Lumileds LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 18, 2021

2020005960 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 18, 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.
16/262,675 01/30/2019 Marten Sikkens 2010P00166US01 6863
136186 7590 10/18/2021
Schmidt Patent Law, Inc. (former PLG)
2635 N. First Street
Suite 150
San Jose, CA 95134-2000
EXAMINER
HAN, JASON
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2875
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/18/2021 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):
IPG_Docketing@lumileds.com
docketing@spatentlaw.com
lumileds@maxval.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MARTEN SIKKENS, MARCEL DE JONG,
SILVIA MARIA BOOIJ, and MARTINUS PETRUS CREUSEN
Appeal 2020-005960
Application 16/262,675
Technology Center 2800
Before TERRY J. OWENS, LINDA M. GAUDETTE, and
JEFFREY R. SNAY, Administrative Patent Judges.
OWENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), the Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–12. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. The
Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Lumileds LLC. (Appeal
Br. 1).
Appeal 2020-005960
Application 16/262,675

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a vehicle lighting assembly and front beam
generating method. Claims 1 and 8, reproduced below, are illustrative of the
claimed subject matter:
1. A lighting assembly for use in a lighting arrangement of
a vehicle, comprising a projection lens and a light source array,
wherein:
a center of the light source array and an optical axis of
the projection lens have a lateral offset; and
light sources of the light source array are individually
controllable to adjust a swivel angle of a light beam generated
by that lighting assembly.

8. A method of generating a front beam for a vehicle
comprising a
lighting assembly for generating the beam, wherein (1) a
center of a light source array and an optical axis of a projection
lens have a lateral offset and (2) the projection lens is
positioned to receive and project light from each of the light
sources in the array, the method comprising:
sensing an angle of turning of the vehicle; and
generating a control signal for the lighting assembly on
the basis of the lateral offset and on the basis of the angle of
turning to selectively activate specific light sources of the light
source array to adjust a swivel angle of the beam.

REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Tatsukawa US 7,128,453 B2 Oct. 31, 2006
Dassanayake US 7,540,638 B2 June 2, 2009
REJECTION
Claims 1–12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
Dassanayake in view of Tatsukawa.
Appeal 2020-005960
Application 16/262,675

3
OPINION
Dassanayake discloses a vehicle headlamp assembly comprising a
lighting module (36) containing a convex array of LED light sources (70),
each of which is stationary with respect to a housing (32) and directs a
collimated light beam toward a parabolic lens (76), such as a cylindrical
projection lens, at a fixed angle relative to the array’s longitudinal center
plane (14) (col. 4, ll. 23–24; 57–60; col. 5, ll. 4–7, 25–28; 32–36; Fig 4). The
parabolic lens (76) directs and spreads the collimated light (col. 5, ll. 36–38).
Tatsukawa discloses a vehicle headlamp assembly comprising a
plurality of semiconductor light-emitting devices (102a–102e) that transmit
light through a lens (104) having its optical axis (F) on any of those light-
emitting devices (col. 4, ll. 5–28, 55–57; Figs. 2, 6). Positioning the optical
axis (F) asymmetrically with respect to the light-emitting devices (102a–
102e) causes the light intensity to be higher on the side of the optical axis
having the most light-emitting devices (col. 6, ll. 39–53; Fig. 6).
The Examiner finds (Ans. 5):
[B]y modifying the light source array (adaptive front lighting
module) 36 of Dassanayake to be laterally offset relative to the
center of the projection lens 76 of Dassanayake, which lateral
offset is taught in principle by Tatsukawa, it would shift the
overall illumination [note Figure 3: (56)] relative to the vehicle
center [as shown in the drawing above]. In other words, the
effect of such a lateral offset would be a higher intensity
illumination to more of a side [i.e., right or left of the vehicle;
e.g., Figure 1:(14)] by pointing the light source array more to a
side than where it originally was relative to the projection
lens 76.

The Examiner finds (Final 4–5, 7–8 (bracketing in original)): “Such
an obvious configuration of laterally offsetting the light source array and the
Appeal 2020-005960
Application 16/262,675

4
optical axis of the projection lens would ensure appropriate light distribution
for higher intensities along certain directions and/or for automobiles passing
by, as corroborated by Tatsukawa [note Column 6, Lines 39-57] and
Dassanayake [note Column 4, Lines 23-30, 57-65].”
The Appellant argues:
[T]he lighting module of Dassanayake needs parabolic
lens 76 to have cylindrical symmetry to provide the same
focusing or collimation characteristics for multiple different
light sources 70 having different beam directions and different
positions relative a lateral direction (i.e., relative to the lateral
direction Z shown in the marked up FIG. 4 above). Otherwise,
projection lens 76 would produce output beams having
different profiles or dispersions depending on the direction of
the output beam, i.e., depending on which of the light sources
70 are turned on. With this requirement that Dassanayake has
for the projection lens, Dassanayake in view of Tatsukawa fails
to suggest that asymmetric positioning of a light array relative
to projection lens 76 of Dassanayake would have any effect on
the direction of the beams from projection lens 76. [(Appeal
Br. 5)]
. . . .
[T]he modification to Dassanayake’s device suggested by the
Examiner would shift the center of Dassanayake’s light source
with respect to Dassanayake’s cylindrical projection lens by no
more than a few centimeters. This would shift the light
distribution output by Dassanayake’s headlight by the same
distance - a few centimeters.
. . . the Examiner has not shown that such a small change in the
performance of Dassanayake’s headlight resulting from the
modification proposed by the Examiner would provide
sufficient reason to one of ordinary skill in the art to make that
modification. [(Reply Br. 4)]

Setting forth a prima facie case of obviousness requires establishing
that the applied prior art would have provided one of ordinary skill in the art
Appeal 2020-005960
Application 16/262,675

5
with an apparent reason to modify the prior art to arrive at the claimed
invention. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007).
The Examiner concludes that it would have been prima facie obvious
to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of Tatsukawa to rearrange
Dassanayake’s light source array such that the center of the light source
array and the optical axis of the projection lens have a lateral offset “to
promote light distribution patterns as needed” (Final 4, 7) and to “ensure
appropriate light distribution for higher intensities along certain directions
and/or for automobiles passing by, as corroborated by Tatsukawa [note
Column 6, Lines 39-57] and Dassanayake [note Column 4, Lines 23-30, 57-
65]” (Final 4–5, 7–8 (bracketing in original)).
The Examiner does not establish that the ability of Tatsukawa’s
lens (104) to laterally change the direction of light passing through it, as
indicated by Tatsukawa’s Figures 2, 3, 5, 6, 9, and 10, is a characteristic of
Dassanayake’s parabolic lens (76), such that Tatsukawa’s disclosure of
offsetting the light array and lens (104)’s optical axis would have led one of
ordinary skill in the art to laterally shift Dassanayake’s light source relative
to the center of the parabolic lens for the reasons relied upon by the
Examiner (“to promote light distribution patterns as needed” (Final 4) or to
“ensure appropriate light distribution for higher intensities along certain
directions and/or for automobiles passing by” (Final 4–5)).
The Examiner finds that “each of the positions of the light sources 70
[of Dassanayake] would have an impact on the illumination distribution
pattern (56), especially the various intensities across the distribution as it is
an adaptive lighting module” (Ans. 7). In support of that finding, the
Examiner relies upon Dassanayake’s disclosure that “[t]he peripheral and
Appeal 2020-005960
Application 16/262,675

6
foreground illumination 54 may be enhanced substantially from the adaptive
front lighting module 36. For example, the peripheral and foreground
illumination 54 may expand into augmented peripheral and foreground
positions 56 as a result [of] increased illumination from the adaptive front
lighting module 36” (col. 4, ll. 45–50) (Ans. 7).
That disclosure attributes the expanded peripheral and foreground
illumination to increased illumination, not to the lateral position of the light
source array relative to the center of the parabolic lens (76).
Thus, the record indicates that the Examiner’s rejection is based upon
impermissible hindsight in view of the Appellant’s disclosure. See In re
Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967) (“A rejection based on section
103 clearly must rest on a factual basis, and these facts must be interpreted
without hindsight reconstruction of the invention from the prior art.”).
Accordingly, we reverse the rejection.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejection is reversed.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–12 103(a) Dassanayake,
Tatsukawa
1–12
REVERSED