Ex Parte Boonekamp et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 11, 2015

12525838 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 11, 2015)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/525,838 08/05/2009 Erik Boonekamp
24737 7590 12/15/2015
PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS
P.O. BOX 3001
BRIARCLIFF MANOR, NY 10510
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
2007P00086WOUS 1978
EXAMINER
TUMEBO, TSION M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2875
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/15/2015 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):
debbie.henn@philips.com
marianne.fox@philips.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ERIK BOONEKAMP and
STEFAN MARCUS VERBRUGH
Appeal2014-000871
Application 12/525,838
Technology Center 2800
Before TERRY J. OWENS, N. WHITNEY WILSON, and
CHRISTOPHER C. KENNEDY, 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's
rejection of claims 2, 3, 15-17, and 19-24. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
The Invention
The Appellants claim a lighting device. Claim 15 is illustrative:
15. A lighting device, comprising:
a structure having a front face and a back face and
compnsmg
at least one recess formed therein defining an
opening in the front face and a recess wall, the
recess having a height,
a removable collimator comprising
Appeal2014-000871
Application 12/525,838
Coulson
Schafer
Hoel en
Ijzerman
a substantially truncated cone element having a
height and a variable radius increasing towards the
front face and defining an annular wall forming a
centrally aligned cylinder and axially extending
through the truncated cone element towards the
openmg;
the collimator comprising
a transparent material and being disposed at least
partially within the recess so as to form a slit
having a substantially constant width between
the recess wall and an outer edge of the collimator;
and
at least one LED disposed within the annular wall for
emitting a beam of light through the opening of said
collimator.
The References
US 1,081,215 Dec. 9, 1913
US 4,731,794 Mar. 15, 1988
US 2009/0262536 Al Oct. 22, 2009
(§ 371 (c)(l), (2), (4) date June 7, 2007)
US 7,789,536 B2 Sept. 7, 2010
(§ 371 (c)(l), (2), (4) date May 15, 2008)
The Rejections
The claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as follows: claims 2,
3, 15-17, and 19-21 over Hoelen in view of Coulson, claim 7 over Hoelen
in view of Coulson and Schafer, claims 22 and 23 over Ijzerman in view of
Coulson and claim 24 over Ijzerman in view of Coulson and Schafer.
OPINION
The rejections are affirmed as to claims 2, 3, 15-17, and 19-23 and
reversed as to claim 24.
2
Appeal2014-000871
Application 12/525,838
Regarding the affirmed rejections the Appellants argue only the
independent claims (15 and 22). We therefore limit our discussion to those
claims and claim 24 for which the rejection is reversed. Claims 2, 3, 7, 16,
17, and 19-21 stand or fall with claim 15, and claim 23 stands or falls with
claim 22. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2011).
Claim 15
Claim 15 requires a removable collimator comprising a substantially
truncated cone element.
Hoelen discloses a first collimator (1) inside a second collimator (2)
and separated therefrom by a cavity (3) (i1i1 45--46; Fig. IA).
Coulson discloses a "class of lamp lens in which the reflection from
the internal surface of the glass is utilized" (p. 1, 11. 8-10). "The lens
consists of a truncated cone or conoid of glass or other suitable substance
pierced by a hole[,] the axis of the cone and the hole being coincident" (p. 1,
11. 11-14 ), wherein "[ t ]he slant surface of the cone or conoid forms the
reflector" (p. 1, 11. 14--16). "The illuminant is placed in the central hole"
(p. 1, 11. 14--15). "The contours of the conic surface, the base or front of the
lens and the central hole may vary considerably to suit different conditions"
(p. 1, 11. 17-20). "Figure 1 gives an axial section of a form in which the
conoid reflecting surface is spherical or parabolic[,] the base or front
indented with circular steps and the hole cylindrical. Fig. 2 shows a form in
which the steps are reduced to a slanting or conical surface. Fig. 3 shows a
form in which the slant is leveled so that the front of the lens becomes flat"
(p. 1, 11. 21-29; Figs. 1-3).
3
Appeal2014-000871
Application 12/525,838
The Appellants assert that Hoelen discloses "a first light collimator 1
permanently set within a second light collimator 2 thereby forming a gap or
cavity 3 therebetween which must be sealed for filling of fluids for
electrowetting" (App. Br. 8).
"'[D]uring examination proceedings, claims are given their broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification."' In re
Translogic Tech. Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (quoting In re
Hyatt, 211F.3d1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2000)). The portion of the
Appellants' Specification (Spec. 5: 6-12) relied upon by the Appellants for a
disclosure of a removal collimator (App. Br. 4) does not mention a
removable collimator. The relevant portion of the Specification states that
"[t]he truncated conelike element 300, or the second body 500, respectively,
may be attached to the main body 200 by means of, for instance, glue, such
as UV glue, or other means known to the person skilled in the art, such as
local melting by means of a laser" (Spec. 13: 10-13). Thus, the broadest
reasonable interpretation of the Appellants' claim term "removable
collimator" requires that the collimator is removable until it is fixed in place.
Therefore, even if, as asserted by the Appellants, Hoelen's collimator is
permanently set, it meets that requirement due to being removable until it is
permanently set.
The Appellants argue that "the lenses of Coulson may not be
removably and replaceably inserted within the Hoelen as suggested since the
first and second collimator structure requires formed cavity and sealed
compartments for fluid flow" (App. Br. 10).
4
Appeal2014-000871
Application I2/525,838
Coulson indicates (p. I, 11. 8-29) that both parabolic and truncated
cone shapes are suitable for lenses which, like Hoelen's light collimators
(i-f 45; Figs. IA, IB), reflect light from their internal surface. Thus, Coulson
would have led one of ordinary skill in the art, through no more than
ordinary creativity, to use either Hoelen's illustrated parabolic shape
(Figs. IA, IB) or a truncated cone shape as the shape of the first and second
collimators. See KSR!nt'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 4I8 (2007) (in
making an obviousness determination one "can take account of the
inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would
emp 1 oy").
Accordingly, we are not persuaded of reversible error in the rejection
of claims 2, 3, 7, I5-I7, and I9-21.
Claim 22
Claim 22 requires a plurality of second structures removably disposed
over a first structure.
Ijzerman discloses "a lighting device comprising a substrate and a
plurality of light emitting diodes arranged on said substrate each light
emitting diode being optically connected to a collimating optical
component" (col. I, 11. 3---6). "The collimating optical component may be a
compound parabolic concentrator (CPC)" (col. I, 11. 43--44), where "[e]ven
though the word parabolic usually implies a cross section formed as a cone
section, the cross section of a CPC may deviate from this shape to some
extent" (col. 2, 11. 30-32). In prior art Figure 2 (and Fig. 6) "each LED [light
emitting diode] is provided with a collimating optical component 13, 15,
etc., which in the illustrated case is a compound parabolic concentrator in
5
Appeal2014-000871
Application 12/525,838
the form of an optical transparent body which collimates light generated by
the respective light emitting diode by means of total internal reflection and
having a refractive index higher than the refractive index of air" (col. 2, 11. 5,
13-18). In Figure 6 "the space between adjacent collimating optical
components is filled with a filling material 29, e.g. in the form of an
injection molded polymer plate, made of a transparent material" (col. 2,
11. 56-61 ), where "[p ]referably the refractive indices of the CPCs and the
filling material are the same" (col. 2, 11. 63-64). "In order to retain the
function of the collimating optical components, a gap is maintained between
each optical component 13, 15 and the filling material 29, so that total
internal reflection of light emitted from the LED can take place" (col. 3,
11. 6-9).
The Appellants assert that "[ t ]he parabolic reflectors 13, 15 [which the
Examiner relies upon as corresponding to the Appellants' plurality of second
structures (Ans. 6)] are encased" (App. Br. 13).
The broadest reasonable interpretation of the Appellants' claim term
"removably disposable" encompasses Ijzerman's collimating optical
components (13, 15) which, like the Appellants' second structures (500), are
removable until fixed in place (Spec. 13:10-13).
The Appellants assert that "ljzerman requires the use of parabolic
reflectors in order for the internal reflective characteristics of the light matrix
to allow light to pass through the entire system" (App. Br. 13).
Ijzerman's disclosure that "the word parabolic usually implies a cross
section formed as a cone section" (col. 2, 11. 30-31) and Coulson's
disclosure that lamp lenses shaped as either a parabolic conoid or a truncated
6
Appeal2014-000871
Application 12/525,838
cone having a central axial hole in which the illuminant is placed are suitable
for providing reflection from their internal surface (p. 1, 11. 8-29) would
have led one of ordinary skill in the art, through no more than ordinary
creativity, to use in Ijzerman's lighting device a collimating optical
component (13, 15) having either the illustrated parabolic conoid shape
(Fig. 6) or a truncated cone shape. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418.
Thus, we are not convinced of reversible error in the rejection of
claims 22 and 23.
Claim 24
Claim 24 requires collimators having an antireflective coating on their
peripherally extending edge.
Schafer discloses a reflector comprising an antireflex-coated base
surface (16) through which laser light passes before being totally reflected at
an optically polished conical surface (26) (col. 3, 11. 33-37; Fig. 1).
The Examiner argues that "in view of Schafer, it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made
to further modify Ijzerman's collimator by applying anti-reflective coating
on its surface in order to promote light mixing between adjacent collimators
and allow the light to extend through the transparent carrier plate" (Ans. 10).
Setting forth a prima facie case of obviousness requires establishing
that the applied prior art would have provided one of ordinary skill in the art
with an apparent reason to modify the prior art to arrive at the claimed
invention. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. The Examiner has not established that
in view of Ijzerman's disclosure that total internal reflection of LED light in
the collimating optical components (13, 15) is desired (col. 3, 11. 6-9), one of
7
Appeal2014-000871
Application 12/525,838
ordinary skill in the art would have had an apparent reason to coat those
components with an antireflective coating to promote light mixing between
adjacent collimators and allow the light to extend through the transparent
carrier plate.
The Examiner, therefore, has not established a prima facie case of
obviousness of the lighting device claimed in the Appellants' claim 24.
DECISION/ORDER
The rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 2, 3, 15-17, and 19-
21 over Hoelen in view of Coulson, claim 7 over Hoelen in view of Coulson
and Schafer and claims 22 and 23 over Ijzerman in view of Coulson are
affirmed. The rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claim 24 over Ijzerman in
view of Coulson and Schafer is reversed.
It is ordered that the Examiner's decision is affirmed-in-part.
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-IN-PART
cdc
8