Ex Parte Page et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 28, 201813872634 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 28, 2018) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/872,634 04/29/2013 23908 7590 11/30/2018 RENNER OTTO BOISSELLE & SKLAR, LLP 1621 EUCLID AVENUE NINETEENTH FLOOR CLEVELAND, OH 44115 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR David J. Page 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. LUMEP0144USC 3128 EXAMINER CHIEM, DINH D ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2883 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/30/2018 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): ipdocket@rennerotto.com 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. SP ARNIE Appeal2018-001613 Application 13/872,634 Technology Center 2800 Before MARK NAGUMO, JEFFREY B. ROBERTSON, and JENNIFER R. GUPTA, Administrative Patent Judges. GUPTA, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL 1 Appellant2 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final decision rejecting claims 1, 4--7, and 14--19. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 In this Decision, we refer to the Specification filed April 29, 2013 ("Spec."), the Final Office Action dated September 28, 2015 ("Final Act."), the Advisory Action dated January 22, 2016 ("Adv. Act."), the Appeal Brief filed April 18, 2016 ("Appeal Br."), the Examiner's Answer dated October 3, 2017 ("Ans."), and the Reply Brief filed December 1, 2017 ("Reply Br."). 2 Appellant is the Applicant, Lumitex, Inc., which, according to the Appeal Brief is the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2; Bib Data Sheet. Appeal 2018-001613 Application 13/872,634 The claimed subject matter on appeal relates to light emitting members made of flat optical fibers that receive light through one or both ends of the fibers and emit light from one or both sides of the fibers to provide a desired light output distribution. Spec. 1, 11. 11-13. Claims 1 and 14, reproduced below with emphasis to highlight key disputed limitations, are illustrative of the claims on appeal. 1. A light emitter in combination with a keypad having a plurality of rows of keys, the light emitter comprising a plurality of separate lengths 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 of the fibers having a light conducting core that is cladded by an outer cladding in intimate contact with the light conducting core throughout their lengths without any air gaps therebetween to keep light in for conducting light entering the end of the fibers, and disruptions along at least a portion of the lengths of the fibers to cause conducted light to be emitted from at least one side of each of the fibers, the fibers having gaps therebetween throughout their lengths completely separating the fibers from one another substantially corresponding to the spacing between the plurality of rows of the keys so the fibers extend behind the plurality of rows of the keys, the fibers having disruptions in spaced apart portions of their lengths corresponding to the locations of at least some of the keys in each row for backlighting at least some of the keys in each row. 14. A light emitter comprising at least one flat optical fiber having opposite flat sides and opposite side edges and ends, at least one of the ends being adapted to receive light from a light source for conduction of the light within the fiber, the fiber having a light conducting core that is cladded by an outer cladding in intimate contact with at least one of the sides of the light conducting core without any air gaps there between to keep light in for conducting light entering the at least one of 2 Appeal 2018-001613 Application 13/872,634 the ends of the fiber, deformities in at least one of the sides to cause conducted light to be emitted from at least one of the sides, and a coating in intimate contact with the outer cladding on at least one of the sides. Appeal Br. 21, 22 (Claims App.). REJECTIONS The Examiner maintains the following rejections on appeal: Rejection 1: Claim 1 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over O'Mara et al. (US 5,677,688, issued October 14, 1997) in view of Myers (US 5,226,105, issued July 6, 1993) (Ans. 3; Final Act. 2-3); Rejection 2: Claims 4--7 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over O'Mara in view of Myers and Parker et al. (US 5,613,751, issued March 25, 1997) ("Parker '751") (Ans. 3; Final Act. 3--4); Rejection 3: Claims 14--17 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over Williams et al. (US 6,591,049 B2, issued July 8, 2003) ("Williams") in view of Parker (US 6,158,867, issued December 12, 2000) ("Parker '867") (Ans. 3; Final Act. 4--5); and Rejection 4: Claims 18 and 19 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over Williams in view of Parker '867 and Garito (US 5,845,025, 3 issued Dec. 1, 1998) (Ans. 3; Final Act. 5---6). 3 In the Final Office Action dated September 28, 2015, the Examiner identifies U.S. 2002/0141174 Al as Garito. Final Act. 5. Jeffrey R. Parker, Gregory A. Coghlan, and Robert M. Ezell, however, not Garito are named as inventors in the identified publication. Based on the electronic working file, particularly the Non-Final Office Action dated March 27, 2015 ("Non-Final Act."), and the Examiner's citations in the Final Office Action dated September 28, 2015, it appears the Examiner intended to refer to U.S. 5,845,025, instead of U.S. 2002/0141174 Al, which lists Anthony F. 3 Appeal 2018-001613 Application 13/872,634 DISCUSSION Rejections 1 and 2 The Examiner finds that O 'Mara discloses on optomechanical keyboard comprising all the elements of claim 1 's light emitter:keypad combination, including disruptions (Fig. 1, gaps 4ij), but does not teach disruptions along the lengths of the fibers because a light guide is not equivalent to an optical fiber. Final Act. 2-3 (citing O'Mara Figs. la, 14a); Adv. Act. 2 (citing O'Mara 2:21--42). The Examiner finds that Myers teaches a fiber optic backlighting panel in combination with a keyboard. Final Act. 3 ( citing Myers Fig. 7). The Examiner finds that Myers teaches that the fibers have disruptions (30, 50) along at least a portion of the lengths of fibers (24) to cause conducted light to be emitted from at least one side of each of the fibers. Id. (citing Myers 5:38-50). Based on these teachings, the Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to recognize that the O'Mara optomechanical keyboard could be easily modified by configuring the holes/gaps (4ij) already present in the O'Mara device to cause light to be emitted from the optical fibers to create a backlighting effect as taught by Myers. Ans. 4. The Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify O'Mara's device "to gently illuminate the keypad[, i.e., backlighting the keypad,] without a lot of glare, a benefit expressly identified in Myers." Id. ( citing Myers 7 :4--6). Garito as the first named inventor. Compare Non-Final Act. 2-3, 10, with Final Act. 5---6. 4 Appeal 2018-001613 Application 13/872,634 According to Appellant in O'Mara's keypads have interrupter flags that move into gaps in the light guide to interrupt the passage of light along the light guides for the purpose of identifying which key has been depressed. Appeal Br. 9. The intensity of light propagating within O'Mara's light guide is reduced when keys are depressed by partially blocking the gaps of the light guide. Id. at 10-11 (citing O'Mara 3:40-4:9, Figs. 3a, 4a). Appellant contends that if O'Mara's light guide were modified to lose appreciable amounts of light at each gap (disruption) as in Myers (2:32--42), as suggested by the Examiner, this would reduce the number of depressed keys that would be detectable along a given column. Id. at 11. That is, O'Mara describes that the depressed keys do "'not completely block the propagating beam when a single key is depressed so that subsequent keystrokes on the same row can be detected as a further decrease in the transmitted light."' Id. (quoting O'Mara 3:52-56). Appellant, therefore, argues that "providing disruptions to allow light to escape from the light guides in O 'Mara would be contraindicated as this would reduce the amount of light striking the detectors that sense when the passage of light through a light guide is blocked by the interrupter flag of a depressed keypad." Reply Br. 6 ( emphasis omitted). For this reason, Appellant argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have designed the gaps in O 'Mara to emit appreciable amounts of light to illuminate a keyboard as the Examiner proposes. Appeal Br. 11-12. Appellant's arguments are persuasive of reversible error. As explained by Appellant, modifying O'Mara's gaps to emit light to illuminate a keyboard is inconsistent with the way O'Mara's device is intended to be used. See In re Giannelli, 739 F.3d 1375, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Physical 5 Appeal 2018-001613 Application 13/872,634 capability alone does not render obvious that which is contraindicated."). Moreover, even if one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified O'Mara's device based on Myers, as Appellant argues, the modified device would not result in claim 1 's light emitter because "there is no fiber at the gap in O 'Mara from which light can be emitted at the side." Reply Br. 2 (emphasis omitted). Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over O'Mara in view of Myers. The Examiner does not make any findings regarding Parker '751 that cure the deficiencies of O'Mara and Myers discussed above. Thus, for the same reasons, we also do not sustain the rejection of dependent claims 4--7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over O'Mara in view of Myers and Parker '751. Cf In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266 (Fed. Cir. 1992) ("dependent claims are nonobvious if the independent claims from which they depend are nonobvious"). Rejections 3 and 4 The Examiner finds that Williams discloses all the elements of claim 14 's light emitter except "a coating in intimate contact with the outer cladding on at least one of the sides." Final Act. 4 ( citing Williams 1 7: 63- 18 :4, 18:19-32, Figs. 26A-D, 31, 32). The Examiner finds that Parker '867 teaches that a back reflector or reflective coating (15) may be applied to a bottom side of the panel members using a suitable adhesive or other method in order to improve light output efficiency of the light emitting panel by reflecting the light emitted from that side back through the panel members for emission through the opposite side. Id. at 4--5 (citing Parker '867, 7:9-15, Fig. 2). The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to 6 Appeal 2018-001613 Application 13/872,634 recognize that Parker '867's back reflector coating could be used with Williams' lighting device with predictable results. Id. at 5. The Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide a back reflector for the light output efficiency as taught by Parker. Id. Appellant argues that there is no motivation or recognized reason in either of these references for applying Parker '867's back reflector or reflective coating to the outer cladding on at least one side of the light emitter shown Williams' s Figures 26A-D of Williams. Appeal Br. 1 7. That is, Appellant contends that Parker '867 fails to teach a relationship between reflective coating 15 and a cladding on a light conducting core. Id. In fact, Appellant argues that Parker '867 fails to even mention a cladding. Id. at17-18. Appellant's arguments are persuasive of reversible error. Parker '867 teaches that back reflector or reflective coating 15 is applied to a bottom side of the panel members using a suitable adhesive or other method. Parker '867, 7: 10-13. Parker '867 further teaches that if adhesive is used to adhere the back reflector to the panel members, the adhesive is desirably applied only along the side edges of the panel members so that there is a slight air gap between the back reflector and panel members because the adhesive changes the internal critical angle of the light in a less controllable manner than the air gap between the panel surface and back reflector. Id. at 7: 16-23. The Examiner finds that the slight air gap and/or adhesive between the back reflector/reflective coating and Parker '867's panel members "functions as a cladding." Ans. 10. The Examiner's finding, however, is not supported by sufficient factual evidence. See cladding, 7 Appeal 2018-001613 Application 13/872,634 Cambridge Dictionary, https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/cladding (defining cladding as "material that covers the surface of something and protects it") (last visited November 27, 2018). Thus, on this record, the Examiner has not identified a sufficient reason supported by factual evidence why one of ordinary skill in the art would have applied Parker '867's reflective coating for a light emitter to the protective coating ( cladding) of Williams' s light emitting device rather than directly to Williams' s light transmitting member ( e.g., light panel member) to improve light output efficiency of the panel assemblies. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Williams and Parker '867. The Examiner does not make any findings regarding Garito that cure the deficiencies of Williams and Parker '867 discussed above. Thus we also do not sustain the rejections of dependent claims 15-19. DECISION The rejections of claims 1, 4--7, and 14--19 are reversed. REVERSED 8 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation