Ex Parte Van De Ven et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 26, 2017

11854750 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 26, 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.
11/854,750 09/13/2007 Antony Paul Van De Ven 931_022 NP 5505
25191 7590 06/26/2017
BURR & BROWN, PLLC
PO BOX 7068
SYRACUSE, NY 13261-7068
EXAMINER
STERN, JACOB R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2879
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/26/2017 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 ANTONY PAUL VAN DE VEN and
GERALD H. NEGLEY
____________________

Appeal 2016-000018
Application 11/854,750
Technology Center 2800
____________________

Before CATHERINE Q. TIMM, JEFFREY T. SMITH, and
AVELYN M. ROSS, Administrative Patent Judges.

TIMM, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

STATEMENT OF CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellants2 appeal from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 27–29 and 36–46 under 35 U.S.C.

1 In explaining our Decision, we cite to the Final Office Action dated
November 5, 2014 (“Final”), the Appeal Brief dated April 13, 2015
(“Appeal Br.”), the Examiner’s Answer dated August 4, 2015 (“Ans.”), and
the Reply Brief dated September 18, 2015 (“Reply Br.”).
2 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Cree, Inc. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2016-000018
Application 11/854,750
2
§ 103(a) as obvious over Tufenkjian.3,4 We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
The claims are directed to a lighting device. See, e.g., claims 27 and
36. According to Appellants, Figure 3 depicts an embodiment of the
claimed lighting device. Appeal Br. 5–7. Figure 3 is reproduced below:

Figure 3 is a schematic illustration of a lighting device
Although claim 36 is broader than claim 27 in some respects,
Appellants concentrate their arguments on the rejection of claim 27. Appeal
Br. 9–14. In any case, the issues are the same for all the rejections and we
select claim 27 as representative. We reproduce claim 27 below, with
reference numerals from Figure 3 to further illustrate an embodiment within
the scope of the claim:

3 Tufenkjian et al., US 2006/0285316 A1, published Dec. 21, 2006.
4 The Examiner lists the rejections under two headings (Final 2 and 6), but
all the rejections are under the same statutory basis, 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), and
rely upon the same evidence of obviousness, Tufenkjian. Thus, we combine
the listings.
Appeal 2016-000018
Application 11/854,750
3
27. A lighting device, comprising:
at least first and second solid state light emitters [32, 35];
and
at least first and second optical fibers [30, 31],
wherein:
if both of said first and second solid state light emitters
[32, 35] are illuminated:
at least a portion of light emitted from said first solid
state light emitter [32] enters said first optical fiber [30] in a
first direction and at least a portion of light emitted from said
second solid state light emitter [35] enters said second optical
fiber [31] in a second direction, said first direction and said
second direction not parallel, and
light exiting the first optical fiber [30] that was emitted
from said first solid state light emitter [32] exits said first
optical fiber [30] (l) in a direction parallel to a direction that
light exiting the second optical fiber [31] that was emitted from
said second solid state light emitter [35] exits said second
optical fiber [31], and (2) at a location adjacent to where light
exiting the second optical fiber [31] that was emitted from said
second solid state light emitter [35] exits said second optical
fiber [31].
Appeal Br. Appendix A-1.

OPINION
Claim 27 is directed to an apparatus structure including two solid state
light emitters, such as light emitting diodes (LEDs), and two optical fibers.
The wherein clause of the claim describes how at least a portion of the light
from each of the two emitters travels through and exits the two optical
fibers, respectively, if both the first and second solid state light emitters are
illuminated. The claim does not require the first and second solid state light
Appeal 2016-000018
Application 11/854,750
4
emitters ever be illuminated. Thus, the clauses defining the travel and exit
of the light do not affirmatively limit the structure of the lighting device.
The above being said, the dispute on appeal does not focus on the
wherein clause, but instead on the Examiner’s finding of a reason to include
a second optical fiber in the lighting device of Tufenkjian. Compare Final 3,
and Ans. 10–11, with Appeal Br. 12, and Reply Br. 2–3. Thus, the issue is:
Have Appellants identified a reversible error in the Examiner’s finding of a
reason to substitute one of the optical devices 226 or 228, as shown in
Tufenkjian’s Figure 3, with an optical fiber?
Appellants have not persuaded us of such a reversible error.
Tufenkjian is directed to a surgical headlight with a luminaire that
allows the user to illuminate the subject with the freedom to move around
untethered or to connect to a remote, high-intensity light source via an
optical fiber. Tufenkjian ¶ 15.
Figure 1 of Tufenkjian depicts one embodiment of the headlight and is
reproduced below:

Appeal 2016-000018
Application 11/854,750
5
Tufenkjian’s Figure 1 is an isometric view of a surgical headlight

Headlight 100 includes a luminaire housing 102, a headband 104, and
a remote high-intensity light source 106. Tufenkjian ¶ 25. Waveguide 108,
which may be a fiber-optic cable, transmits the high-intensity light from
light source 106 to luminaire housing 102. Id.
Figure 3, reproduced below, depicts a second embodiment of the
luminaire housing. Tufenkjian ¶ 31.

Tufenkjian’s Figure 3 is cross-sectional
schematic of luminaire housing 202

Luminaire housing 202, shown in Figure 3, includes a waveguide
receptacle 212 for receiving waveguide 208, which would connect to a high-
intensity light source analogous to high intensity light source 106 of Figure
Appeal 2016-000018
Application 11/854,750
6
1. Tufenkjian ¶¶ 25, 31, 34. Luminaire housing 202 includes a second solid
state light source (LED 218) that transmits light through condenser optics
226, 228. Tufenkjian ¶ 31. In the embodiment of Figure 3, the LED 218 is
placed into the luminaire housing 202 and, therefore, there is no need for an
optical fiber to transmit the light from a more remote location. However,
Tufenkjian teaches an alternative embodiment in which such a fiber optic
cable is used. Figure 5 is reproduced below to show this embodiment:

Tufenkjian’s Figure 5A is a side view of a surgical headlight according to a
fourth embodiment

In the embodiment of Figure 5, both light sources are remote from
luminaire housing 416: one is contained in housing 402, which is attached to
Appeal 2016-000018
Application 11/854,750
7
or integral with a battery pack 432, and the other is within light source 406,
which is analogous to light source 106 of Figure 1. Tufenkjian ¶¶ 25, 34.
Figure 5B, reproduced below, depicts an LED 418 within housing 402
associated with battery pack 432. Tufenkjian ¶ 34.

Tufenkjian’s Figure 5B is a cross-sectional schematic of the luminaire
according to the fourth embodiment

Because the second LED 418 is remote from the luminaire housing
416, it is connected via a waveguide 454 to the luminaire housing 416.
Tufenkjian ¶ 34.
Tufenkjian describes a lighting device having first and second solid
state light emitters and first and second optical fibers as required by claim
27.
Furthermore, Tufenkjian supports the Examiner’s finding that there is
a suggestion of moving LED 218 from housing 202 of the Figure 3
embodiment to a more remote location, such as the battery pack location
shown in Figure 1 at 132, and including a waveguide, such as an optical
fiber, to transmit the light from LED 218 to luminaire housing 202 in a
manner analogous to placement of LED 418 and use of waveguide 454 in
Appeal 2016-000018
Application 11/854,750
8
the embodiment of Figure 5. Appellants have not identified a reversible
error in the Examiner’s finding.
A preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner’s conclusion
of obviousness.

CONCLUSION
We sustain the Examiner’s rejection.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision is affirmed.

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
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).

AFFIRMED