Ex Parte Randolph et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 2, 201713649531 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 2, 2017) 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. 13/649,531 10/11/2012 David N. Randolph 1194-106 9885 27820 7590 11/06/2017 WITHROW & TERRANOVA, P.L.L.C. 106 Pinedale Springs Way Cary, NC27511 EXAMINER BANNAN, JULIE A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2875 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/06/2017 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): patents @ wt-ip.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte DAVID N. RANDOLPH and JOHN R. ROWLETTE JR. Appeal 2017-001013 Application 13/649,531 Technology Center 2800 Before BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, WESLEY B. DERRICK, and JULIA HEANEY, Administrative Patent Judges. HEANEY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL1 Appellants2 seek our review pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1—3, 8, 11, 16—18, and 20—23 of Application 13/649,531. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 This Decision refers to the Specification filed Oct. 11, 2012 (“Spec.”), Final Office Action dated Oct. 8, 2015 (“Final Act.”), Appeal Brief filed June 24, 2016 (“App. Br.”), Examiner’s Answer dated Sept. 8, 2016 (“Ans.”), and Reply Brief filed Oct. 24, 2016 (“Reply Br.”). 2 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Cree, Inc. App. Br. 1. Appeal 2017-001013 Application 13/649,531 BACKGROUND The subject matter on appeal relates to a lighting fixture. Spec. 12. The Specification describes a lighting fixture that has a lens assembly including a skirt and a primary lens portion. Spec. 4. The skirt extends inside a mounting structure of the lighting fixture, and the primary lens portion is coupled to the skirt. Id. Claim 1, reproduced below with disputed terms italicized, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal: 1. A lighting fixture comprising: • a mounting structure having a rim at an end of at least one sidewall; • a light source coupled inside the mounting structure and configured to emit light in a forward direction through an opening formed by the rim; and • a lens assembly comprising: • a skirt that extends inside the mounting structure; • at least one tab that extends from a side of the skirt in a rearward direction that is opposite the forward direction and is coupled to the mounting structure; and - a primary lens portion that is unitary with the skirt such that the at least one tab extends from the primary lens via the skirt, where the primary lens projects in the forward direction substantially past the rim, and covers the opening provided by the rim. App. Br. 10 (Claims Appx.). 2 Appeal 2017-001013 Application 13/649,531 THE REJECTIONS The Examiner maintains the following rejections on appeal: 1. Claims 1—3, 8, 11, 17, 18, and 20-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Verdes.3 2. Claims 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Verdes and Lane.4 DISCUSSION Anticipation Rejection: Claims 1-3, 8, 11, 17, 18, and 20-23 Appellants argue independent claim 1 and do not present separate argument for the dependent claims. App. Br. 5—8. Accordingly, we focus our discussion on claim 1; dependent claims stand or fall with the claim from which they depend. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). Having considered Appellants’ arguments in light of this appeal record, we are not persuaded that Appellants identify reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the rejections for the reasons set forth in the Final Action and Examiner’s Answer, which we adopt as our own. We add the following primarily for emphasis. The Examiner finds that Verdes teaches a lighting fixture comprising a mounting structure 25, a light source 51, and a lens 21 that correspond to the three main elements recited in claim 1. Final Act. 2—3. The Examiner further finds that lens 21 as shown in Verdes’ Figure 5 (reproduced below) extends inside a mounting structure and comprises a tab that is coupled to the mounting structure, a skirt that extends inside the mounting structure, 3Verdes et al., US 6,948,829 B2 (iss. Sept. 27, 2005) (“Verdes”). 4Lane et al., US 1,099,061 (iss. Jun. 2, 1914) (“Lane”). 3 Appeal 2017-001013 Application 13/649,531 and a primary lens portion that is unitary with the skirt such that the tab extends from the primary lens via the skirt, as recited in claim 1. Id. Figure 5 depicts a cut away view of an LED light bulb 50 including a lens 21. Verdes 2:66—67, 3:42-45. The Examiner provides an annotated version of Figure 5 including labels of the parts that correspond to the lens, skirt, and tab in the Final Rejection. Final Act. 3. Appellants argue that Verdes does not anticipate claim 1 because the portion of Verdes’ lens 21 that the Examiner relies upon as corresponding to a skirt “is not actually a skirt” because “the skirt is a separate portion of the lens assembly and not part of the lens.” App. Br. 7. Appellants rely upon Figure 20 of the Specification as showing that the skirt is a separate portion of the lens assembly and not part of the lens, i.e. “skirt 76 is not the primary lens portion 74 itself. Instead, as may be clearly seen with reference to Figure 20, the skirt 76 is clearly separate from the primary lens portion 74.” App. Br. 7—8, citing Spec. 1 86. Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive of reversible error. Appellants’ argument is based on a contention that the broadest reasonable interpretation of “a primary lens portion that is unitary with the skirt such 4 Appeal 2017-001013 Application 13/649,531 that at least one tab extends from the primary lens via the skirt” as recited in claim 1 does not encompass the portions of lens 21 disclosed in Verdes’ Figure 5 and relied upon by the Examiner. Appellants do not direct us to any evidence in the Specification, however, to support their contention, nor do we find a definition for “a primary lens portion” or “a skirt” in the Specification. We note Appellants’ reliance on Specification | 86; that passage, however, does not define or limit the claim terms. Absent a special definition, the terms are given their ordinary meaning as would be understood by a person of skill in the art. In re Translogic Tech., 504 F.3d at 1257. For these reasons, using the broadest reasonable interpretation of the disputed claim term italicized above, we determine that a preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner’s finding of anticipation. Rejection 2 Appellants address the obviousness rejection of claim 16 separately, but rely solely on their argument against the rejection of claim 1 and do not dispute the Examiner’s reasons for combining the references. Appellants’ argument is merely that Verdes does not disclose or suggest the features of claim 1 and that Lane does not remedy the deficiency. App. Br. 8. Accordingly, Appellants’ argument does not rise to the level of a separate argument for patentability. Cf. In reLovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[W]e hold that the Board reasonably interpreted Rule 41.37 to require more substantive arguments in an appeal brief than a mere recitation of the claim elements and a naked assertion that the corresponding elements were not found in the prior art”). Therefore, we affirm Rejection 2 for the same reasons as Rejection 1, explained above. 5 Appeal 2017-001013 Application 13/649,531 SUMMARY We affirm the rejections of claims 1—3, 8, 11, 16—18, and 20-23. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). AFFIRMED 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation