Ex Parte Alloway et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 21, 2017

13497460 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 21, 2017)

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.
13/497,460 03/21/2012 Michael J. Alloway 64993US005 3404
32692 7590 06/23/2017
3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY
PO BOX 33427
ST. PAUL, MN 55133-3427
EXAMINER
LUONG, HENRY T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2844
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/23/2017 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):
LegalUSDocketing@mmm.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MICHAEL J. ALLOWAY
and JUSTIN TUNGJUNYATHAM
Appeal 2016-005298
Application 13/497,460
Technology Center 2800
Before TERRY J. OWENS, KAREN M. HASTINGS,
and SHELDON M. McGEE, Administrative Patent Judges.
OWENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’
rejection of claims 1—6 and 11—22. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
The Invention
The Appellants claim a flexible lighting assembly. Claim 1 is
illustrative:
1. A flexible lighting assembly comprising:
a flexible cable having a length and comprising electrical
conductors to provide electrical circuit paths;
a first electrical group comprising:
Appeal 2016-005298
Application 13/497,460
at least one of a first electrical resistor or a first
diode, a first light emitting diode, and a control
circuit electrically connected sequentially in series;
and
a second electrical group comprising:
a first light emitting diode and a control circuit
electrically connected sequentially in series;
wherein the first and second electrical groups are
electrically connected in parallel to the electrical connectors of
the flexible cable, and wherein when the lighting assembly is
energized the first light emitting diode of the first electrical
group and the first light emitting diode of the second electrical
group draw the same level of power.
The References
Pross US 6,396,466 B1 May 28, 2002
Vomsand US 2006/0049782 A1 Mar. 9, 2006
Zwanenburg US 2007/0024210 A1 Feb. 1,2007
Lynam US 2007/0109807 A1 May 17, 2007
Shimizu US 2007/0120496 A1 May 31, 2007
Kim US 2008/0237820 A1 Oct. 2, 2008
Quek US 2010/0013409 A1 Jan. 21,2010
Shan US 2010/0019689 A1
The Rejections
Jan. 28, 2010
The claims stand rejected as follows: claims 1—5 and 17 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over Zwanenburg, claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over
Zwanenburg in view of Shane, claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over
Zwanenburg, claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Zwanenburg in view of
Shimizu, claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Zwanenburg in view of
Vomsand, claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Zwanenburg in view of
Lyman, claims 15 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Zwanenburg in view
of Lynam and Pross, claims 18 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over
2
Appeal 2016-005298
Application 13/497,460
Zwanenburg in view of Quek and Lyman, claims 20 and 21 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 over Zwanenburg in view of Quek, and claim 22 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 over Zwanenburg in view of Kim.
OPINION
We reverse the rejections. We need address only the sole independent
claim, i.e., claim l.1 That claim requires that first light emitting diodes of
first and second electrical groups draw the same level of power.2
“Anticipation requires that every limitation of the claim in issue be
disclosed, either expressly or under principles of inherency, in a single prior
art reference.” Corning Glass Works v. Sumitomo Elec. U.S.A., Inc., 868
F.2d 1251, 1255-56 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
Zwanenburg discloses a lighting apparatus comprising a power
supply (5) which supplies a voltage to three separate driver units (4), each
providing a constant current signal with a maximum current IMax to a light
emitting diode (LED) of one color channel (| 26; Fig. 1). The maximum
current applied to the green (Imax,g) and blue (Imax,b) color channels is
50 mA (id. ). The average current applied to each color channel is the
product of that channel’s duty cycle (dc) and maximum current (Imax). The
duty cycles for the green (dec) and blue (dcs) color channels are,
1 In the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 the Examiner does not set forth any
obviousness rationale regarding the limitations in the independent claim and
does not rely upon the references other than Zwanenburg for any disclosure
that remedies the deficiency in Zwanenburg with respect to those limitations
(Final Act. 6—11).
2 The Appellants define “same level of power” as “+/-2% of the average [of]
the two electrical groups if each of the first and second groups were
separately connected to a power source having the same voltage”
(Spec. 15).
3
Appeal 2016-005298
Application 13/497,460
respectively, 1 and 0.65 (133). Thus, the average current applied to the
green color channel is Iq, avg = dec x Imax, g = 1 x 50 mA = 50 mA, and the
average current applied to the blue color channel is Ib, avg = dcs x Imax, b =
0.65 x 50 mA = 32.5 mA.
The Examiner finds that when Zwanenburg’s “light assembly is
energized, the first light emitting diode [2 A, Fig. 1] of the first electrical
group and the first light emitting diode of the second electrical group draw
the same level of power {[0026] ’’...the maximum current applied to the
green channel (2) IMAx=50mA, and the maximum current applied to the blue
channel (2) Imax is also 50mA... ” Note: same power draw based on P=VI”
(Final Act. 4), and that “Wikipedia link (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fight-
emitting diode) shows that the forward voltage drop of the Standard Green
and Blue FED are from 3.0 — 3.4V. By having the same voltage drop with
the same Imax or constant current, the Green and Blue FED will draw the
same power” (Ans. 3).
The Wikipedia website relied upon by the Examiner discloses a green
FED voltage drop range of 1.9 < AV < 4.0 and a blue FED voltage drop
range of 2.48 < AV < 3.7. The Examiner does not establish that these ranges
and Zwanenburg’s disclosure that the blue FED’s average current is 65% of
the green FED’s average current (as pointed out above), support the
Examiner’s finding that Zwanenburg’s green and blue LEDs draw the same
level of power (Final Act. 4).
The Examiner, therefore, has not established a prima facie case of
anticipation or obviousness of the Appellants’ claimed lighting assembly.
4
Appeal 2016-005298
Application 13/497,460
DECISION/ORDER
The rejection of claims 1—5 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over
Zwanenburg and the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claim 6 over
Zwanenburg in view of Shane, claim 11 over Zwanenburg, claim 12 over
Zwanenburg in view of Shimizu, claim 13 over Zwanenburg in view of
Vomsand, claim 14 over Zwanenburg in view of Lyman, claims 15 and 16
over Zwanenburg in view of Lynam and Pross, claims 18 and 19 over
Zwanenburg in view of Quek and Lyman, claims 20 and 21 over
Zwanenburg in view of Quek, and claim 22 over Zwanenburg in view of
Kim are reversed.
It is ordered that the Examiner’s decision is reversed.
REVERSED
5