Hubbell IncorporatedDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardMay 29, 202014984827 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 29, 2020) Copy Citation 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. 14/984,827 12/30/2015 Jason E. Duckworth 208272-9205-US01 7060 128168 7590 05/29/2020 Michael Best & Friedrich LLP (Hubbell) 790 N WATER ST SUITE 2500 MILWAUKEE, WI 53202 EXAMINER GUHARAY, KARABI ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2875 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/29/2020 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): kmbarner@michaelbest.com mkeipdocket@michaelbest.com webradley@michaelbest.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte JASON E. DUCKWORTH, MARK V. ELMORE, and DOUGLAS S. HODGES ____________ Appeal 2019-004423 Application 14/984,827 Technology Center 2800 ____________ Before GEORGE C. BEST, JEFFREY R. SNAY, and MICHAEL G. McMANUS, Administrative Patent Judges. McMANUS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 seeks review of the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–16 and 21–24. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Hubbell Incorporated as the real party in interest. Appeal Brief (filed Dec. 3, 2018, hereinafter “Appeal Br.”) 2. Appeal 2019-004423 Application 14/984,827 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The present application generally relates to a luminaire (light fixture). Specification (filed Dec 30, 2015, hereinafter “Spec.”) ¶¶ 2–3. The Specification teaches several embodiments including one described as follows: According to an exemplary embodiment, a luminaire includes a base, a light support, a first set of fins, and a second set of fins. The light support extends from the base and includes a mounting section. The first set of fins is in thermal communication with the mounting section. The second set of fins intersects the first set of fins and is in thermal communication with the mounting section. Id. ¶ 4. Figure 3, reproduced below, depicts an embodiment described in the application. Figure 3 is a top perspective view of an exemplary embodiment. Spec. ¶¶ 7, 10. Figure 3 shows that “a plurality of first fins 50 extends outwardly from the base and a plurality of second fins 52 extend orthogonal to the first fins Appeal 2019-004423 Application 14/984,827 3 50.” Id. ¶ 46. Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal and is reproduced below with certain limitations bolded for emphasis: 1. A luminaire comprising: a base; a light support extending from the base having a mounting section; a first set of fins in thermal communication with the mounting section; and a second set of fins intersecting the first set of fins and in thermal communication with the mounting section. Appeal Br. 14 (Claims App.) (emphasis added). REFERENCES The Examiner relies upon the following prior art: Name Reference Date Quercia et al. (Quercia) US 2013/0049591 A1 Feb. 28, 2013 Chow US 2013/0329405 A1 Dec. 12, 2013 Mizuta US 2014/0184050 Al July 3, 2014 REJECTIONS The Examiner maintains the following rejections: 1. Claims 1–11, 14, 16, 21, and 23, 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Chow. Final Action (mailed Aug. 24, 2018, hereinafter “Final Act.”) 2–4. 2. Claims 12 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Chow. Id. at 5. 3. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Chow in view of Quercia et al. Id. at 5–6. Appeal 2019-004423 Application 14/984,827 4 4. Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Chow in view of Mizuta. Id. at 6. DISCUSSION Rejection 1. The Examiner rejects claims 1–11, 14, 16, 21, and 23– 24 as anticipated by Chow. Id. at 2–4. In support of the rejection, the Examiner finds that Chow teaches, inter alia, “a first set of fins (125) in thermal communication with the mounting section, and a second set of fins (122) intersecting the first set of fins and in thermal communication with the mounting section.” Final Act. 2–3. Appellant argues that the rejection is in error on several bases. Appeal Br. 8–12. First, Appellant argues that Chow does not teach “a second set of fins intersecting the first set of fins” as required by claim 1. Id. at 8. Figures 2 and 4 of Chow, reproduced below, are illustrative. Figure 2 is a sectional view and Figure 4 is a perspective view of Chow’s light fixture. Chow ¶¶ 17, 19. Appeal 2019-004423 Application 14/984,827 5 The Examiner finds that “fins 122 and fins 125 extend in perpendicular direction and intersect since they are connected via heat sink 12.” Final Act. 6. Appellant argues that the Examiner’s finding “is not consistent with the ordinary meaning of the term ‘intersecting’ as it is used in the claim, the specification, and as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art.” Appeal Br. 8. Appellant further argues that “[t]he term intersecting requires the first and second fins to cross one another.” Id. The Specification uses the term “intersects” a single time. It provides that “[t]he second set of fins intersects the first set of fins and is in thermal communication with the mounting section.” Id. ¶ 4. This use, considered in conjunction with claim 1 and the figures, suggests that the term “intersecting” has its common and ordinary meaning. See In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (claim terms generally are given their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire disclosure). The Examiner supplies the following dictionary definition of “intersect”: 1: to meet and cross at a point lines intersecting at right angles. 2: to share a common area: overlap where morality and self- interest intersect. Examiner’s Answer (mailed March 19, 2019, hereinafter “Answer”) 3 (citing Merriam-Webster). The Examiner argues that “fins 122 and fins 125 share common vertical extensions (126), which is a permissible interpretation.” Answer 3. We disagree. Chow defines structure 126 as “a wedge portion” that is a component of “second coupling portion 121.” Chow ¶ 25. The Examiner does not offer, nor do we discern, any reason to regard structure 126 of Chow as an “extension” of the fins. Accordingly, we Appeal 2019-004423 Application 14/984,827 6 determine that the Examiner has not shown that Chow teaches “a second set of fins intersecting the first set of fins” as claimed. Appellant additionally argues that the Examiner rejects independent claim 10 in error. Appeal Br. 9–10. Claim 10 requires as follows: A luminaire comprising: a housing; a control assembly positioned in the housing; a cover connected to the housing having a mounting section and a chamber including a heat fin in thermal communication with the mounting section; and a light assembly connected to the mounting section and operatively connected to the control assembly. Appeal Br. 15 (Claims App.) (emphasis added). In support of the rejection of claim 10, the Examiner finds that Chow teaches a housing 12, “a cover (111 & wall 2 of Figs 1–2) . . . having a mounting section (126) and a chamber (121) including a heat fin (122, 125) in thermal communication with the mounting section.” Final Act. 4. For convenience, Chow’s Figure 1 is reproduced below. Appeal 2019-004423 Application 14/984,827 7 Figure 1 “is an exploded perspective view of the invention” of Chow. Chow ¶ 16. Appellant argues that the structure that the Examiner identifies as the cover, the light projection portion 111 of Chow, lacks “any of the other elements of the cover stated in the claim.” Appeal Br. 9. More specifically, Appellant asserts that the structures identified by the Examiner as components of the claimed cover, the “wedge portion 126 (alleged mounting section), coupling portion 121 (alleged chamber), and cooling portions 122, 125[,] are all part of the heat sink holder 12, not the light projection portion 111.” Id. Appellant additionally argues that “element 111 does not include a chamber including a heat fin in thermal communication with the mounting section as recited.” Id. at 10. We find Appellant’s arguments to be persuasive. It is, for example, difficult to view the fins 122, 125 of Chow as components of its light projection portion 111 (identified as the claimed “cover”) or as located within chamber 121. Accordingly, we determine that Appellant has shown error in the rejection of claim 10. Rejections 2–4. The Examiner rejects claims 12 and 15 as obvious over Chow. Final Act. 5. The Examiner further rejects claim 13 as obvious over Chow in view of Quercia. Id. at 5–6. The Examiner additionally rejects claim 22 as obvious over Chow in view of Mizuta. Id. at 6. Claims 12, 13, and 15 depend from claim 10. Appeal Br. 15 (Claims App.). The Examiner relies upon the same reasoning discussed above in rejecting claims 12, 13, and 15. As we have found that Appellant has shown Appeal 2019-004423 Application 14/984,827 8 error in regard to the rejection of claim 10, we similarly find that the rejection of claims 12, 13, and 15 is erroneous. Claim 22 depends from claim 1. Appeal Br. 15 (Claims App.). The Examiner relies upon the same reasoning discussed above in rejecting claim 1. Final Act. 6. As we have found that Appellant has shown error in regard to the rejection of claim 1, we similarly find that the rejection of claim 22 is erroneous. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s rejections are reversed. In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–11, 14, 16, 21, 23, 24 102(a)(1) Chow 1–11, 14, 16, 21, 23, 24 12, 15 103 Chow 12, 15 13 103 Chow, Quercia 13 22 103 Chow, Mizuta 22 Overall Outcome 1–16, 21–24 REVERSED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation