejected. See
Br. 2 (“This is an appeal from the decision of the Examiner mailed July 22,
2009 finally rejecting claims 1-24.”). However, Appellants do not present
any arguments regarding the rejection of claim 13. Accordingly, any such
arguments are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Appeal 2010-010253
Application 12/031,740

4
2. Did the Examiner err in finding that Parker ‘838 and Appeldorn
teach “a plurality of light sources each having substantially the
same thickness and substantially less width than at least some of
the fibers are optically coupled to an end of at least some of the
fibers in side-by-side relation to one another across the width of at
least some of the fibers,” as recited in claim 2; and
3. Did the Examiner err in finding that Parker ‘838 and Appeldorn
teach “wherein a plurality of the fibers are held together by an
adhesive film,” as recited in claim 9; and
4. Did the Examiner err in finding that Parker ‘838 and Appeldorn
teach “wherein a plurality of the fibers are held together by
mechanical clips or fasteners,” as recited in claim 10; and
5. Did the Examiner err in finding that Parker ‘838 discloses “a
coating in intimate contact with the outer cladding on at least one
of the sides,” as recited in claim 19; and
6. Did the Examiner err in finding that Parker ‘838 and Parker ‘867
teach “keypad having a plurality of rows of keys, the fibers having
gaps between the fibers corresponding to the spacing between the
plurality of rows of the keys so the fibers extend between the
plurality of rows of the keys,” as recited in claim 4?
Appeal 2010-010253
Application 12/031,740

5
ANALYSIS
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) - Parker ‘838 and Appeldorn.
Claims 1-3 and 5-10
Claim 1
Claim 1 recites “plurality of individual flat optical fibers each having
opposite flat sides and opposite side edges and opposite ends, the fibers
being disposed in a common plane in side-by-side relation to one another.”
Appellants argue “the Examiner acknowledges on page 3 of the Office
Action that Parker ‘838 does not disclose a plurality of individual flat optical
fibers arranged side by side, but contends it would have been obvious to do
so in view of Appeldorn.” Appellants further argue “Appeldorn discloses an
array of square fibers that are extruded or otherwise molded as one piece,
not a plurality of individual flat optical fibers disposed in a common plane in
side-by-side relation to one another as claimed.” Br. 11. This argument is not
persuasive.
The Examiner relies on Parker ‘838 to show “flat optical fibers.”
Figures 1 and 5 of Parker ‘838 show a flat optical fiber. Parker ‘838, Figs. 1,
5. The Examiner relies on Appeldorn to show plurality of individual optical
fibers arranged in a common plane, side by side. As Appellants admit
(Br. 11), Appeldorn discloses an array of square fibers. See Appeldorn, Figs.
4, 6. These square fibers are clearly side by side. Id. As to whether the fibers
are molded together, claim 1 is silent as to whether the array of fibers is
molded together or separate individual fibers. Therefore, this argument is not
commensurate with the claim language. Accordingly, we find ample support
for the Examiner’s finding that the combination of Parker ‘838 and
Appeldorn teach “plurality of individual flat optical fibers each having
Appeal 2010-010253
Application 12/031,740

6
opposite flat sides and opposite side edges and opposite ends, the fibers
being disposed in a common plane in side-by-side relation to one another.”
Claim 1 also recites that “each of the fibers having a light conducting
core that is cladded by an outer cladding to keep light in for conducting light
entering the end of the fibers.” Appellants argue that the “air gaps [cited by
the Examiner] do not provide an outer cladding to the light conducting core
of the flat optical fibers of the light emitter of claim 1.” Br. 12. The
Specification states that “[s]urrounding the core portion 8 is an outer sheath
or cladding 9 having an index of refraction that is different than that of the
core material, whereby substantially total internal reflection is obtained at
the core-cladding interface, as well known in the art.” Spec., 6:32-7:2. The
Examiner points to the air gaps and the adhesive to form the cladding.
Parker ‘838 teaches that “the adhesive changes the internal critical angle of
the light in a less controllable manner than the air gaps 30 (see FIG. 5)
which are formed between the respective panel surfaces and the back
reflector 26 and/or film 27 when only adhered along the peripheral edges.”
Parker ‘838, 6:31-35. Appellants do not identify any description in the
original disclosure, other than what is cited above, that provides additional
guidance in construing this term, nor do Appellants identify any description
in the original disclosure that precludes the Examiner’s application of the
prior art to teach or suggest this term. Thus, we find ample support for the
Examiner’s finding that air gaps 30 are a cladding consistent with the use of
the term in the specification.
Additionally, we note, Appellants admit that the use of a cladding was
“known” prior to the invention. Appellants state:
Appeal 2010-010253
Application 12/031,740

7
A known advantage in making light emitters out of optical
fibers is that the optical fibers include a cladding that keeps the
light in longer and allows the light to be distributed/emitted
where desired by disrupting the optical fibers at one or more
areas along their length as by roughening, marring, abrading,
etching, grit blasting or thermally deforming one or more sides
of the fibers.
Br. 2 (citing Spec. 1:20-25, 6:29- 7:7). Thus, for the reasons stated above,
we find that Parker ‘838 teaches “each of the fibers having a light
conducting core that is cladded by an outer cladding to keep light in for
conducting light entering the end of the fibers.”
Dependent Claim 2
Claim 2 recites “a plurality of light sources each having substantially
the same thickness and substantially less width than at least some of the
fibers are optically coupled to an end of at least some of the fibers in side-
by-side relation to one another across the width of at least some of the
fibers.” Appellants argue that Parker ‘838 does not teach this limitation.
Br. 12. We note that most of the terms in the limitation at issue were
discussed above, except “a plurality of light sources each having
substantially the same thickness and substantially less width than at least
some of the fibers are optically coupled to an end of at least some of the
fibers.” Fig. 7 of Parker ‘838 shows a plurality of light sources 3 which are
substantially the same thickness and substantially less width than at least
some of the fibers and optically coupled to at least some of the fibers. Parker
‘838, Fig. 7; see also Ans. 13.
Regarding claims 3, and 5-7, Appellants repeat arguments discussed
above, therefore these claims fall with claim 1.
Appeal 2010-010253
Application 12/031,740

8
Dependent Claim 9
As to claim 9, Appellants argue that “nowhere does Parker ‘838
disclose a plurality of flat optical fibers held together in side-by-side relation
to one another by an adhesive film to form a light emitter as recited in claim
9.” Br. 13. Parker ‘838 discloses an adhesive 28 that holds the optical fiber
to the panel assembly, which in turn holds the fibers together in a side by
side relation. Parker ‘838, Fig. 6; col. 6:25-31; see also Ans. 14. Thus, we
are not persuaded by this argument.
Dependent Claim 10
Claim 10 recites “wherein a plurality of the fibers are held together by
mechanical clips or fasteners.” Appellants argue that Parker ‘838 does not
disclose this limitation. However, Examiner relies on Appeldorn (4:35-36)
to teach this limitation. Thus, Appellants argument does not respond to the
Examiner’s specific findings and, therefore, we are not persuaded by that
argument.
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) - Parker ‘838 and Williams.
Claims 11 and 12
Regarding claims 11 and 12, Appellants repeat arguments discussed
above, therefore these claims fall with claim 1.
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) - Parker ‘838 and Williams.
Claims 14, 17, and 18
Regarding claims 14, 17, and 18, Appellants repeat arguments
discussed above, therefore these claims fall with claim 1.
Appeal 2010-010253
Application 12/031,740

9
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) - Parker ‘838.
Claims 15, 16, and 19-24
Regarding claims 15, and 16, Appellants repeat arguments discussed
above, therefore these claims fall with claim 1.
Appellants argue that, “as disclosed in column 3, lines 18-20 of Parker
‘838, reflective coating 10 is on portions of the sides of the light transition
areas of Figs. 1 and 2, not in intimate contact with the outer cladding of at
least one flat optical fiber on at least one of the flat sides of the optical fiber
as recited in claim 19.” Br. 16. We are not persuaded by this argument.
Parker ‘838 teaches that a reflector 26 may be attached or positioned against
one side of the panel member 14 of Fig. 3 using a suitable adhesive 28. Ans.
20; see also, Parker ‘838, 6:25-30. The Examiner also finds that adhesive 28
acts as a cladding. Id. Therefore, we find ample support for the Examiners
finding that Parker ‘838 teaches the limitations of claim 19.
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) - Appeldorn and Mabuchi.
Claim 1
As noted above, we affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claim 1
as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over Parker ‘838
and Appeldorn. Therefore, we decline to reach the cumulative rejection of
claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Appeldorn and
Mabuchi.

Appeal 2010-010253
Application 12/031,740

10
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) - Parker ‘838 and Parker ‘867.
Dependent Claim 4
Claim 4 recites “keypad having a plurality of rows of keys, the fibers
having gaps between the fibers corresponding to the spacing between the
plurality of rows of the keys so the fibers extend between the plurality of
rows of the keys.” Appellants argue “the light emitter of Parker ‘867 is not
comprised of a plurality of flat optical fibers having gaps between the fibers
corresponding to the spacing between a plurality of rows of keys so the
fibers extend between the rows of keys and have disruptions corresponding
to the spacing between at least some of the keys in each row as recited in
claim 4.” Br. 18. We note that most of the terms in the above limitation are
met by Parker ‘838 as discussed above, except the claimed gaps and keys.
Parker ‘867 teaches gaps between the fiber (Fig. 7, item 41) and keys (Fig.
7, item 42). See Ans. 23. Therefore, we are not persuaded by this argument.
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) - Parker ‘838 and Williams.
Claims 11, 12, 14, and 18
As noted above, we affirm the Examiner’s decision to originally reject
claims 11, 12, 14, and 18 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
obvious over Parker ‘838 and Williams. Therefore, we decline to reach the
cumulative rejection of claims 11, 12, 14, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Parker ‘838 and Williams.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-24 is affirmed. We do not
reach the Examiners decision to reject claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Appeldorn and Mabuchi. We also do not reach the
Appeal 2010-010253
Application 12/031,740

11
Examiners cumulative rejection of claims 11, 12, 14, and 18 as unpatentable
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over Parker ‘838 and Williams.
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)(iv).

AFFIRMED

tj