Ex Parte Thiagarajan et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 29, 2013

11567003 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 29, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte CHINNIAH THIAGARAJAN and
FRANS ADRIAANSEN
____________________

Appeal 2011-001130
Application 11/567,003
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before: CHARLES N. GREENHUT, BRETT C. MARTIN, and
NEIL A. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judges.

MARTIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-001130
Application 11/567,003
2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Chinniah Thiagarajan and Frans Adriaansen (Appellants) appeal
under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-4, 6, 7, 9,
12, 14, and 17-33. Claims 5, 8, 10, 11, 13, 15, and 16 are canceled. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

THE INVENTION
Appellants’ invention is directed generally “to multi-wall structural
components that are capable of enhancing the transmission of incident
radiation.” Spec., para. [0002]. Claims 1, 14, 23, 29, and 30 are
independent and claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed
subject matter:
1. A hollow multi-wall structural component comprising a
plurality of spaced-apart sheets that transmit an incident
radiation, and connected with reinforcing members; wherein at
least a portion of one surface of at least one of the sheets
comprises a plurality of radiation transmission-enhancing
elements, wherein a size of the radiation transmission-
enhancing elements is 0.2 to 1.25 times a wavelength of at least
a part of the incident radiation, wherein the incident radiation
comprises a wavelength of 200 to 800 nanometers.

REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Martens US 4,576,850 Mar. 18, 1986
Nun
Groothues
US 2003/0108716 A1
US 2004/0191485 A1
Jun. 12, 2003
Sep. 30, 2004
Appeal 2011-001130
Application 11/567,003
3

THE REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 1-4, 9, 12-14, 17-24, 27, 28, 30, 32, and 331 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Groothues and Nun.
Ans. 4.
Claims 6, 7, 25, 26, 29, 31, and 32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as being unpatentable over Groothues, Nun, and Martens. Ans. 7.

ANALYSIS
Obviousness over Groothues and Nun
The Examiner finds that Groothues teaches all of the limitations of
claim 1, but “does not disclose the radiation transmission-enhancing
elements as being 0.2 to 1.25” times a wavelength of at least a part of the
incident radiation. The same or a similar recitation regarding the size of the
transmission enhancing elements appears in each independent claim subject
to this rejection, thus our analysis applies equally to claims 14, 23, and 30,
and each of their respective dependent claims. The Examiner also finds that
Nun “teaches that it is known to have ‘radiation transmission-enhancing
elements’ that would be between .2 and 1.25 … to provide indirect
illumination while maintaining a high transmittance of light.” Ans. 5 (citing
Nun, para. [0033]). The Examiner then concludes that it would have been

1 As Appellants note, the Examiner’s Answer does not list claims 32 and 33
in the heading for the rejection over Groothues and Nun. Reply Br. 5-6; see
also Ans. 4. Appellants correctly point out, however, that the Examiner
does specifically address claim 32 in the body of the rejection and that the
limitation of claim 33 is also specifically discussed. Reply Br. 6; see also
Ans. 5. Accordingly, we include claims 32 and 33 as subject to the rejection
over Groothues and Nun.
Appeal 2011-001130
Application 11/567,003
4
obvious to combine the hollow multi-wall structure of Groothues “with the
‘radiation transmission-enhancing elements’ as taught by Nun et al. to
provide indirect illumination while maintaining a high transmittance of
light.” Id.
Appellants point to several potential deficiencies with this conclusion
of obviousness, including, inter alia, that “[t]here is no indication that using
the light scattering materials of Nun in the layers of Groothues will provide
the presently claimed at least one portion of one surface of at least one of the
sheets comprising a plurality of radiation transmission enhancing elements.”
App. Br. 9. In support of this assertion, Appellants question the Examiner’s
use of the particles in Nun as being suitable for inclusion in the base material
from which the wall structure is made in Groothues. Id. While Nun does
teach the claimed size of the particles (see Nun, para. [0033]), as Appellants
point out,
Nun discloses a light-scattering material based on a transparent
material with an artificial surface structure made from
elevations and depressions which comprise a specific coating
with random distribution of particles on at least one surface.
(Paragraph [0016])[.] The elevations and depressions of the
surface structure are formed by applying, to the surface of the
material, a coating which comprises a random distribution of
particles. (Paragraph [0028])[.]
App. Br. 8-9 (emphasis added). Therefore, it is unclear whether the surface
coating particles of Nun would actually function as desired when mixed into
the base material of Groothues. Further, as Appellants point out, Groothues
discloses “an IR absorbing layer containing an IR absorber located on the
outer layer of the plastic body.” App. Br. 9. This further clouds whether the
surface coating particles of Nun would achieve the desired result when
covered by an additional IR coating as taught in Groothues.
Appeal 2011-001130
Application 11/567,003
5
The Examiner attempts to explain that Nun “is solely used for the
teaching of the size of the ‘transmission elements’ and not the light
scattering material disclosed by Nun” and that “merely changing the size of
the particles would not interfere with the IR absorber layer of Groothues.”
Ans. 9. The Examiner, however, has pointed to no support for this assertion.
Given the substantial differences between the surface elements in the claims
and the embedded beads of Groothues, which the Examiner admits “may not
protrude from the surface,” and the elements found in Nun, which are
disclosed as being within a surface coating that would extend from the
surface, we agree with Appellants that there is not a sufficiently reasonable
expectation of success to support the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness.
See App. Br. 11. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1-4,
9, 12-14, 17-24, 27, 28, 30, 32, and 33.
Obviousness over Groothues, Nun, and Martens
The Examiner relies on the combination of Groothues and Nun as
discussed above in the rejection of claims 6, 7, 25, 26, 29, 31, and 32, while
adding Martens for other claimed features. See Ans. 7-8. Because we have
already found the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness to be lacking with
respect to Groothues and Nun, and Martens is not applied by the Examiner
to cure this deficiency, we likewise cannot sustain the rejection of claims 6,
7, 25, 26, 29, 31, and 32.

Appeal 2011-001130
Application 11/567,003
6
DECISION
For the above reasons, we REVERSE the Examiner’s decision to
reject claims 1-4, 6, 7, 9, 12, 14, and 17-33.

REVERSED

hh