Richpower Industries, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 4, 2021

2020004277 (P.T.A.B. May. 4, 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.
15/737,343 12/18/2017 LIFENG ZHOU 1104.0003-US 5326
65770 7590 05/04/2021
Thrive IP
Jeremy Stipkala
5401 NETHERBY LANE
SUITE 1201
NORTH CHARLESTON, SC 29420
EXAMINER
PAYNE, SHARON E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2875
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/04/2021 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):
JEREMY.STIPKALA@Thrive-IP.COM
docket@thrive-ip.com
rebecca.seaman@thrive-ip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
__________

Ex parte LIFENG ZHOU
__________

Appeal 2020-004277
Application 15/737,343
Technology Center 2800
___________

Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, MONTÉ T. SQUIRE, and
JANE E. INGLESE, Administrative Patent Judges.

HANLON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

A. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellant1 filed an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from an Examiner’s
decision finally rejecting claims 1, 3–11, and 17. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM IN PART.
Representative claim 1 is reproduced below from the Claims Appendix to
the Appeal Brief. The limitations at issue are italicized.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. The Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Richpower Industries,
Inc. Appeal Brief dated November 27, 2019 (“Appeal Br.”), at 3.
Appeal 2020-004277
Application 15/737,343

2

1. A lighting system, comprising:
a lighting apparatus being configured to exist in at least two
states, the lighting apparatus including a head, a body, and a base in
adjustable relationship with each other; wherein the lighting
apparatus, in a first state, is expanded such that the body is disposed
between the head and the base, the head being disposed apart from the
base and including a cap having at least two light panels rotatably
attached from a first juncture of the cap, each of the two light panels
being rotatable relative to each other and being movable in at least
two axes relative to the cap, and wherein, the lighting apparatus, in a
second state, is tubular in shape, the body being collapsed such that
the head and the base are proximate each other and closed about
respective portions of the body.
Appeal Br. 15.
The Examiner maintains the following grounds of rejection on appeal:
(1) claims 1, 3, 5, and 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) as anticipated by
Fang;2
(2) claims 4, 7, 8, 10, and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Fang in view of Leen;3
(3) claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Fang in view of
Leen, further in view of Inskeep4 and Lovley;5 and
(4) claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Fang.

2 US 9,810,408 B2, to Fang, issued November 7, 2017 (“Fang”).
3 US 2005/0083692 A1, to Leen, published April 21, 2005 (“Leen”).
4 US 2014/0301066 A1, to Inskeep, published October 9, 2014 (“Inskeep”).
5 US 2014/0283891 A1, to Lovley, II et al., published September 25, 2014
(“Lovley”).
Appeal 2020-004277
Application 15/737,343

3

B. DISCUSSION
1. Claims 1, 3–6, and 17
The Examiner finds Fang discloses a lighting apparatus configured to exist
in an expanded state and a collapsed state, wherein the lighting apparatus includes
a head, a body 26, and a base 28. Final Act. 3;6 Fang Fig. 1. The Examiner finds
that the head of the lighting apparatus includes a cap having at least two light
panels rotatably attached from a first junction of the cap as claimed. Final Act. 3.
To illustrate, the Examiner provides annotated Fang Figure 3A, reproduced below.
Ans. 4.7

Annotated Fang Figure 3A depicts
the disclosed lighting apparatus with
one illumination device adjusted to one position.
Based on the record before us, we understand that upper surface 54 of hub or
cap 25 corresponds to the claimed “first juncture of the cap.” Appeal Br. 15

6 Final Office Action dated October 10, 2019.
7 Examiner’s Answer dated April 22, 2020.
Appeal 2020-004277
Application 15/737,343

4

(emphasis added); see also Fang, col. 3, ll. 30–31 (disclosing that “a pivoting
assembly 58 is provided on the upper surface 54 on either side of the block 56”).
The Appellant argues that “when properly construed in the context of the
specification, claims, and drawings of the pending application, the ‘first juncture’
required by each of the independent claims makes clear that two or more light
panels stem from the same point or juncture and that there is a separate ‘cap.’”
Reply Br. 4.8 In contrast, the Appellant argues that Fang’s illumination devices 22
and 24 are each attached to separate junctures or pivoting assemblies 58. Appeal
Br. 7.
Claim 1 recites that the head of the lighting apparatus includes “a cap having
at least two light panels rotatably attached from a first juncture of the cap.”
Appeal Br. 15 (emphasis added). Similarly, independent claim 17 recites “a first
pair of light panels depending from a first juncture of the cap.” Appeal Br. 17
(emphasis added). Thus, claims 1 and 17 each recite that the first juncture is part
of the cap and is not separate from the cap as argued by the Appellant. See Reply
Br. 4.
The Appellant does not direct us to a definition of “juncture” in the
Specification or describe the juncture in any detail in the Specification. Moreover,
the Appellant does not identify the juncture in the drawings. Therefore, giving
claims 1 and 17 their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
Specification, it is reasonable to interpret the claimed “first juncture of the cap” as
corresponding to the upper surface 54 of hub or cap 25 in Fang.
The Appellant does not contend that Fang’s light panels 22 and 24 are not
rotatably attached or depend from upper surface 54 of hub or cap 25 as claimed.

8 Reply Brief dated May 21, 2020.
Appeal 2020-004277
Application 15/737,343

5

Therefore, a preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner’s finding that
Fang’s light panels 22 and 24 are rotatably attached or depend from a first juncture
of the cap as recited in claims 1 and 17.
Referring to Fang Figure 2, the Examiner also finds that body 26 may be
collapsed in a second state “such that the head and the base [28] are proximate
each other and closed about respective portions of the body [26]” as recited in
claims 1 and 17. Final Act. 3, 6 (emphasis added).
Consistent with the ordinary meaning of the term “about,” the Appellant
argues that “about” in the claims on appeal means “‘around’” or “‘surrounding.’”
Reply Br. 6 (citing Merriam-Webster Dictionary (2002)). To illustrate, the
Appellant directs our attention to the Appellant’s Figures 1 and 2 showing body 14
between head 12 and base 16. Reply Br. 6. The Appellant argues that “[w]hen
collapsed as in Figure 2, the head 12 and the base 16 are indeed closed about the
body 14.” Reply Br. 6 (emphasis added). In contrast, the Appellant argues that
the Fang illumination device is folded upwardly for storage [away
from the body] until the bottom wall of its housing 40 is seated on top
of block 56. In other words, the Fang illumination device[] does not
close about the body, indeed, it cannot be pivoted downward about
portions of the cylindrical housing 52 due to stop elements 54.
App. Br. 8 (original emphasis omitted).
The Appellant’s argument is persuasive of reversible error. Fang discloses
that “[w]hen the lighting apparatus 20 is to be collapsed for storage, the
illumination devices 22 and 24 are folded upwardly along the pivot axis of the
shaft 66 until the bottom wall of each housing 40 is seated on top of the block 56.”
Fang, col. 3, l. 67–col. 4, l. 4 (emphasis added); see also Fang Fig. 3A. Thus, a
preponderance of the evidence does not support the Examiner’s finding that the
Appeal 2020-004277
Application 15/737,343

6

head of Fang’s lighting apparatus is closed about a portion of body 26 as recited in
claims 1 and 17.
The anticipation rejection of claims 1, 3, 5, 6 and the obviousness rejection
of claim 17 based on Fang are reversed. The Examiner does not rely on Leen to
cure the deficiency in Fang in the obviousness rejection of claim 4. Therefore, the
obviousness rejection of claim 4 based on the combination of Fang and Leen also
is reversed.
2. Claims 7–11
Independent claim 7 is directed to a lighting system comprising, inter alia,
“a light head having a plurality of light panels, at least two of the light panels
depending in parallel from a first juncture of the light head and a third light panel
depending from a second juncture of the light head, the panels being adjustable
relative to each other.” Appeal Br. 16 (emphasis added). In contrast to claims 1
and 17, claim 7 does not recite that the head of the lighting apparatus is closed
about respective portions of the body. See Appeal Br. 16.
The Appellant argues that “Fang does not teach at least two light panels
depending in parallel from a first juncture of a light head” as claimed. Appeal Br.
11. For the reasons discussed above, the Appellant’s argument is not persuasive of
reversible error.
The Appellant also summarily contends that Leen “fails to disclose a third
light panel depending from a second juncture of a light head wherein all of the
panels are adjustable relative to each other.” Appeal Br. 11. The Appellant’s
argument, however, does not identify any error in the Examiner’s finding to the
contrary. See Final Act. 5 (finding that Leen discloses a third light panel
depending from a second juncture of the light head that is adjustable relative to the
other light panels). Moreover, in the Examiner’s proposed modification of Fang,
Appeal 2020-004277
Application 15/737,343

7

all of the light panels would be adjustable relative to each other as claimed. See
Fang Figs. 3A, 3B (showing light panels 22 and 24 adjustable relative to each
other). The Appellant has failed to establish otherwise.
For the reasons discussed above, the obviousness rejection of claim 7 based
on the combination of Fang and Leen is sustained. The Appellant does not present
arguments in support of the separate patentability of any of dependent claims 8–11.
Therefore, the obviousness rejections of claims 8–11 also are sustained.
C. DECISION
The Examiner’s decision is affirmed in part.

Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 3, 5, 6 102(a)(2) Fang 1, 3, 5, 6
4, 7, 8, 10, 11 103 Fang, Leen 7, 8, 10, 11 4
9 103 Fang, Leen,
Inskeep, Lovley
9
17 103 Fang 17
Overall
Outcome
7–11 1, 3–6, 17

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