Ex Parte Page et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 28, 2018

13872634 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 28, 2018)

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