Ole Smed

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 30, 2021

2021002689 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 30, 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.
12/909,613 10/21/2010 Ole Falk Smed 2010-1 6269
99764 7590 12/30/2021
SpaceCo Business Solutions, Inc.
17650 East 32nd Place
Suite 10
Aurora, CO 80011
EXAMINER
ALAEDDINI, BORNA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2844
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/30/2021 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 OLE FALK SMED
Appeal 2021-002689
Application 12/909,613
Technology Center 2800
Before BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, DONNA M. PRAISS, and
N. WHITNEY WILSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
FRANKLIN, 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, 4, 7, 13, 22, 31, and 33–35. 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 the real party in interest as Ole Falk
Smed. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2021-002689
Application 12/909,613

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1 is illustrative of Appellant’s subject matter on appeal
and is set forth below (with text in bold for emphasis):
1. An LED task light comprising:
a plurality of light emitting diodes (LEDs) mounted on at
least one substrate providing a variable intensity of emitted light;
a housing for receiving the at least one substrate, said
housing having an arm engagement member, said arm
engagement member having a pair of circular bearing surfaces
with a bore therethrough for receiving a connection to an arm, a
90° bend and a shaft overlying a collar, said shaft being received
within the housing;
a light guide board retained in the housing, wherein the
plurality of LEDs are placed in contact with a major edge of the
light guide board and a corresponding opposite edge of the light
guide board;
a power supply providing a supply of electrical power to
the LEDs;
a light intensity selector which allows a user to input a
desired intensity of light to be provided at the work surface;
an ambient light sensor which determines an intensity of
ambient light in the area surrounding the work surface; and
a control logic, electrically connected to the power
supply, the light intensity selector, the ambient light sensor, and
the plurality of LEDs and wherein the control logic compares
the intensity of ambient light in the area surrounding the
work surface with the desired intensity of light to be provided
at the work surface and adjusts the supply of electrical power
to the LEDs so that the total of the variable intensity of
emitted light and the intensity of ambient light in the area
surrounding the work surface is equal to the desired intensity
of light to be provided at the work surface.
Appeal 2021-002689
Application 12/909,613

3
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Swanson US 6,279,753 B1 Aug. 28, 2001
Huang US D471,665 S Mar. 11, 2003
Clark et al. (“Clark”) US 8,016,457 B2 Sept. 13, 2011
Ferguson US 2005/0190142 A1 Sept. 1, 2005
Tracy et al. (“Tracy”) US 2008/0149810 A1 June 26, 2008
Erchak et al. (“Erchak”) US 2008/0205080 A1 Aug. 28, 2008
REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1, 4, 7, 13, 22, 31, 33, and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Clark in view of Tracy, Ferguson,
Erchak, and Huang.
2. Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Clark in view of Tracy, Ferguson, Erchak, Huang, and
Swanson.
OPINION
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
Appellant identifies, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced
thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential)
(cited with approval in 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 error in the examiner’s rejections.”). Upon review of the
evidence and each of the respective positions set forth in the record, we find
that the preponderance of evidence supports Appellant’s position in the
record. Accordingly, we reverse each of the Examiner’s rejections on appeal
Appeal 2021-002689
Application 12/909,613

4
essentially for the reasons set forth in the record by Appellant, and add the
following for emphasis.
The dispositive issue in this case is whether the applied art suggests,
inter alia, a control logic, wherein the control logic compares the intensity of
ambient light in the area surrounding the work surface with the desired
intensity of light to be provided at the work surface and adjusts the supply of
electrical power to the LEDs so that the total of the variable intensity of
emitted light and the intensity of ambient light in the area surrounding the
work surface is equal to the desired intensity of light to be provided at the
work surface. The Examiner relies upon Ferguson for teaching this aspect of
the claimed subject matter. Final Act. 4–5. Appellant argues that Ferguson
does not supply this claim element for the reasons presented on pages 5–6 of
the Appeal Brief. Therein, Appellant states that Ferguson teaches how the
brightness of the backlight should be controlled at ¶ 5 of Ferguson which
discloses: “the backlight should be adjusted to be brighter for high ambient
lighting conditions and less bright, for low ambient lighting conditions to
maintain consistent perceived brightness.” Appeal Br. 6. Appellant submits
that this manner of operation of the Ferguson device is exactly the opposite
of that claimed whereby the control logic matches the light output of a lamp
to ambient conditions (which requires that the lamp brightness be decreased
to compensate for higher ambient light conditions). Appeal Br. 6.
We are persuaded by this line of argument. Notably, the Examiner’s
response does not adequately address this point made by Appellant. Ans. 5–
6. Therein, the Examiner states that claim 1 only recites a comparison and
producing a light output based upon the comparison. Ans. 6. However,
claim 1 also recites that the supply of electrical power is adjusted so that the
Appeal 2021-002689
Application 12/909,613

5
total of the variable intensity of emitted light and the intensity of ambient
light in the area surrounding the work surface is equal to the desired
intensity of light to be provided at the work surface. As such, as pointed out
by Appellant (Appeal Br. 6), the control logic matches the light output of a
lamp to ambient conditions, which requires that the lamp brightness be
decreased to compensate for higher ambient light conditions (or be increased
to compensate for lower ambient light conditions), to achieve the desired
intensity of light output to be provided at the work surface.
Thus, an element of the claim has not been adequately addressed by
the Examiner. We note that “[w]hen determining whether a claim is
obvious, an examiner must make a searching comparison of the claimed
invention, including all its limitations, with the teaching of the prior art.” In
re Ochiai, 71 F.3d 1565, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1995). Thus, “obviousness
requires a suggestion of all limitations in a claim.” CFMT, Inc. w Yieldup
Intern. Corp., 349 F.3d 1333, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (citing In re Royka, 490
F.2d 981, 985 (CCPA 1974)). As such, we reverse Rejection 1.
We reverse Rejection 2 for the same reasons (the Examiner does not
rely upon the additionally applied reference of Swanson in Rejection 2 to
cure the aforementioned stated deficiencies of Rejection 1).
CONCLUSION
We reverse the Examiner’s decision.

Appeal 2021-002689
Application 12/909,613

6
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 4, 7, 13,
22, 31, 33,
34
103(a) Clark, Tracy,
Ferguson, Erchak,
Huang
1, 4, 7,
13, 22,
31, 33,
34
35 103(a) Clark, Tracy,
Ferguson, Erchak,
Huang, Swanson
35
Overall
Outcome
1, 4, 7,
13, 22,
31, 33–
35

REVERSED