Ex Parte Lea

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 27, 2012

10491504 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 27, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte MICHAEL CHARLES LEA
____________

Appeal 2009-015035
Application 10/491,504
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, JOHN A. JEFFERY, and
BRIAN J. McNAMARA, Administrative Patent Judges.

RUGGIERO, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2009-015035
Application 10/491,504

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection
of claims 21-43, which are all of the pending claims. Claims 1-20 have been
canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the Examiner,
we refer to the Appeal Brief (corrected, filed Mar. 20, 2007), the Answer
(supplemental, mailed Sep. 25, 2007), and the Reply Brief (filed Sep. 19,
2007).

Appellant’s Invention
Appellant’s invention relates to a light guide light that provides a
substantially monochromatic beam of light in response to light from a
substantially monochromatic visible light source directed into the light guide
cavity. The light cavity has a front surface which includes an interference
film that, for light at selected wavelengths, transmits such light that is
incident on the film over a limited angular range, and reflects light that is
incident at other angles. Further included in the light cavity is a rear surface
which includes a highly reflective surface which causes limited controlled
spreading of an incident light beam into a broadened reflected beam. See
generally Abstract.
Claim 21 is illustrative of the invention and reads as follows:
21. A light-guide light comprising a housing defining a light-guiding
optical cavity having first and second major faces, and a light source of
substantially monochromatic visible light at a selected wavelength arranged
to direct light into the cavity, to be guided between the major faces; wherein
(a) the first major face comprises an interference film which, for light
at the selected wavelength, substantially transmits such light that is incident
Appeal 2009-015035
Application 10/491,504

3
on the film over a limited angular range and substantially reflects such light
that is incident at other angles; and
(b) the second major face comprises a scattering reflective material
having a total reflectance of at least 85% for light at the selected wavelength
incident on the surface at any angle;
wherein light is emitted from the optical cavity substantially
uniformly across the first major face in the form of a substantially
monochromatic beam of limited angular spread and said scattering reflective
material defines either a wide scattering reflective surface having a
dispersion angle between about 15 degrees and about 45 degrees or a narrow
scattering reflective surface having a dispersion angle of less than about 15
degrees.

The Examiner’s Rejections
The Examiner’s Answer cites the following prior art references:
Kosman US 3,821,590 June 28, 1974
Ruffner US 5,136,479 Aug. 4, 1992
Kaplan US 5,774,278 June 30, 1998
Davey US 6,078,421 June 20, 2000
Weber US 6,080,467 June 27, 2000
Claims 21, 23, 24, 26-28, and 41-43 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Davey in view of Weber.
Claim 25 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Davey in view of Weber and Ruffner.
Claims 22, 29, 30, 32-35, and 37-40 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Davey in view of Weber and Kaplan.
Claim 31 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Davey in view of Weber, Kaplan, and Kosman.
Claim 36 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Davey in view of Weber, Kaplan, and Ruffner.

Appeal 2009-015035
Application 10/491,504

4
ANALYSIS
Claims 21, 23, 24, 26-28, and 41-43
Appellant contends with respect to independent claim 21 that neither
of the applied Davey and Weber references, alone or in combination, teaches
or suggests the claimed light beam dispersion angle ranges of less than about
15 degrees to about 45 degrees (App. Br. 6). Further, Appellant argues that
the Examiner erred in determining that, while Davey and Weber do not
disclose the specific claimed dispersion angle ranges, the discovery of an
optimum value for such dispersion angles would involve only routine skill in
the art (App. Br. 7; Reply Br. 4-5). According to Appellant, neither Davey
nor Weber discloses any dispersion angles, nor even any recognition that the
dispersion angle of a scattering reflective material is a result effective
variable for which optimization would yield the desired improvement.
We agree with Appellant. While the Examiner cites column 5, lines
10-22, of Weber in support of the position that Weber is concerned with
dispersion angles, the cited portion of Weber relates to incident angles of
light on the Weber films, not dispersion angles of light scattered from the
reflective film. We find that, to whatever extent the Examiner’s argument
(Ans. 17) that the optimum values for dispersion angles can be obtained
through routine experimentation has merit, such argument is unpersuasive
since neither Davey nor Weber has any teaching or suggestion of controlling
or adjusting dispersion angles in the first instance.
In view of the above discussion, since we are of the opinion that the
proposed combination of references set forth by the Examiner does not
support the obviousness rejection, we do not sustain the rejection of
Appeal 2009-015035
Application 10/491,504

5
independent claim 21, nor of claims 23, 24, 26-28, and 41-43 dependent
thereon.

Claims 29, 30, 32-35, and 37-40
The Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claim 29, as
well as its dependent claims 30, 32-35, and 37-40, based on the combination
of Davey, Weber, and Kaplan, is also not sustained. As with independent
claim 21, independent claim 29 also includes a recitation of dispersion angle
ranges of less than about 15 degrees to about 45 degrees. We find nothing in
Kaplan which overcomes the innate deficiencies of Davey and Weber
discussed supra.

Claim 22
We also do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
independent claim 22 which, unlike independent claims 21 and 29, has no
recitation of the dispersion angle feature. Claim 22 does include a recitation
of an absorption filter which transmits light at a selected wavelength, but
appears a different color when not illuminated.
The Examiner has applied the Kaplan reference to the combination of
Davey and Weber to address the absorption filter of rejected claim 22. We
agree with Appellant, however, that the Examiner has not established a
proper basis for the proposed combination. While the Examiner’s rationale
(Ans. 10) for the proposed addition of Kaplan to the Davey/Weber
combination is based on a supposed advantage of “reducing spectral blurring
effects without changing the light characteristics,” we find no basis to
support such a conclusion.
Appeal 2009-015035
Application 10/491,504

6
As pointed out by Appellant (App. Br. 9), Kaplan does discuss the
benefit of reduced spectral blurring, but attributes this benefit to the
collimation of light before it enters the combination filters 50, 60, not to any
usage of the combined filters. The Examiner has not responded to
Appellant’s arguments. We find that the Examiner’s line of reasoning for
the proposed combination does not rise to the level of a rational
underpinning to support the conclusion of obviousness. KSR Int’l Co. v.
Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007).

Claims 25, 31, and 36
The Examiner’s obviousness rejections of dependent claims 25, 31,
and 36 are also not sustained. The Examiner has applied Ruffner and
Kosman in separate combinations with Davey, Weber, and Kaplan to
address the features of the rejected claims. We find nothing in Ruffner and
Kosman which overcomes the previously discussed deficiencies of Davey,
Weber, and Kaplan.

CONCLUSION OF LAW
Based on the analysis above, we conclude that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claims 21-43 for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

DECISION
The Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 21-43, all of
the appealed claims, is reversed.

REVERSED
Appeal 2009-015035
Application 10/491,504

7

babc