Jerry Smith

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 23, 2021

2020002437 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 23, 2021)

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.
15/441,870 02/24/2017 Jerry Smith SK12414 6614
44088 7590 03/23/2021
KAUFHOLD DIX PATENT LAW
P. O. BOX 89626
SIOUX FALLS, SD 57109
EXAMINER
HORIKOSHI, STEVEN Y
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2875
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/23/2021 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):
jason@kaufholdlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JERRY SMITH
Appeal 2020-002437
Application 15/441,870
Technology Center 2800
Before CATHERINE Q. TIMM, JEFFREY T. SMITH, and
MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judges.
SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 3–6, and 8–16. See Final Act. 1. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. The real party in interest is the inventor Jerry Smith. (Appeal Br. 2.)
Appeal 2020-002437
Application 15/441,870
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to an illuminated safety helmet assembly.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. An illuminated safety helmet assembly comprising:
a shell substantially complementary to a helmet that is
configured for coupling to a head of a user, said shell being
configured for coupling to the helmet;
a first power module coupled to said shell;
a first light coupled to and positioned on a right side of
said shell proximate to a back of said shell;
a second light coupled to and positioned on a left side of
said shell proximate to said back of said shell;
a third light coupled to and centrally positioned on said
back of said shell;
a controller coupled to said shell, said controller being
operationally coupled to said first power module, said first
light, said second light, and said third light, said controller
being configured for receiving commands from the user;
wherein said controller is positioned for selectively
operationally coupling said first light, said second light, and
said third light, to said first power module such that the user is
positioned for selectively indicating the user's intent to execute
right turns and left turns and such that braking of a velocipede
being operated by the user is indicated to persons approaching
the user from behind;
a sensor configured for coupling to the velocipede, said
sensor being configured for operationally coupling to a brake
system of the velocipede, wherein said sensor is positioned on
the velocipede such that said sensor is configured for detecting
activation of the brake system of the velocipede;
a control module configured for coupling to the
velocipede, said control module being operationally coupled to
said sensor, said control module being configured for
selectively inputting requests for coupling of said first light and
said second light to said first power module, said control
module being configured for communicating with said
controller; and
Appeal 2020-002437
Application 15/441,870
3
wherein said control module is positioned on the
velocipede such that said control module is positioned for
receiving input from said sensor upon said sensor detecting the
activation of the brake system of the velocipede,
wherein said control module is positioned for
communicating the activation of the brake system of the
velocipede to said controller, wherein said controller is
positioned for selectively operationally coupling said third light
to said first power module for indicating the activation of the
brake system to the persons approaching the user from behind,
wherein said control module is positioned to communicate the
requests for coupling of said first light and said second light to
said first power module such that said controller is positioned
for selectively operationally coupling said first light and said
second light to said first power module such that said first light
and said second light are configured for blinking for selectively
indicating the user's intent to execute right turns and left turns
to the persons approaching the user from behind.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Perry US 3,929,025 Dec. 30, 1975
Stewart US 2002/0044052 A1 Apr. 18, 2002
Morse US 2003/0137413 A1 July 24, 2003
Sherring US 2006/0133068 A1 June 22, 2006
Howe US 2007/0285221 A1 Dec. 13, 2007
Lombard US 2008/0080170 A1 Apr. 3, 2008
Ransom US 2013/0307678 A1 Nov. 21, 2013
Palacios US 2010/0134272 A1 June 3, 2010
HuiHui US 2013/0077290 A1 Mar. 28, 2013
Milligan US 2016/0091188 A1 Mar. 31, 2016
Chen US 2017/0119078 A1 May 4, 2017
Beckers US 2015/0250247 A1 Sept. 10, 2015
Sherring US 2006/0133068 A1 June 22, 2006
Latchman US 8,807,778 B1 Aug. 19, 2014
Alataas US 2016/0144773 A1 May 26, 2016

Appeal 2020-002437
Application 15/441,870
4
REJECTIONS
I. Claims 1, 3, 4, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Howe in view of Lombard and Morse and Alataas, or
alternatively in further view of Stewart and/or Perry. (Final Act. 3–9.)
II. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Howe, Lombard, Morse, Alataas, Stewart, and Perry as applied to claim 1
above, and further in view of Palacios, and HuiHui. (Final Act. 9–10.)
III. Claims 8–11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Howe, Lombard, Morse, Alataas, Stewart, and Perry as applied to claim
1 above, and further in view of Ransom and Milligan and Chen. (Final Act.
10–14.)
IV. Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Howe, Lombard, Morse, Alataas, Stewart, and Perry as
applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Beckers and Latchman.
(Final Act. 14–16.)
V. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Howe, Lombard, Morse, Alataas, Stewart, and Perry as applied to claim 1
above, and further in view of Latchman or alternatively in further view of
Sherring. (Final Act. 16–17.)
VI. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Howe, Lombard, Morse, Alataas, Latchman, Stewart, Perry, and Sherring as
applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Beckers. (Final Act. 17–
18.)
VII. Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Howe in view of Lombard and Morse and Alataas Palacios, HuiHui,
Ransom, Milligan, Chen, Beckers and Latchman or alternatively in further
view of Stewart and/or Perry and/or Sherring. (Final Act. 18.)
Appeal 2020-002437
Application 15/441,870
5
OPINION
The Appellant relies on the same arguments for all claims on appeal,
focusing only on the two independent claims—i.e., claims 1 and 16
collectively (Appeal Br. 13–16). In addition, the Appellant relies on the
same arguments for Rejections I–VII (id.). Therefore, we decide this appeal
on the basis of claim 1, which we designate as representative pursuant to 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). We will also address separately argued claim 16
(Rejection VIII). Claims 3–6, and 8–15 stand or fall with claim 1.
Rejections I–VI
Appellant’s arguments are limited to the legal principles and
requirements for an obviousness rejection. For example, Appellant argues (i)
“the rejection finds claim limitations piecemeal without consideration of
obviousness in view of the collective teaching of the cited references.”
(Appeal Br. 13.); (ii) “the line of argument used to support the allegation of
obviousness is merely a conclusory statement of obviousness based upon
speculation (rather than evidence) of what one of ordinary skill in the art
would recognize about the several cited references.” (Appeal Br. 14.); and
“[i]n order to find obviousness, the Examiner must find a reason to make the
combination and the reason must be based on common sense when viewing
the teachings of the prior art references, in a box, and without using the
applicant’s specification as a roadmap to the obviousness finding.” (Appeal
Br. 14.) Appellant in the Brief does not specifically refute the Examiner’s
technical findings regarding the cited references. (Appeal Br. 13–16.)
The Examiner provides reasons that explain why the subject matter of
the appealed claims would have been obvious to a person having ordinary
skill in the art. For example, regarding claim 1, the Examiner finds that
Howe describes an illuminated safety helmet assembly for use with a
Appeal 2020-002437
Application 15/441,870
6
motorcycle having most of the limitations recited in claim 1. (Final Act. 3–
5). The Examiner finds Howe teaches the elements located on the helmet,
but is silent as to the elements being on a shell that is complementary to and
configured to couple to the helmet. (Final Act. 5.) The Examiner finds
Lombard teaches making the lighting assembly elements on a separate shell
that fit onto a standard motorcycle helmet in order to allow the lighting
system to be used with standard motorcycle helmets. (Final Act. 5.) The
Examiner determines that it would have been obvious to make lighting
system elements on a shell separate but attachable to a standard motorcycle
helmet. (Final Act. 5.) The Examiner finds the combination of Howe and
Lombard is silent as to the turn signals being activated to blink. (Final Act.
5.) To address this difference the Examiner cites Morse and Stewart as
evidence that intermittent activation of turn signals was known to persons of
ordinary skill in the art. (Final Act. 6.) The Examiner determines that it
would have been obvious to utilize a signaling helmet device with a vehicle
such as a motorcycle or a bicycle (velocipede) as evidenced by Alataas.
(Final Act. 7.) The Examiner makes specific findings and provides reasons
that explain why each of the cited prior art references for the appealed
rejections would have rendered obvious the subject matter of the appealed
claims to a person having ordinary skill in the art.
Appellant has not explained, with any degree of specificity, why the
Examiner’s reasons to modify the references are not supported by the
evidence of record. In the absence of a more detailed explanation, we are not
convinced of error on the part of the Examiner in concluding the claimed
invention would have been obvious within the meaning of 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a). See In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[I]t has
long been the Board’s practice to require an applicant to identify the alleged
Appeal 2020-002437
Application 15/441,870
7
error in the examiner’s rejections.” (citing Ex Parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072
(BPAI 2010) (precedential) (“The panel then reviews the obviousness
rejection for error based on the issues identified by appellant, and in light of
the arguments and evidence produced thereon.”))). Appellant in the Brief
does not specifically refute the Examiner’s technical findings regarding the
cited references. (Appeal Br. 13–16.)
For these reasons, we uphold the Examiner’s rejections I–VI of claims
1, 3–6, and 8–15.
Rejection VII
The Examiner rejects claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Howe in view of Lombard and Morse and Alataas, Palacios, HuiHui,
Ransom, Milligan, Chen, Beckers and Latchman or alternatively in further
view of Stewart and/or Perry and/or Sherring.
Appellant argues the rejection of claim 16 improperly uses 12–15
references. Appellant specifically states that the rejection’s impropriety is
demonstrated by the use of no less than 12–15 separate cited references.
(Appeal Br. 16.) Appellant continues by stating:
It is respectfully submitted in view of the myriad combinations
possible from such a vast number of sources, it defies odds and logic
to conclude the particular combination of limitations in claim 16
would be or could be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
viewing all the cited references. Claim 16 is not addressed for the
totality of the claim limitations and the rejection as expressed belies
use of the present application and the formatting of the claims as
building blocks to establish the rejection.
(Appeal Br. 16.)
Appellant’s argument does not persuade us of reversible error. The
subject matter of claim 16 substantially incorporates the limitations from
each of claims 1, 3–6, and 8–15. The Examiner provides a discussion of the
Appeal 2020-002437
Application 15/441,870
8
references cited in the rejections of claim 1, 3–6, and 8–15 including
substantive findings based on the teachings of all of the references relied
upon in the rejection of claim 16. (Final Act. 3–18.) Appellant has failed to
address the Examiner’s technical reasons for citing the relied upon prior art
and of motivation for combining the teachings thereof. (Appeal Br. 13–16).
For these reasons, we uphold the Examiner's rejection of claim 16.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 3–6, and 8–16 is
AFFIRMED.
DECISION SUMMARY

Appeal 2020-002437
Application 15/441,870
9
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 3, 4, 5 103 Howe, Lombard,
Morse, Alataas,
Stewart, Perry
1, 3, 4, 5
6 103 Howe, Lombard,
Morse, Alataas,
Stewart, Perry,
Palacios, HuiHui
6
8–11 103 Howe, Lombard,
Morse, Alataas,
Stewart, Perry,
Ransom, Milligan,
Chen
8–11
12, 13 103 Howe, Lombard,
Morse, Alataas,
Stewart, Perry,
Beckers, Latchman
12, 13
14 103 Howe, Lombard,
Morse, Alataas,
Stewart, Perry,
Latchman,
Sherring
14
15 103 Howe, Lombard,
Morse, Alataas,
Latchman, Stewart,
Perry, Sherring,
Beckers
15
16 103 Howe, Lombard,
Morse, Alataas,
Palacios, HuiHui,
Ransom, Milligan,
Chen, Beckers,
Latchman, Stewart,
Perry, Sherring
16
Overall
Outcome
1, 3–6, 8–16

Appeal 2020-002437
Application 15/441,870
10
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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED