Ex Parte Progl et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 17, 2016

13182017 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 17, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/182,017 07 /13/2011
24239 7590 08/19/2016
MOORE & VAN ALLEN PLLC
P.O. BOX 13706
3015 Carrington Mill Boulevard, Suite 400
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
CURT PROGL
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.
034643-000320 5540
EXAMINER
LEE, JONG SUK
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2875
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/19/2016 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):
iplaw@mvalaw.com
usptomail@mvalaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CURT PROGL and MARK DIXON
Appeal2015-001012
Application 13/182,017
Technology Center 2800
Before BEYERL YR. FRANKLIN, N. WHITNEY WILSON, and
JENNIFER R. GUPTA, Administrative Patent Judges.
WILSON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
September 27, 2013 decision finally rejecting claims 1 and 5-10 ("Final
Act."). 2 We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 Appellant identifies the Real Party in Interest as Cree (Appeal Br. 1 ).
2 Claims 11-26 are allowed, and claim 4 has been objected to as being
dependent from a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in
independent form. Final Act. 3. Accordingly, claims 4 and 11-26 are not
before us.
Appeal2015-001012
Application 13/182,017
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellants' invention is directed to a variable thickness globe for a
lighting device (Abstract). The globe includes a curved outer surface and an
inner surface (id.). A thickness of the wall between the inner and outer surfaces
varies over a predetermined extent of the wall (id.). Details of the claimed
invention are set forth in independent claim 1, which is reproduced below from
the Claims Appendix (emphasis in italics):
1. A variable thickness globe for a lighting device, comprising:
a wall comprising a curved outer surface and an inner
surface, wherein a thickness of the wall between the curved
outer surface and the inner surface varies over a predetermined
extent of the wall; and
a base opening, wherein the inner surface of the wall is
linear from the base opening to a predetermined length along
the inner surface and the curved outer surface is curved in a
direction corresponding to the linear predetermined length of
the inner surface from proximate the base opening and opposite
to the inner surface to vary the thickness of the wall.
DISCUSSION
Claims 1and5-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Laizure. 3 Because we decide this appeal based on a limitation
found in claim 1 and common to each of the appealed claims, we focus our
discussion on the anticipation rejection of claim 1.
"A prior art reference anticipates a patent claim under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) if it discloses every claim limitation." In re Montgomery, 677 F.3d
3 Laizure, Jr., et al., U.S. Patent Pub. 2006/0215422 Al, published September 28, 2006.
2
Appeal2015-001012
Application 13/182,017
1375, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citing Verizon Servs. Corp. v. Cox Fibernet
Va., Inc., 602 F.3d 1325, 1336-37 (Fed. Cir. 2010)).
Appellants contend that Laizure does not disclose "a curved outer
surface [which} is curved in a direction corresponding to the linear
predetermined length of the inner surface proximate the base opening and
opposite to the inner surface to vary the thickness of the wall" (Appeal Br.
3--4, emphasis added). The Examiner finds that this feature is disclosed in
Laizure's FIG. lOA, an annotated version of which4 is reproduced below:
Ft G.
This annotated version of Laizure's FIG. lOA shows a cross section view of
a cover for an LED light bulb.
The Examiner finds that the circled portion of outer surface 166 "is a
varying thickness outside surface while the inside surface is linear[;] thus
this limitation is met by ... Laizure" (Ans. 4). However, as noted by
4 The annotations were produced by the Examiner (Ans. 4).
3
Appeal2015-001012
Application 13/182,017
Appellants (see, e.g. Reply Br. 2-3), claim 1 recites that "the curved outer
surface is curved ... from proximate the base opening ... " As may be seen in
the annotated version of Laizure's FIG. lOA, the curving of outer surface
166 is not "proximate the base opening" (at the bottom of the Figure), but
instead begins towards the top of the bulb, far away from the base opening.
Accordingly, Appellants have demonstrated reversible error in the
anticipation rejection of claim 1. Because claims 5-10 depend from claim 1,
the anticipation rejection of those claims must also be reversed.
CONCLUSION
We REVERSE the rejection of claims 1and5-10 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
over Laizure.
REVERSED
4