ELITE LIGHTING

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 1, 2020

2020000006 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 1, 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.
15/179,183 06/10/2016 Hamid Rashidi Doust 87/14 8605
99106 7590 10/01/2020
Moradian Law
10586 W Pico. Blvd, #192
Los Angeles, CA 90064
EXAMINER
PAYNE, SHARON E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2875
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/01/2020 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 HAMID RASHIDI DOUST
Appeal 2020-000006
Application 15/179,183
Technology Center 2800
BEFORE CATHERINE Q. TIMM, BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, and
JANE E. INGLESE, Administrative Patent Judges.
FRANKLIN, 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 to reject claims 1 and 3–17. 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(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Elite Lighting.
Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2020-000006
Application 15/179,183

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1 is illustrative of Appellant’s subject matter on appeal
and is set forth below (with text in bold for emphasis):
1. A light fixture comprising:
a) a body fabricated from a single piece of a material, the
body having a central portion and two side portions, each of the
two side portions situated on one side of the central portion, the
two side portions and the central portions running parallel to each
other, the central portion recessed in an upward direction in
relation to the two side portions, the recess of the central portion
forming a ballast room inside of the body;
b) two end caps, each end cap attached to an end of the
body;
c) a plurality of LED (light emitting diode) boards attached
to an inside of the side portions of the body;
d) one or more ballasts inside of the ballast room;
e) a ballast room cover for covering the ballast room,
the ballast cover having a horizontal portion and a leg on
each side of the horizontal portion, the legs extending
downward in relation to the horizontal portion; and
f) two rectangular-shaped lenses; each lens covering the
LED boards attached to the side portion of the body, wherein
each lens contacts the body on one of its long sides and contacts
the leg of the ballast room cover on the lens’ other long side.

REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Haugaard US 7,261,436 B2 Aug. 28, 2007
Scribante US 9,016,892 B1 Apr. 28, 2015
Jin US 9,039,253 B2 May 26, 2015
Greinke US 2016/0208998 A1 July 21, 2016

Appeal 2020-000006
Application 15/179,183

3
THE REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 3–14, and 16–17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103 as being
unpatentable over Haugaard in view of Jin and Scribante.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103 as being unpatentable over
Haugaard in view of Jin, Scribante, and Greinke.
OPINION
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
Appellant identifies, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced
thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential)
(cited with approval in In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
(“[I]t has long been the Board’s practice to require an applicant to identify
the alleged error in the examiner’s rejections.”). After considering the
argued claims and each of Appellant’s arguments, we are persuaded of
reversible error in the appealed rejections, as discussed below.
The dispositive issue in this case is whether Scribante suggests the
claimed element of a “ballast room cover for covering the ballast room, the
ballast cover having a horizontal portion and a leg on each side of the
horizontal portion”. This is depicted in Appellant’s Figure 5 shown on page
10 of the Appeal Brief. Appellant argues that the cover in Scribante has no
legs that extend downward in relation to the horizontal portion of the cover.
Appeal Br. 13. It is the Examiner’s positon that because Scribante’s ballast
cover “contacts” vertical portions of other structures in the light fixture, such
as lens bars 210 and 220 and vertical portions of light fixture 100, Scribante
suggests this claim feature. Final Act. 3–4. Ans. 4.
Appeal 2020-000006
Application 15/179,183

4
We agree with Appellant’s position. As shown in Scribante’s Figure
2A, for example, lens bars 210 and 220, and the portions of the light fixture
100 relied on by the Examiner as legs, are not part of the ballast room cover
170.
In the Examiner’s response on pages 3–4 of the Answer, the Examiner
also discusses Figure 3D of Scribante, and states that the legs of the ballast
room “contact” the upper cover at the top of Scribante’s Figure 3D. This
position suffers the same flaws as discussed above.
In view of the above, we reverse each rejection.
CONCLUSION
We reverse the Examiner’s decision.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Reversed Affirmed
1, 3–14, 16–
17
1, 3–14, 16–
17

15 15
Overall
Outcome
1, 3–17

REVERSED