SERGIY VASYLYEV

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 25, 2021

2020001100 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 25, 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.
15/231,063 08/08/2016 SERGIY VASYLYEV 1077
25945 7590 03/25/2021
SERGIY VASYLYEV
3204 East Pintail Way
ELK GROVE, CA 95757
EXAMINER
BOWMAN, MARY ELLEN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2875
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/25/2021 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):
svasilyev@yahoo.com
svasylyev@svvti.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte SERGIY VASYLYEV
____________

Appeal 2020-001100
Application 15/231,063
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before JEFFREY B. ROBERTSON, MONTÉ T. SQUIRE, and
JEFFREY R. SNAY, Administrative Patent Judges.

SNAY, 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 1–20. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42.
Appeal 2020-001100
Application 15/231,063

2
BACKGROUND
The invention relates to light emitting waveguides for emitting light
over a broad-area surface. Spec. ¶ 6. Claim 1 is the sole independent claim
and reads as follows:
1. A face-lit waveguide illumination system,
comprising:
a portion of a waveguiding substrate defined by a first
broad-area surface and an opposing second broad-area surface
extending substantially parallel to the first broad-area surface;
a plurality of highly elongated light coupling elements
distributed over the first broad-area surface and attached to the
first broad-area surface with a good optical contact, wherein
each of the highly elongated light coupling elements extends
longitudinally between a first terminal end and an opposing
second terminal end;
a plurality of LED sources disposed in registration with
and optically coupled to the first terminal ends of the plurality
of light coupling elements;
wherein each of the light coupling elements is configured
to inject light into the waveguiding substrate at an angle
permitting for light propagation in the waveguiding substrate by
means of a total internal reflection from at least the first and
second broad-area surfaces.
Appeal Br. 11 (Claims Appendix).

REJECTIONS2
I. Claims 1–5, 8–10, 13, 16, 17, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Sinyugin3 and Tai.4

2 The Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) is withdrawn.
Advisory Action, dated May 3, 2019 (“Advisory Act.”).
3 US 2007/0183040 A1, published August 9, 2007.
4 US 2007/0274099 A1, published November 29, 2007.
Appeal 2020-001100
Application 15/231,063

3
II. Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Sinyugin, Tai, and Lin.5
III. Claims 7, 11, 12, 14, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Sinyugin, Tai, and Saarikko.6
IV. Claim 15 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Sinyugin, Tai, and Wang.7
V. Claim 18 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Sinyugin, Tai, and Shani.8
OPINION
Appellant presents arguments directed solely to claim 1, and does not
separately contest the Examiner’s rejection of any dependent claim. See
Appeal Br. 10 (“Appellant is not separately arguing the patentability of
claims 2–20 over the asserted references at this time.”). We address
Appellant’s arguments concerning claim 1 below. Each of claims 2–20
stands or falls with claim 1.

Claim 1
With regard to claim 1, and relevant to Appellant’s arguments on
appeal, the Examiner finds Sinyugin discloses a plurality of LEDs coupled
to a highly elongated light coupling element positioned on a surface of a
wave-guiding substrate, such that LED light is injected into the wave-
guiding substrate at an angle which permits light propagation by total
internal reflection (TIR). Final Act. 2 (citing Sinyugin Fig. 3). The

5 US 2015/0009687 A1, published January 8, 2015.
6 US 2010/0220956 A1, published September 2, 2010.
7 US 2006/0215387 A1, published September 28, 2006.
8 US 2013/0121001 A1, published May 16, 2013.
Appeal 2020-001100
Application 15/231,063

4
Examiner also finds Tai evidences an art-recognized equivalence between
multiple light coupling elements and a single element, such as that depicted
in Sinyugin’s Figure 3. Id. at 2–3 (citing Tai Figs. 1c, 1d).
Appellant argues Sinyugin’s disclosed light coupling element is not
“highly elongated,” as is recited in claim 1. Appeal Br. 6. According to
Appellant, “[e]lement 4 of Figure 3 in Sinyugin is shown with only a slight
or moderate elongation in a direction perpendicular to the light input.” Id.
More particularly, Appellant contends, “referring to Fig. 1 [of Sinyugin], the
ratio between longer dimension and a shorter dimension of element 4 (which
is described in Sinyugin as a plane-parallel plate) appears to [be] less than
2:1.” Id. at 7.
We reproduce Sinyugin’s Figures 1 and 3 below.

Figure 1 depicts a device comprising LEDs coupled to a waveguide by a
plane-parallel plate shaped optical element. Figure 3 shows a similar device
in which the optical element is wedge-shaped.
Appellant does not explain which dimensions in either Figure 1 or
Figure 3 of Sinyugin are relied upon to support the estimated ratio of 2:1.
Regardless, Appellant does not identify a structural distinction between what
Appellant characterizes as “moderate elongation” in Sinyugin and the phrase
“highly elongated” in claim 1. Moreover, the phrase “highly elongated” in
Appeal 2020-001100
Application 15/231,063

5
claim 1 must be viewed in light of the Specification. Here, in describing the
dimensions of the light coupling element of the claimed invention, the
Specification states “its length L should preferably be several times greater
than a major dimension of the light input face 4, with a ratio of at least 5 and
up to about 15.” Spec. ¶ 111. The Specification further identifies a
particular embodiment in which the above-mentioned major dimension of
the light input face is taken to be the largest transversal dimension, which
may be width or thickness. Id. Because claims generally are not limited to
particular embodiments disclosed in the Specification, the phrase “highly
elongated” in claim 1 is properly viewed as referring to a length of the light
coupling element relative to any major dimension of the light input face.
Sinyugin’s optical element 4 is depicted in each of Figures 1 and 3 as being
several times longer than a thickness of the light input face. Appellant does
not present persuasive evidence that claim 1 excludes Sinyugin’s depicted
coupling element dimensions.
Appellant also argues Sinyugin does not provide LEDs coupled to a
“terminal end” of the recited light coupling element because Sinyugin’s
LEDs are not coupled to the shortest side of the light coupling element.
Appeal Br. 7–8. However, Appellant does not persuasively identify
language in claim 1 which would require LEDs to be coupled to the shortest
side. Rather, claim 1 recites that each light coupling element “extends
longitudinally between a first terminal end and an opposing second terminal
end,” and a plurality of LED sources are “disposed in registration with and
optically coupled to the first terminal ends.” Thus, as claimed, the terminal
ends are characterized with regard to the direction of elongation and
positioning of LED sources. Appellant does not identify error in the
Appeal 2020-001100
Application 15/231,063

6
Examiner’s finding that Sinyugin’s structure includes LEDs optically
coupled to a first terminal end of the light coupling element 4.
Appellant argues Sinyugin fails to teach light propagation through the
waveguide by total internal reflection. Appeal Br. 9; Reply Br. 4. We are
not persuaded. Sinyugin expressly teaches coupling input light to the
waveguide at “greater than a critical angle,” Sinyugin ¶ 11, which leads to
“full internal reflection” Id. ¶ 2.
Appellant further argues the Examiner does not adequately explain
why Tai’s Figures 1c and 1d would have provided evidence that “several
light coupling elements may be employed as a suitable substitute for one
continuous light coupling element.” Appeal Br. 9. See also Reply Br. 3–4.
Tai teaches providing plural light collectors 28 for coupling LED light
sources to an optical element (Figure 1c), and alternatively providing a
single light collector 28 to achieve the same result (Figure 1d). See Tai ¶ 43
(“FIG. 1D shows that the separate light collectors 28 in FIG. 1C can also be
combined to a single light collector 28.”). In light of the foregoing teaching
in Tai, we are persuaded the Examiner’s equivalence finding is supported by
a preponderance of the evidence. In any event, we note Sinyugin already
teaches providing plural light coupling elements. Sinyugin ¶ 9 (“one or two
additional optical elements for introduction of light flux”); id. ¶ 11 (“one or
several additional optical elements for introduction of the light flux”).
For the foregoing reasons, as well as those presented in the Final
Office Action and Answer, Appellant does not identify reversible error. The
Examiner’s rejections are sustained.

Appeal 2020-001100
Application 15/231,063

7
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–20 is affirmed.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–5, 8–10,
13, 16, 17,
19
103 Sinyugin, Tai 1–5, 8–10,
13, 16, 17,
19

6 103 Sinyugin, Tai, Lin 6
7, 11, 12,
14, 20
103 Sinyugin, Tai,
Saarikko
7, 11, 12,
14, 20

15 103 Sinyugin, Tai,
Wang
15
18 103 Sinyugin, Tai,
Shani
18
Overall
Outcome
1–20

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)(iv).

AFFIRMED