Ex Parte Provitola

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 21, 2017

14980398 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 21, 2017)

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.
14/980,398 12/28/2015 Anthony Italo Provitola 5857
23362 7590 11/21/2017
ANTHONY I. PROVITOLA
POST OFFICE BOX 2855
DELAND, EL 327212855
EXAMINER
SONG, ZHENG B
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2875
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/21/2017 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 ANTHONY ITALO PROVITOLA
Appeal 2017-006415
Application 14/980,398
Technology Center 2800
Before GEORGE C. BEST, WESLEY B. DERRICK, and
MICHAEL G. McMANUS, Administrative Patent Judges.
BEST, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
The Examiner finally rejected claims 1—20 of Application 14/980,398
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious. Final Act. (June 15, 2016).1
Appellant seeks reversal of these rejections pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a).
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.
For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the decision rejecting all
claims. Because our affirmance relies upon different facts and reasoning
1 On December 28, 2015, a petition to make the ’398 Application special
based on the applicant’s age was granted. We, therefore, take up this appeal
out of turn.
Appeal 2017-006415
Application 14/980,398
than the Examiner’s rejections, we designate our affirmance as constituting
new grounds of rejection pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b).
BACKGROUND
The ’398 Application describes a diffusing reflector for linear arrays
of light sources such as strips of light emitting diodes (LEDs). Spec. 2.
Claim 1 is representative of the ’398 Application’s claims and is
reproduced below from the Claims Appendix:
1. A diffusing light reflector and light fixture for a linear
array of finite point light sources comprising:
(a) a hollow cylindrical body with
(1) an opening along its length that is at least as
wide as the width of the linear array of finite point
light sources, and
(2) an interior surface that is not image-
reflective; and
(b) a ledge along one side of the opening that extends
from the interior surface of one of the walls of the hollow
cylindrical body by said opening toward the opposite
wall of the hollow cylinder; wherein a surface of said
ledge that faces the interior of the hollow cylindrical
body:
(1) is wide enough to accommodate the linear
array of finite point light sources;
(2) is within thirty (30) degrees of perpendicular
to the interior surface and extended from the wall
of the cylindrical body;
(3) forms a cavity with the interior surface of
the cylindrical body wherein light from the linear
array of finite point light sources mounted on the
ledge is diffused after multiple reflections within
the cavity; and
2
Appeal 2017-006415
Application 14/980,398
(4) masks the finite point light sources from
the view from outside of the hollow cylindrical
body;
whereby the appearance of [a2] substantially smooth bar of light
is formed by the light exiting the opening along the length of
the reflector.
Appeal Br. 13.
REJECTIONS
On appeal, the Examiner maintains3 the following rejections:
1. Claims 1, 3—11, 13, 14, 16, 17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the combination of Messina4
and Hedberg.5 Final Act. 4.
2. Claims 2 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over the combination of Messina, Hedberg, and
O’Brien.6 Final Act. 12.
2 We have inserted a word that appears to be missing from the quoted
language of the claim. If prosecution of the ’398 Application continues, we
respectfully suggest correction of this error. This opinion contains other
instances where we have had to make similar insertions. The suggestion in
this footnote also applies to these apparent and, we assume, inadvertent
errors.
3 The Examiner has withdrawn the rejection of claims 11 and 17—20 under
35 U.S.C. § 112(b). Advisory Action 2 (August 16, 2016).
4 US 2011/0002682 Al, published January 6, 2011.
5 US 2016/0061413 Al, published March 3, 2016.
6 US 2010/0284181 Al, published November 11, 2010.
3
Appeal 2017-006415
Application 14/980,398
3. Claims 12 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over the combination of Messina, Hedberg, and
Dowling.7 Final Act. 13.
DISCUSSION
Appellant chooses not to contest the rejection of claim 11 as
unpatentable over the combination of Messina and Hedberg. Appeal Br. 1.
We, therefore, summarily affirm this rejection.
Appellant argues for the reversal of the rejections set forth in the Final
Action with respect to two groups of claims. See Appeal Br. 3—12. We
address each group of claims separately below.
Claims 1—9, 12—15, 17, 18, and 20. Appellant argues for reversal of
the rejection of these claims as an undifferentiated group. Accordingly, we
select claim 1 as representative of this group. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv)
(2015). We limit our discussion to claim 1, with the understanding that it
applies equally to the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 13 and 17.
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner found that Messina describes each
limitation of the claim, Final Act. 4—5, except that “Messina is silent about
the light from the linear array of finite point light sources mounted on the
ledge is diffused after multiple reflections within the cavity,” id. at 6. The
Examiner further found that Hedberg describes a cavity from which light
from a linear array of finite point light sources is diffused after multiple
reflections within the cavity. Id.
Appellant argues that the rejection of claims 1—9, 12—15, 17, 18, and
20 should be reversed because, inter alia, the Examiner has not provided an
7 US 2007/0263379 Al, published November 15, 2007.
4
Appeal 2017-006415
Application 14/980,398
adequate reason why a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of
the invention would have combined the descriptions of Messina and
Hedberg in the manner proposed in the Final Action. Appeal Br. 7—10.
In making this rejection, the Examiner found that
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make
the ledge of Messina reflective such that the light from the linear
array of finite point light sources mounted on the ledge is
diffused after multiple reflections within the cavity, in order to
increase the light output from the light sources thereby
improving lighting efficiency.
Final Act. 6. In response to Appellant’s arguments, the Examiner explains
that “it would have been in the knowledge generally available to one of
ordinary skill in the art to make the ledge of Messina reflective to increase
light reflection and the overall light output.” Answer 7.
We are not persuaded by the Examiner’s arguments in this regard.
NEW GROUNDS OF REJECTION
For the reasons set forth below, we enter new grounds of rejection
with respect to claims 1—10 and 12—20. Claims anticipated by Hedberg, as
set forth below, are also prima facie obvious over Hedberg alone because
anticipation is the epitome of obviousness. See In re McDaniel, 293 F.3d
1379, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2002). We begin by discussing the independent
claims: Claims 1, 13, and 17.
5
Appeal 2017-006415
Application 14/980,398
Claim 1. As summarized in the table below, Hedberg describes an
embodiment of the invention as set forth in claim 1:
Claim 1 Hedberg
1. A diffusing light reflector and
light fixture for a linear array of
finite point light sources comprising:
Hedberg describes a diffusing light
reflector and light fixture for a linear
array of finite point light sources.
See, e.g., Figs. 1—3 and associated
text, including at least at || 43—53.
See discussion below regarding
proper interpretation of the term
“diffusing.”
(a) a hollow cylindrical body with
Hedberg’s light reflector 130 is a
hollow cylindrical body as that term
is defined in Appellant’s
Specification.
(1) an opening along its length
that is at least as wide as the width
of the linear array of finite point
light sources, and
Hedberg’s light fixture 100 includes
an opening extending along its
length. See Figure 1.
As shown in Figure 2, the width of
window opening 211 (i.e. the
distance from ending edge 232 to
angled ledge 204) is at least as wide
as the width of the linear array of
finite point light sources (i.e.,
lighting elements 228). See Figure 2.
(2) an interior surface that is not
image-reflective; and
Hedberg teaches that the reflective
surface of the reflector can be finely
diffused. Hedberg | 77. Such a
surface is not image-reflective.
6
Appeal 2017-006415
Application 14/980,398
Claim 1 Hedberg
(b) a ledge along one side of the
opening that extends from the
interior surface of one of the walls of
the hollow cylindrical body by said
opening toward the opposite wall of
the hollow cylinder; wherein a
surface of said ledge that faces the
interior of the hollow cylindrical
body:
As depicted in Figure 2 Hedberg’s
light fixture includes a lighting
element shelf 114 that extends from
the interior surface of one of the
walls of reflector 130 toward the
opposite wall of the reflector. The
interior surface of lighting element
shelf 114 faces the interior of
reflector 130.
(1) is wide enough to
accommodate the linear array of
finite point light sources;
Lighting element shelf 114 is wide
enough to accommodate the linear
array of finite point light sources, i.e.
lighting elements 228. See Figure 2.
(2) is within thirty (30) degrees of
perpendicular to the interior
surface and extended from the
wall of the cylindrical body;
Lighting element shelf 114 extends
from the wall of the cylindrical body
and is within 30° of perpendicular to
a tangent to the interior surface of
reflector 130 at the point from which
it extends. See Figure 2.
(3) forms a cavity with the
interior surface of the cylindrical
body wherein light from the
linear array of finite point light
sources mounted on the ledge is
diffused after multiple reflections
within the cavity; and
Lighting element shelf 114 in
combination with the interior surface
of reflector 130 defines a cavity. As
shown by Hedberg’s ray tracing
diagrams, light emitted by lighting
elements 228 are reflected multiple
times from the surface of reflector
130 within the cavity defined by
lighting element shelf 114 and the
interior surface of reflector 130. See
Figure 2.
See discussion below for the proper
interpretation of the term “cavity.”
7
Appeal 2017-006415
Application 14/980,398
Claim 1 Hedberg
(4) masks the finite point light
sources from the view from
outside of the hollow cylindrical
body;
As depicted in Figure 2, lighting
element shelf 114 masks lighting
elements 228 from view from
outside the hollow cylindrical body
defined by reflector 130. See also
122.
whereby the appearance of [a]
substantially smooth bar of light is
formed by the light exiting the
opening along the length of the
reflector.
This language merely recites the
result produced by the claimed
structure. “A ‘whereby’ clause that
merely states the result of the
limitations in the claim adds nothing
to the patentability or substance of
the claim.” Texas Instruments Inc. v.
U.S. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 988 F.2d
1165, 1172 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (citing
Israel v. Cresswell, 166 F.2d 153,
156 (CCPA 1948)).
Interpretation of the claim term “diffusing. ” In response to the
Examiner’s rejection, Appellant attempts to distinguish Hedberg from the
claimed invention. In particular, Appellant argues that “the Hedberg
reflector causes a directional dispersion of the light from the sources to
provide a broadening directional illumination, and does not concentrate the
light for multiple reflections within the cavity.” Appeal Br. 3. Thus,
Appellant argues, the Examiner erred in that Hedberg does not teach a
diffusing light reflector. Id. at 4. Because each of Appellant’s independent
claims is directed to a “diffusing light reflector and light fixture,” we
consider the proper interpretation of the term “diffusing.”
During prosecution, an application’s claims are given their broadest
reasonable scope consistent with the specification. In re Am. Acad, of Sci.
Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The words used in a claim
must be read in light of the specification, as it would have been interpreted
8
Appeal 2017-006415
Application 14/980,398
by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Id. The
“broadest reasonable interpretation” standard does not prejudice the
applicant, who has the ability to correct errors in claim language and to
adjust the scope of claim protection as needed during prosecution by
amending the claims. In re Yamamoto, 740 F.2d 1569, 1571—72 (Fed. Cir.
1984).
In this case, the ’398 Application’s Specification does not set forth a
specific definition of the term “diffusing.” We, therefore, assume that the
term has its ordinary and customary meaning. See Vitronics Corp. v.
Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (“[Wjords in a
claim are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning, [but] a
patentee may choose to be his own lexicographer and use terms in a manner
other than their ordinary meaning, as long as the special definition of the
term is clearly stated in the patent specification or file history.”).
The pertinent ordinary and customary meaning of the verb diffuse is
“to subject to diffusion; esp : to break up and distribute (incident light) by
reflection.” Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary 353 (1985)
(hereinafter “Webster’s”). This meaning is consistent with the embodiments
described in the Specification.
Furthermore, we are not convinced by Appellant’s attempt to
distinguish Hedberg from the claimed invention on the basis of an alleged
difference between dispersion and diffusion. As discussed above, Appellant
characterizes Hedberg’s light fixture as “light dispersing” rather than “light
diffusing.” See, e.g., Appeal Br. 3^4. In the context provided by the ’398
Application’s Specification and by Hedberg, the verb “disperse” means “to
spread or distribute from a fixed or constant source.” Webster’s at 365. We,
therefore, are not persuaded that a patentable distinction exists between
9
Appeal 2017-006415
Application 14/980,398
Hedberg and the subject matter of claim 1 based upon Appellant’s argued
difference between the ’398 Application’s claims to a light diffusing light
fixture and a light dispersing light fixture.8
Interpretation of the claim term “cavity. ” As discussed above, during
prosecution, the terms in an application are given their broadest reasonable
meaning consistent with the specification. See In re Morris, 111 F.3d 1048,
1054—55 (Fed. Cir. 1997). In this case, the ’398 Application’s Specification
does not set forth a specific definition of the term “cavity.” Thus, we give
the term its ordinary and customary meaning in the context provided by the
Specification. See Vitronics, 90 F.3d at 1582.
Here, the ordinary and customary meaning of the term “cavity” is “an
unfilled space within a mass; esp : a hollo wed-out space.” Webster’s at 218.
We, therefore, conclude that a person having ordinary skill in the art at the
time of the invention would have understood the use of the term “cavity” in
claim 1 as a reference to the unfilled space within the claimed hollow
cylindrical body, particularly the space defined by the interior surface of the
hollow cylindrical body and the plane defined by the claimed ledge.
In view of the foregoing, we reject claim 1 as anticipated by Hedberg.
35U.S.C. § 102(b) (2016).
8 We note that in the field of optics, the term “disperse” can also refer to the
process of separating light into its constituent colors by refraction or
diffraction. Id. To the extent that Appellant is arguing that Hedberg’s light
fixture disperses light in this manner, we disagree. Such a process would be
inconsistent with the intended uses of Hedberg’s light fixture. Furthermore,
Hedberg does not describe either refractive or diffractive structures or
processes.
10
Appeal 2017-006415
Application 14/980,398
Claim 13. As summarized in the table below, Hedberg describes of
the invention as set forth in claim 13:
Claim 13 Hedberg
13. A diffusing light reflector and
light fixture for a linear array of
finite point light sources comprising:
Hedberg describes a diffusing light
reflector and light fixture for a linear
array of finite point light sources.
See, e.g., Figs. 1—3 and associated
text, including at least at || 43—53.
See the discussion above regarding
proper interpretation of the term
“diffusing.”
(a) a hollow cylindrical body with
Hedberg’s light reflector 130 is a
hollow cylindrical body as that term
is defined in Appellant’s
Specification.
(l)an opening along its length
that is at least as wide as the width
of the linear array of finite point
light sources, and
Hedberg’s light fixture 100 includes
an opening extending along its
length. See Figure 1.
As shown in Figure 2, the width of
window opening 211 (i.e. the
distance from ending edge 232 to
angled ledge 204) is at least as wide
as the width of the linear array of
finite point light sources (i.e.,
lighting elements 228). See Figure 2.
(2) an interior surface that is
substantially concave toward the
interior of the hollow cylindrical
body, and is not image reflective;
and
As shown in Hedberg’s Figure 2, the
interior surface of reflector 130 is
substantially concave toward the
interior of the hollow cylindrical
body.
Hedberg teaches that the reflective
surface of the reflector can be finally
diffused. Hedberg | 77. Such a
surface is not image-reflective.
11
Appeal 2017-006415
Application 14/980,398
Claim 13 Hedberg
(b) a ledge along one side of the
opening that is attached to and
extends from the interior surface of
one of the walls of the hollow
cylindrical body by said opening
toward the opposite wall of the
hollow cylinder; wherein the a
surface of said ledge that faces the
interior of the hollow cylindrical
body:
As depicted in Figure 2, Hedberg’s
light fixture includes a lighting
element shelf 114 that extends from
the interior surface of one of the
walls of reflector 130 toward the
opposite wall of the reflector. The
interior surface of lighting element
shelf 114 faces the interior of
reflector 130.
(1) is wide enough to
accommodate the linear array of
finite point light sources;
Lighting element shelf 114 is wide
enough to accommodate the linear
array of finite point light sources, i.e.
lighting elements 228. See Figure 2.
(2) is within thirty (30) degrees of
perpendicular to the interior
surface and extended from the
wall of the cylindrical body;
Lighting element shelf 114 extends
from the wall of the cylindrical body
and is within 30° of perpendicular to
a tangent to the interior surface of
reflector 130 at the point from which
it extends. See Figure 2.
(3) forms a cavity with the
interior surface of the cylindrical
body wherein light from the
linear array of finite point light
sources mounted on the ledge is
diffused after multiple reflections
within the cavity;
Lighting element shelf 114 in
combination with the interior surface
of reflector 130 defines a cavity. As
shown by Hedberg’s ray tracing
diagrams, light emitted by lighting
elements 228 are reflected multiple
times from the surface of reflector
130 within the cavity defined by
lighting element shelf 114 and the
interior surface of reflector 130. See
Figure 2.
See the discussion below the claim
chart for claim 1 for the proper
interpretation of the term “cavity.”
12
Appeal 2017-006415
Application 14/980,398
Claim 13 Hedberg
(4) masks the finite point light
sources from the view from
outside of the hollow cylindrical
body; and
As depicted in Figure 2, lighting
element shelf 114 masks lighting
elements 228 from view from
outside the hollow cylindrical body
defined by reflector 130. See also
122.
(5) has a lip along the edge
opposite to the side of attachment
to the hollow cylindrical body,
said lip extending toward the
interior of the hollow cylindrical
body within 45° of perpendicular
to the ledge;
As shown in Hedberg’s Figure 2,
Hedberg describes a lighting fixture
that includes an angle ledge 204 that
is connected to an inner edge of the
lighting element shelf 114 and
protrudes inward at an angle
between 0 and 90°. See also
Hedberg 149.
whereby the appearance of [a]
substantially smooth bar of light is
formed by the light exiting the
opening along the length of the
reflector.
This language merely recites the
result produced by the claimed
structure. “A ‘whereby’ clause that
merely states the result of the
limitations in the claim adds nothing
to the patentability or substance of
the claim.” Texas Instruments Inc. v.
US. Inti Trade Comm’n, 988 F.2d
1165, 1172 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (citing
Israel v. Cresswell, 166 F.2d 153,
156 (CCPA 1948)).
In view of the foregoing, we reject claim 13 as anticipated by
Hedberg. 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
13
Appeal 2017-006415
Application 14/980,398
Claim 17. As summarized in the table below, Hedberg describes an
embodiment of the invention as set forth in claim 17:
Claim 17 Hedberg
17. A diffusing light reflector and
light fixture for a linear array of
finite point light sources comprising:
Hedberg describes a diffusing light
reflector and light fixture for a linear
array of finite point light sources.
See, e.g., Figs. 1—3 and associated
text, including at least at || 43—53.
See the discussion above regarding
proper interpretation of the term
“diffusing.”
(a) a hollow cylindrical body with
Hedberg’s light reflector 130 is a
hollow cylindrical body as that term
is defined in Appellant’s
Specification.
(l)an opening along its length
that is at least as wide as the width
of the linear array of finite point
light sources;
Hedberg’s light fixture 100 includes
an opening extending along its
length. See Figure 1.
As shown in Figure 2, the width of
window opening 211 (i.e. the
distance from ending edge 232 to
angled ledge 204) is at least as wide
as the width of the linear array of
finite point light sources (i.e.,
lighting elements 228). See Figure 2.
(2) an interior surface that is
substantially concave toward the
interior of the hollow cylindrical
body and is not image reflective;
As shown in Hedberg’s Figure 2, the
interior surface of reflector 130 is
substantially concave toward the
interior of the hollow cylindrical
body.
Hedberg teaches that the reflective
surface of the reflector can be finely
diffused. Hedberg | 77. Such a
surface is not image-reflective.
14
Appeal 2017-006415
Application 14/980,398
Claim 17 Hedberg
(b) a ledge along one side of the
opening that is attached to [and]
extends from the interior surface of
one of the walls of the hollow
cylindrical body by said opening
toward the opposite wall of the
hollow cylinder; wherein a surface
of said ledge that faces the interior of
the hollow cylindrical body:
As depicted in Figure 2, Hedberg’s
light fixture includes a lighting
element shelf 114 that extends from
the interior surface of one of the
walls of reflector 130 toward the
opposite wall of the reflector. The
interior surface of lighting element
shelf 114 faces the interior of
reflector 130.
(1) is wide enough to
accommodate the linear array of
finite point light sources;
Lighting element shelf 114 is wide
enough to accommodate the linear
array of finite point light sources, i.e.
lighting elements 228. See Figure 2.
(2) is within thirty (30) degrees of
perpendicular to the interior
surface and extended from the
wall of the cylindrical body;
Lighting element shelf 114 extends
from the wall of the cylindrical body
and is within 30° of perpendicular to
a tangent to the interior surface of
reflector 130 at the point from which
it extends. See Figure 2.
(3) forms a cavity with the
interior surface of the cylindrical
body wherein light from the
linear array finite point light
sources mounted on the ledge is
diffused after multiple reflections
within the cavity;
Lighting element shelf 114 in
combination with the interior surface
of reflector 130 defines a cavity. As
shown by Hedberg’s ray tracing
diagrams, light emitted by lighting
elements 228 are reflected multiple
times from the surface of reflector
130 within the cavity defined by
lighting element shelf 114 and the
interior surface of reflector 130. See
Figure 2.
See the discussion below the claim
chart for claim 1 for the proper
interpretation of the term “cavity.”
15
Appeal 2017-006415
Application 14/980,398
Claim 17 Hedberg
(4) masks the finite point light
sources from the view from
outside of the hollow cylindrical
body; and
As depicted in Figure 2, lighting
element shelf 114 masks lighting
elements 228 from view from
outside the hollow cylindrical body
defined by reflector 130. See also
122.
(5) has a lip along the edge
opposite to the side of attachment
to the hollow cylindrical body,
said lip extending toward the
interior of the hollow cylindrical
body;
As shown in Hedberg’s Figure 2,
Hedberg describes a lighting fixture
that includes an angled ledge 204
that is connected to an inner edge of
the lighting element shelf 114 and
protrudes inward at an angle
between 0 and 90°. See also
Hedberg 149.
whereby the appearance of [a]
substantially smooth bar of light is
formed by the light exiting the
opening along the length of the
reflector.
This language merely recites the
result produced by the claimed
structure. “A ‘whereby’ clause that
merely states the result of the
limitations in the claim adds nothing
to the patentability or substance of
the claim.” Texas Instruments Inc. v.
US. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 988 F.2d
1165, 1172 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (citing
Israel v. Cresswell, 166 F.2d 153,
156 (CCPA 1948)).
In view of the foregoing, we reject claim 17 as anticipated by
Hedberg. 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) (2016).
Next, we turn to the dependent claims.
Claim 2. Lighting elements 228 shown in Hedberg’s Figure 2 are
LED light sources. Hedberg 128. The use of an electrical strip circuit to
power the LEDs is a matter of design choice that is well within the level of
ordinary skill in the art. We, therefore, conclude that the subject matter of
16
Appeal 2017-006415
Application 14/980,398
claim 18 would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the
art at the time of the invention.
In the alternative, we reject claim 2 as unpatentable over the
combination of Hedberg and O’Brien. O’Brien describes a linear array of
light sources that are light emitting diodes electrically connected on a strip
circuit that powers the light sources. See O’Brien Figure 2, | 68. It would
have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to use
O’Brien’s LEDs on an electric strip circuit to achieve an equivalent result to
the LEDs described in Hedberg.
For the reasons set forth above, we reject claim 2.35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
(2016).
Claim 3. As depicted in Hedberg’s Figure 1, the width of the opening
along the length of the hollow cylindrical body is uniform along the length
of the hollow cylindrical body. Thus, we reject claim 3 as anticipated by
Hedberg. 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) (2016).
Claim 4. As depicted in Hedberg’s Figure 2, reflector 130 is
substantially concave toward the interior of the hollow cylindrical body.
Thus, we reject claim 4 as anticipated by Hedberg. 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
(2016).
Claim 5. As depicted in Hedberg’s Figure 1, the cross-section of the
interior surface of the hollow cylindrical body is uniform along the length of
the hollow cylindrical body. Thus, we reject claim 5 as anticipated by
Hedberg. 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
Claim 6. As depicted in Hedberg’s Figure 2, lighting element shelf
114 is substantially flat. Thus, we reject claim 6 as anticipated by Hedberg.
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) (2016).
17
Appeal 2017-006415
Application 14/980,398
Claim 7. As depicted in Hedberg’s Figure 1, lighting element shelf
114 is substantially straight along the length of the hollow cylindrical body.
Thus, we reject claim 7 as anticipated by Hedberg. 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
(2016).
Claim 8. As shown in Hedberg’s Figure 2, Hedberg describes a
lighting fixture that includes an angled ledge 204 that is connected to an
inner edge of the lighting element shelf 114 and protrudes inward at an angle
between 0 and 90°. See also Hedberg 149.
Thus, we reject claim 8 as anticipated by Hedberg. 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) (2016).
Claim 9. As shown in Hedberg’s Figure 2, Hedberg describes a
lighting fixture that includes an angled ledge 204 that is connected to an
inner edge of the lighting element shelf 114 and protrudes inward at an angle
that is within 45° of perpendicular to lighting element shelf 114. See also
Hedberg 149.
Thus, we reject claim 9 as anticipated by Hedberg. 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) (2016).
Claim 10. Hedberg teaches that the reflective surface of the reflector
can be finely diffused. Hedberg 177. It, therefore, randomizes the
reflection of light from the finite point light sources.
Thus, we reject claim 10 as anticipated by Hedberg. 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) (2016).
Claim 12. Hedberg teaches that the interior surface of the reflector
can be color-tinted. Hedberg 177. The selection of white as the color in
this application is a matter of design choice. We, therefore, conclude that
the subject matter of claim 12 would have been obvious to a person having
ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
18
Appeal 2017-006415
Application 14/980,398
In the alternative, we reject claim 12 as unpatentable over the
combination of Hedberg and Dowling. Dowling teaches a finish of the
interior surface of a hollow wall cylinder as being matte white. See Dowling
Figure 2 A, 138. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art to use Dowling’s matte white finish on Hedberg’s reflector 130 to
improve reflection and diffusion of the light fixture.
Thus, we reject claim 12 pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Claim 14. As depicted in Hedberg’s Figure 1, the width of the
opening along the length of the hollow cylindrical body is uniform along the
length of the hollow cylindrical body. Thus, we reject claim 14 as
anticipated by Hedberg. 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) (2016).
Claim 15. Hedberg teaches that the interior surface of reflector 130
can be color-tinted. Hedberg 177. The selection of white as the color in
this application is a matter of design choice. We, therefore, conclude that
the subject matter of claim 15 would have been obvious to a person having
ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
In the alternative, we reject claim 15 as unpatentable over the
combination of Hedberg and Dowling. Dowling teaches a finish of the
interior surface of a hollow wall cylinder as being matte white. See Dowling
Figure 2 A, 138. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art to use Dowling’s matte white finish on Hedberg’s reflector 130 to
improve reflection and diffusion of the light fixture.
Thus, we reject claim 15. 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Claim 16. Hedberg teaches that the reflective surface of reflector 130
can be finely diffused. Hedberg 177. It, therefore, randomizes the
reflection of light from the finite point light sources.
19
Appeal 2017-006415
Application 14/980,398
Thus, we reject claims 16 as anticipated by Hedberg. 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b).
Claim 18. Lighting elements 228 shown in Hedberg’s Figure 2 are
LED light sources. Hedberg 128. The use of an electrical strip circuit to
power the LEDs is a matter of design choice that is well within the level of
ordinary skill in the art. We, therefore, conclude that the subject matter of
claim 18 would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the
art at the time of the invention.
In the alternative, we reject claim 18 as unpatentable over the
combination of Hedberg and O’Brien. O’Brien describes a linear array of
light sources that are light emitting diodes electrically connected on a strip
circuit that powers the light sources. See O’Brien Figure 2, | 68. It would
have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to use
O’Brien’s LEDs on an electric strip circuit to achieve an equivalent result to
the LEDs described in Hedberg.
For the reasons set forth above, we reject claim 18. 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).
Claim 19. Hedberg teaches that the reflective surface of the reflector
can be finely diffused. Hedberg 177. It, therefore, randomizes the
reflection of light from the finite point light sources.
Thus, we reject claim 19 as anticipated by Hedberg. 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b).
Claim 20. As depicted in Hedberg’s Figure 1, light element shelf 114
is substantially straight and flat. Thus, we reject claim 20 as anticipated by
Hedberg. 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
20
Appeal 2017-006415
Application 14/980,398
CONCLUSION
We summarily affirm the rejection of claim 11 as unpatentable over
the combination of Messina and Hedberg.
We have newly rejected claims 1, 3—10, 13, 14, 16, 17, 19, and 20 as
anticipated by Hedberg, or in the alternative, unpatentable for obviousness
over Hedberg. We have newly rejected claims 12 and 15 pursuant to
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Hedberg or, in the alternative,
Hedberg and Dowling. We have newly rejected claims 2 and 18 pursuant to
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Hedberg or, in the alternative,
Hedberg and O’Brien.
This decision contains new grounds of rejection pursuant to 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(b), which provides that “[a] new ground of rejection pursuant to this
paragraph shall not be considered final for judicial review.” Section
41.50(b) also provides that the appellant, WITHIN TWO MONTHS FROM
THE DATE OF THE DECISION, must exercise one of the following two
options with respect to the new ground of rejection to avoid termination of
the appeal as to the rejected claims:
(1) Reopen prosecution. Submit an appropriate amendment
of the claims so rejected or new Evidence relating to the claims
so rejected, or both, and have the matter reconsidered by the
examiner, in which event the proceeding will be remanded to
the examiner. . . .
(2) Request rehearing. Request that the proceeding be
reheard under § 41.52 by the Board upon the same record. . . .
21
Appeal 2017-006415
Application 14/980,398
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED; NEW GROUNDS OF REJECTION
PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R, $ 41.50(b)
22