Ex Parte Haenen et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 27, 2016

13119270 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 27, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/119,270 03/16/2011
136186 7590
Lumileds LLC
370 West Trimble Road
San Jose, CA 95131
10/31/2016
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Ludo Haenen
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
2008P00877WOUS 1267
EXAMINER
COUGHLIN, ANDREW J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2875
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/31/2016 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):
nancy.glynn@philips.com
us-ip@patentlawgroup.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte LUDO HAENEN, NILS BENTER, PASCAL BLOEMEN, and
AUGUSTINUS G.H. MEIJERS 1
Appeal2015-003405
Application 13/119,270
Technology Center 2800
Before BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, CHRISTOPHER L. OGDEN, and
MONTE T. SQUIRE, Administrative Patent Judges.
OGDEN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final
decision2 rejecting claims 1-19 in the above-identified application. We have
jurisdiction pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Koninklijke Philips
Electronics, N.V. Appeal Brief 1, July 18, 2014 [hereinafter Appeal Br.].
2 Office Action, Jan. 14, 2014 [hereinafter Final Action].
Appeal2015-003405
Application 13/119,270
BACKGROUND
Appellants' claimed invention relates to "a lighting unit and a
corresponding vehicle headlamp, by means of which mutually distinct
lighting functions can be realized, while maintaining compact dimensions."
Spec. 1. One embodiment is depicted in Figure 1, which is reproduced
below:
1
FIG~ l
Figure 1 depicts a longitudinal sectional view of lighting unit 1 along the
optical axis A-A', including a reflective surface 2, a first light source 5 and a
second light source 7, both comprising LED elements 6, mounted on
common circuit board 8. See Spec. 7-8. The first and second beam sources
are configured to produce first and second beam patterns with the lighting
distribution of a fog light and a daytime running light, respectively. See id.
at 7.
2
Appeal2015-003405
Application 13/119,270
Claim 1 is representative of the claims on appeal:
1. A lighting unit, comprising:
a reflecting surface for providing an output beam of light,
a first light source arranged to illuminate a first surface
area of said reflecting surface and
at least a second light source, arranged to illuminate a
second surface area of said reflecting surface,
the second surface area is substantially identical to said
first surface area,
wherein said reflecting surface is shaped and
said light sources are positioned relative to said reflecting
surface so that said first light source generates an output beam
of light having a first beam pattern and
said at least second light source generates an output beam
of light, having a second beam pattern, different from said first
beam pattern,
wherein said first light source and said second light
source are independently controllable from each other to be
able to provide the first beam pattern independent of the second
beam pattern, to provide the second beam pattern independent
of the first beam pattern, and to provide both first and second
beam patterns simultaneously.
Appeal Br. Claim App. i (emphasis added). Claim 16 is also independent.
See id. at iii.
The Examiner maintains the following grounds of rejection:
I. Claims 1-14 and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Takayuki Yagi, U.S. Patent Application Pub. No.
US 2007 /0279924 Al (published Dec. 6, 2007) [hereinafter Yagi] in view of
Masanori Shimizu et al., U.S. Patent Application Pub. No.
US 2002/0070681 Al (published Jun. 13, 2002) [hereinafter Shimizu].
Final Action 2-7.
II. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Yagi in view of Shimizu, and further in view of Simon
3
Appeal2015-003405
Application 13/119,270
Magarill, U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. US 2006/0072313 Al (published
Apr. 6, 2006). Final Action 8.
In the Appeal Brief, Appellants argue claims 1-14 as a first group,
claims 16-19 as a second group, and claim 15 as a third group, see Appeal
Br. 5-9, but Appellants make no specific arguments for claims 2-19 beyond
the arguments presented for claim 1, see id. at 8-9. Therefore, consistent
with the provisions of 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2013), we limit our
discussion to claim 1, and all other claims stand or fall together with claim 1.
DISCUSSION
Figures 9A and 9B of Yagi are reproduced below:
FIG,98
212
I
Figures 9A and 9B depict first and second lighting modes, respectively, of
the main portion of a vehicular lamp containing light emitting chips 212a of
a light emitting element 212. See Yagi 121-22, 126. In the first mode, light
emitting chips 212aA and 212aC are lighted simultaneously, while in the
second mode, chips 2 l 2aB and 2 l 2aD are lighted simultaneously. See id. at
4
Appeal2015-003405
Application 13/119,270
126. The first mode is intended for illuminating longer distances ahead of
the vehicle, while the second mode is intended for illuminating a wider
horizontal area. See id. iii! 135-36.
The Examiner finds that Yagi teaches all the limitations of claim 1, see
Final Action 2-3, including the limitations in the final paragraph of claim 1,
because "Yagi possesses all the structure necessary to provide both the first
and second beam patterns simultaneously and that the limitations drawn to
the simultaneous shining of both beam patterns are only intended use
limitations which do not provide further patentable weight to the claim," id.
at 3. In addition, the Examiner finds that Shimizu teaches the limitations in
the final paragraph of claim 1. See id. (citing Shimizu iii! 75-76, 81, Fig. 6).
The Examiner further determines that
Id.
[i]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to
at the time the invention was made to use the wiring design in
which the first and second light source can be used simultane-
ously and adjusted as taught by Shimizu et al. in the device taught
by Yagi in order to display light of any desired color in order to
conform with industry standards as well as in order to control the
brightness of the emitted light emitted.
Appellants argue that the requirement in claim 1 that the first and
second light sources be "independently controllable" is not merely intended
use, and should be given patentable weight. See Appeal Br. 7. However,
this argument is not responsive to the rejection, because as explained in the
Answer, the Examiner's rejection gives patentable weight to the
"independently controllable" limitation. See Answer 11; see also Final
Action 2-3 (finding that Yagi teaches independently controllable light
sources).
5
Appeal2015-003405
Application 13/119,270
Appellants also argue that the limitation "to provide both first and
second beam patterns simultaneously" is a structural feature and is entitled
to patentable weight, because it "clarif1ies] the nature of the first and second
light sources' structural feature of being independently controllable."
Appeal Br. 7. Appellants' argument does not persuade us that this limitation
constrains the structure of the lighting unit defined by claim 1. We give
claims "their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
specification." See In re Translogic Tech. Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1256 (Fed.
Cir. 2007) (quoting In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Claim
1 is an apparatus claim. While it requires that the first and second light
sources are independently controllable, claim 1 does not include any control
structure, such as a "switching controller," see Spec. 2:23-33, that might
determine whether or not the beam patterns are provided simultaneously.
Thus, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the phrase "to provide both
first and second beam patterns simultaneously," consistent with the
Specification, is as an intended use of the independently controllable light
sources.
Appellants also argue that "Yagi does not disclose all the necessary
structure to provide the first and second beams simultaneously as recited in
claim 1 because Yagi's light emitting chips 212 ofYagi are not
'independently controllable' as recited in claim l." Id. at 8. We do not find
this argument persuasive. As the Examiner correctly finds, Figures 9A and
9B depict independent control of two light sources, and demonstrate the
required circuitry for operating the beam patterns independently. See
Answer 11. Appellants have not directed our attention to factual evidence or
persuasive technical reasoning disputing these findings.
6
Appeal2015-003405
Application 13/119,270
Moreover, for purposes of this appeal, Appellants do not contest the
Examiner's determination that "Shimizu teaches or suggests providing 'both
first and second beam patterns simultaneously."' Appeal Br. 5. Thus, even
if the Examiner erred in finding that Yagi teaches providing the beam
patterns simultaneously, Appellants do not contest the Examiner's finding
that this limitation is taught by Shimizu. Nor do Appellants contest the
Examiner's findings that Shimizu teaches light sources that are "wired to be
operated independently," Final Action 3, and that there would have been
reason for a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of
Yagi and Shimizu. See id.
Appellants also argue that Yagi teaches away from the limitation "to
provide both first and second beam patterns simultaneously" in claim 1. See
Appeal Br. 5. Appellants cite Yagi's description of the embodiment depicted
in Figures 9 A and 9B, which teaches as follows:
[A ]lthough an amount of consumption power of each of the light
emitting chips 212a is slightly large, since the number of the light
emitting chips 212a simultaneously lighted in each of the first
and second lighting modes is only two, an amount of consump-
tion power of the light emitting element 212 can be suppressed.
Further, since the different light emitting chips 212a are simulta-
neously lighted in the first and second lighting modes, a life time
of the light emitting element 212 can be elongated.
Appeal Br. 7 (quoting Yagi ,-i 139). Thus, according to Appellants,
IfYagi were modified so that, for instance, both sets oflight emit-
ting chips (212aA and 212aC, 212aB and 212aD) were lighted
simultaneously, that would undermine Yagi's dual goals of sup-
pressing power consumption of the light emitting element 212
and elongating a life time of the light emitting element 212.
Id. Appellants argue that "a person of ordinary skill would be, at the very
least, led in a direction divergent from the path taken by the ... present
application in providing both first and second beam patterns
7
Appeal2015-003405
Application 13/119,270
simultaneously." Reply Br. 5 (citing Ricoh Co., Ltd. v. Quanta Computer
Inc., 550 F.3d 1325, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2008)).
Appellants' arguments do not persuade us that Yagi teaches away from
the invention defined in claim 1. A prior art disclosure does not teach away
if it "does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution
claimed." See In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). While
Yagi teaches a benefit of operating the two light sources sequentially rather
than simultaneously, we have interpreted claim 1 as defining a structure in
which the first and second light sources are independently controllable, with
the provision of simultaneous beam patterns as merely an intended operating
mode. See supra. Thus, even if Yagi taught away from providing the two
beam patterns simultaneously, Yagi does not teach away from the structure
defined by claim 1.
Moreover, even if simultaneous operation of the two beams were a
structural feature in claim 1, we are not persuaded that Yagi's teaching
would have dissuaded a person of ordinary skill in the art from using
simultaneous operation in furtherance of a known benefit, such as increased
brightness or the advantages taught by Shimizu. As the Examiner correctly
finds, "one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that using any
device ultimately contributes to the shortening of the device's lifetime.
Leaving a light bulb turned off in a dark room will certainly extend the
lifetime of the bulb but requires the cost of sitting in the dark." Answer 10.
Likewise, any use of a light source requires an expenditure of power.
However, we are not persuaded that these considerations would have
overridden the known potential benefits of simultaneous operation.
For the above reasons, a preponderance of the evidence on this record
does not persuade us of reversible error in the Examiner's decision to reject
8
Appeal2015-003405
Application 13/119,270
claim 1. For the same reasons, we are not persuaded of reversible error in
the Examiner's decision to reject claims 2-19.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended. See 37 C.F.R. § l.136(a)(l)(iv) (2013).
AFFIRMED
9