Ex Parte Coushaine et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 27, 201311977939 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 27, 2013) 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. 11/977,939 10/27/2007 Charles M. Coushaine 2007P18636US 4335 24252 7590 02/27/2013 OSRAM SYLVANIA INC 100 ENDICOTT STREET DANVERS, MA 01923 EXAMINER LEE, JONG SUK ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2885 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/27/2013 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 CHARLES M. COUSHAINE and LAURA PEACH ____________________ Appeal 2010-007248 Application 11/977,939 Technology Center 2800 ____________________ Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., and JAMES R. HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judges. KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 2-7. Claim 1 has been canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. Appeal 2010-007248 Application 11/977,939 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to waterproof light sources employing light emitting diodes (LEDs). (Spec. ¶ [0002]) Independent claim 2, reproduced below, is illustrative. 2. A waterproof portable lamp comprising: a housing including a first waterproof chamber and a second waterproof chamber, a light source and a switch for actuating said light source positioned in said first waterproof chamber; and a replaceable power supply for said light source positioned in said second waterproof chamber, said second chamber being isolated from said first chamber except for electrical connections between said power supply and light source. REFERENCE and REJECTIONS Claims 2, 3, 6, and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) based upon the teachings of Kuo (US Pat. App. Pub. No. 2005/0047122 A1). Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of Kuo. ANALYSIS The Examiner finds Kuo teaches all the limitations of Appellants’ claims 2, 3, 6, and 7. Particularly, the Examiner finds Kuo teaches a second chamber isolated from a first chamber except for electrical connections between a power supply and light source as recited in claim 2 (Ans. 3-4). Appeal 2010-007248 Application 11/977,939 3 Appellants disagree and contend Kuo does not teach a second chamber isolated from a first chamber except for an electrical connection between a power supply and light source (Br. 8-9). That is, the Examiner’s assertion that the area above the circuit board is a spatially isolated from a chamber beneath the circuit board (Ans. 4) does not teach this contested claim limitation (Br. 8). A printed circuit board includes traces for allowing connections to various elements and circuits to be connected thereto. Thus, the first and second chambers in Kuo are not isolated from each other except for the electrical connection between the power supply and light source as claimed, as other elements could be connected thereto via the traces on the printed circuit board. With respect to claim 3, we find the Examiner is also incorrect in finding Kuo teaches a flexible, transparent cover (Ans. 4-5). Kuo merely teaches an upper cap 25 that is transparent and “is configured to allow a soft, rubber button” (Kuo, ¶ [0014]). There is no indication in Kuo that the button is transparent or that the upper cap is flexible. Further, claim 3 depends from claim 2, as do claims 6 and 7. Thus, we conclude the Examiner erred in finding Kuo anticipates claims 2, 3, 6, and 7. Claims 4 and 5 depend from claim 3. As Kuo does not teach a flexible, transparent cover, the durometer hardness of the flexible, transparent cover is also not taught or suggested by Kuo. Thus, we conclude the Examiner erred in finding claims 4 and 5 obvious in view of Kuo. CONCLUSION The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 2, 3, 6 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Appeal 2010-007248 Application 11/977,939 4 The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 4 and 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 2-7 is reversed. REVERSED pgc Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation