10455947 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 28, 2012)

Ex Parte Tsai et al

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesMar 28, 2012

10455947 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 28, 2012)

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. 10/455,947 06/06/2003 Tsung-Ein Tsai ITL.0993US (P16438) 5401 21906 7590 03/29/2012 TROP, PRUNER & HU, P.C. 1616 S. VOSS ROAD, SUITE 750 HOUSTON, TX 77057-2631 EXAMINER EL SHAMMAA, MARY A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2883 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/29/2012 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES _____________ Ex parte TSUNG-EIN TSAI and WILLIAM WONG _____________ Appeal 2009-015136 Application 10/455,947 Technology Center 2800 ______________ Before, ALLEN R. MacDONALD, JEFFREY S. SMITH, and DAVID M. KOHUT, Administrative Patent Judges. KOHUT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the final rejection of claims 1-6, 8-16, 18-26, and 28-31.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of these claims. 1 The Examiner has indicated claims 7, 17, and 27 as containing allowable subject matter. Final Rej. 5. Appeal 2009-015136 Application 10/455,947 2 INVENTION The invention is directed to a planar light wave circuit that is one- point mounted in a housing. Abstract. Claim 1 is representative of the invention and is reproduced below: 1. A device comprising: a planar light circuit; a housing for said planar light circuit; and a one-point mounting of said planar light circuit on said housing. REFERENCES Hsieh US 2002/0018635 A1 Feb. 14, 2002 Shahid US 6,568,074 B1 May 27, 2003 REJECTION AT ISSUE Claims 1-6, 8-16, 18-26, and 28-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hsieh. Ans. 3-5. ISSUES Did the Examiner err in finding that Hsieh teaches or suggests a one- point mounting of said planar light circuit on said housing, as recited in claim 1?2 ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner has erred. 2 Claim 1 is representative of claims 1-6, 8-16, 18-26, and 28-31, as Appellants have not argued these claims with particularity. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). Appeal 2009-015136 Application 10/455,947 3 We disagree with Appellants’ conclusion. We adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief. We concur with the conclusion reached by the Examiner. In addition, below we highlight and address specific findings and arguments relating to Appellants’ main arguments. Claim 1 requires the planar light circuit to be mounted to the housing using “one-point mounting.” The Examiner finds that Hsieh teaches and suggests that the number of mounting points can “be varied without departing from the invention,” including only one. Ans. 4. In order to support the Examiner’s finding, the Examiner cites to Shahid which teaches and suggests that single mounted PLC’s is well-known in the art. Ans. 4. However, Appellants argue that Shahid’s planar type mounting is not the same as a one-point mounting. App. Br. 10; Reply Br. 2. We disagree. Appellants’ Specification does not define the claim “one-point mounting.” Thus, the Examiner’s interpretation that planar mounting is one- point mounting since it only touches one point is reasonable and consistent with Appellants’ Specification. Ans. 8. As a result, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-6, 8-16, 18-26, and 28-31. CONCLUSION The Examiner did not err in finding that Hsieh teaches or suggests a one-point mounting of said planar light circuit on said housing, as recited in claim 1. Appeal 2009-015136 Application 10/455,947 4 SUMMARY The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-6, 8-16, 18-26, and 28-31 is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED msc