Corning Incorporated

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 14, 2020

14540293 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 14, 2020)

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.
14/540,293 11/13/2014 Edward John Fewkes SP13-343 9972
22928 7590 09/14/2020
CORNING INCORPORATED
SP-TI-3-1
CORNING, NY 14831
EXAMINER
KONG, QINGJUN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3792
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/14/2020 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):
usdocket@corning.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte EDWARD JOHN FEWKES, STEPHAN LVOVICH LOGUNOV,
and CYNTHIA JEAN WILSON

Appeal 2019-004077
Application 14/540,293
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before BIBHU R. MOHANTY, KENNETH G. SCHOPFER, and
ROBERT J. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

SILVERMAN, 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 rejecting claims 1–4, 7, 9, 10, 12, and 23. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

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
Corning Incorporated. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2019-004077
Application 14/540,293

2
ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
1. An illuminated bandage comprising:
a power source;
a light source coupled to the power source to generate
light; and
a patch comprising a supporting medium having an
absorptive textile material and at least one light diffusing
element disposed in the absorptive textile material of the
supporting medium and optically coupled to the light source,
wherein:
the at least one light diffusing element comprises at least
one light diffusing fiber;
the at least one light diffusing fiber comprises a core, a
cladding, and a plurality of air lines disposed in at least one of
the core and the cladding; and
the at least one light diffusing fiber outputs light through
a sidewall of the light diffusing fiber to promote a
photochemical reaction.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Daniel US 4,234,907 Nov. 18, 1980
Parker US 2006/0167532 A1 July 27, 2006
Hua et al.
(“Hua” herein)
US 7,542,645 B1 June 2, 2009
Bickham et al.
(“Bickham” herein)
US 2011/0122646 A1 May 26, 2011

REJECTION
Claims 1–4, 7, 9, 10, 12, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Parker, Daniel, Bickham, and Hua.
Appeal 2019-004077
Application 14/540,293

3
FINDINGS OF FACT
The findings of fact relied upon, which are supported by a
preponderance of the evidence, appear in the following Analysis.
ANALYSIS
The Parker reference discloses “phototherapy treatment devices for
use in applying area light energy to a wound to help in the healing process.”
Parker ¶ 1. The Examiner finds that Parker’s “adhesive patch or tape 20”
(id. ¶ 28) teaches a “supporting medium,” which is recited in independent
claim 1. Final 7. “However,” the Examiner acknowledges, “Parker does not
teach . . . the supporting medium having an absorptive textile material, and
the light diffusing element being disposed in the absorptive textile material
of [the] supporting medium.” Id.
The Daniel reference discloses “a fabric utilizing fiber optic
illumination wherein the fiber optic elements are threads of the fabric.”
Daniel col. 1, ll. 31–32. More particularly, Daniel describes “fabric 10 in
which the cloth threads 11 are shown with the fiber optic filaments 12 being
woven therewith,” wherein the “cloth threads” are “made of conventional
fibers, such as cotton, nylon, wool, and the like,” and the “optical filaments”
are “made of single optical fibers.” Id. at col. 2, ll. 32–40.
The Examiner finds that Daniel teaches claim 1’s “supporting medium
having an absorptive textile material” and a “light diffusing element
disposed in the absorptive textile material of the supporting medium.” Final
7. According to the Examiner,
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to
modify [the] Parker illuminated bandage by incorporating a
supporting medium having an absorptive textile material in
Appeal 2019-004077
Application 14/540,293

4
which the light diffusing element is disposed, as taught by
Daniel, because doing so allows light diffusing element being
[sic] well supported.
Id. at 8. See also Ans. 6.
Asserting error in the rejection, the Appellant argues the Examiner has
not provided a sufficient reason why a person of ordinary skill in the art, at
the relevant time, would have combined Parker’s teachings with Daniel’s
technique for supporting a light-diffusing element with an absorptive
material, such as cotton fibers. Appeal Br. 8. “In particular,” the Appellant
states, “the Examiner has failed to demonstrate how/why the device of
Parker does not already adequately support its light guide 3.” Id. “Thus,”
the Appellant argues, “there is no reason found in the prior art or otherwise
to look to Daniel to provide additional support to the light guide 3 of
Parker.” Id.
Indeed, the Examiner says that a person of ordinary skill in the art
would have combined the identified teachings of Parker and Daniel, in order
for the claimed “light diffusing element” (taught by Parker) to be “well
supported.” Final 8. Yet, as the Appellant points out (Appeal Br. 8), the
Examiner does not identify any findings to the effect that Parker’s teaching
of the claimed “supporting medium” (Final 7) might fail to provide
“support[ ]” adequate to satisfy claim 1, and the Examiner does not
otherwise explain why or how one of ordinary skill in the art would have
recognized that any such deficiency in Parker would be rectified by Daniel’s
technique. Accordingly, the rejection does not articulate a reason for
combining the teachings of Parker with redundant teachings of Daniel. See
In re Anova Hearing Labs, Inc., 809 F. App’x 840, 843 (Fed. Cir. 2020)
(nonprecedential) (“The Board . . . does not explain why a person of
Appeal 2019-004077
Application 14/540,293

5
ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify Brown, which already
includes vents, to address occlusion effect. The Board does not explain why
a person of skill in the art would conclude that Brown needed to be
modified.”) (citation omitted); South-Tek Sys., LLC v. Engineered Corrosion
Sols., LLC, 748 F. App’x 1003, 1007 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (nonprecedential)
(rejecting Petitioner’s argument “that a person of ordinary skill would have
been motivated to use Wood’s drain to allow water to drain from Viking’s
system,” where “Viking’s system already includes a drum drip drain that
serves this purpose”).
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 1
(the sole independent claim in the Appeal) and dependent claims 2–4, 7, 9,
10, 12, and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–4, 7, 9,
10, 12, 23
103 Parker, Daniel,
Bickham, Hua
1–4, 7, 9,
10, 12, 23

REVERSED