Ex Parte Morris et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 21, 2012

11841420 (B.P.A.I. May. 21, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte GARON K. MORRIS, KAMLESH MUNDRA,
LJUBISA DRAGOLIJUB STEVANOVIC, ASHUTOSH JOSHI,
DIDIER G. ROUAUD, and JANOS G. SARKOZI
____________

Appeal 2010-003007
Application 11/841,420
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before THU A. DANG, CAROLYN D. THOMAS, and
GREGORY J. GONSALVES, Administrative Patent Judges.

GONSALVES, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-003007
Application 11/841,420

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 1-12, 19-35, and 37. (App. Br. 2.) Claims 13-18 and 36 were
allowed. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.
The Invention
Exemplary Claim 1 follows:
1. A lamp, comprising:

a housing having a wall defining a hollow interior
volume;

a high-intensity-discharge (HID) light source disposed in
a first region of the hollow interior volume;

integral electronics disposed in a second region of the
hollow interior volume separate from the first region;

a divider that substantially isolates the first region from
the second region of the hollow interior volume; and

a heat pipe disposed in the second region of the hollow
interior volume, wherein at least a portion of the heat pipe is
separate from the wall, and the heat pipe is configured to
provide a desired heat of the integral electronics, and the heat
pipe has an evaporator and a condenser at opposite ends of the
heat pipe.

Claim 25 follows:
25. A method of operating a lamp, comprising:

illuminating a high-intensity-discharge (HID) light
source disposed in a closed housing with integral electronics,
Appeal 2010-003007
Application 11/841,420

3
wherein the closed housing generally isolates a hollow interior
volume from an exterior of the lamp; and

oscillating an air-moving device to force convective heat
transfer from the integral electronics to a medium within the
hollow interior volume of the closed housing.

The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 6, 29, 30, and 35 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Dority (U.S. Patent No. 5,908,418). (Ans.
3-5.)
The Examiner rejected claims 9, 11, 19, 22-24, 33, and 34 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Hamilton (U.S. Patent No.
5,852,339). (Ans. 6-8.)
The Examiner rejected claims 25-27 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by El-Hamamsy (U.S. Patent No. 4,910,439). (Ans. 8-9.)
The Examiner rejected claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over El-Hamamsy in view of Yamada (U.S. Patent No.
4,780,062). (Ans. 9-10.)
The Examiner rejected claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Hamilton and Maya (U.S. Patent No. 6,064,155). (Ans.
11.)
The Examiner rejected claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Hamilton and El-Hamamsy. (Ans. 11-12.)
The Examiner rejected claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Hamilton and Maya. (Ans. 12-13.)
The Examiner rejected claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Hamilton and Tanuma (U.S. Patent No. 5,008,582). (Ans.
13.)
Appeal 2010-003007
Application 11/841,420

4

ISSUES
Appellants’ responses to the Examiner’s positions present the
following issues:
1. Does Dority disclose “integral electronics,” as recited in
independent claim 1 and as similarly recited in independent claim 19?
2. Does Hamilton disclose a lamp having “a first region of the
hollow interior volume [and] … a second region of the hollow interior
volume separate from the first region,” as recited in independent claim 9?
3. Does El-Hamamsy teach or suggest “a divider that blocks
airflow from the first region to the second region,” as recited in independent
claim 8?
4. Does El-Hamamsy disclose “oscillating an air-moving device,”
as recited in independent claim 25?

ANALYSIS
We disagree with Appellants’ conclusion regarding the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-12, 19-24, 29-35, and 37. We adopt as our own (1) the
findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this
appeal is taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the
Examiner’s Answer (Ans. 3-16 ) in response to arguments made in the
Appellants’ Appeal Brief. We concur with the conclusion reached by the
Examiner. We highlight and address certain findings and arguments below.
Appellants argue that claim 1 is not anticipated by Dority because the
components identified as the claimed integral electronics by the Examiner
(e.g., the fan and connector) “are not integral electronics.” (App. Br. 8.) But
Appeal 2010-003007
Application 11/841,420

5
as explained by the Examiner, the fan and connector of Dority are electrical
devices and they are located within a lamp. (Ans. 13-14.) In other words,
they are integral with the lamp. (Id.) Thus, we find that the Examiner,
giving the claim its broadest reasonable meaning consistent with the
Specification, In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997), properly
relies on the electrical fan and connector as the integral electronics, as
recited in independent claim 1. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s
rejections of those claims.
Appellants also contend that independent claim 9 is not anticipated by
Hamilton because Hamilton does not disclose a lamp having “a first region
of the hollow interior volume [and] … a second region of the hollow interior
volume separate from the first region.” (App. Br. 9.) Appellants contend
that claim 19 is not anticipated for the same reason. (Id. at 10.) Appellants
argue that the Hamilton does not disclose that its “inner space region is
separated.” (Id. at 9.) But as explained by the Examiner, Hamilton discloses
in FIG. 1 a second region (12) that is separate from a first region 24. (Ans.
15.) As noted by the Examiner, the claim language does not require a
particular structure to separate the two regions; it merely requires the two
regions to be separate. (Id.) We find the two regions of Hamilton to be
distinct and thus separate. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of claims 9 and 19.
Appellants also contend that independent claim 8 is not obvious
because El-Hamamsy does not teach “a divider that blocks airflow from the
first region to the second region.” (App. Br. 12.) Appellants argue that the
divider of El-Hamamsy has openings and therefore, “does not block airflow
from one region to the other.” (Id.) But as explained by the Examiner,
Appeal 2010-003007
Application 11/841,420

6
although El-Hamamsy’s divider may permit some airflow, it also blocks
some airflow relative to a lamp that may not have a divider between two
regions. (Ans. 18.) Appellants appear to be arguing that El-Hamamsy does
not block all the airflow but that argument is not commensurate in scope
with the claim language because claim 8 does not require a divider that
blocks all the airflow. (Id.) Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 8.
Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 25, as well
as the claims dependent therefrom (i.e., claims 26-28), because “El-
Hamamsy does not disclose “oscillating an air moving device.” (App. Br.
11.) We agree. Although El-Hamamsy discloses a fan as noted by the
Examiner (Ans. 17), it does not disclose that the fan is oscillated or moved
back and forth. (App. Br. 11.) Accordingly, we will not sustain the
Examiner’s rejections of claim 25 or claims 26-28 dependent therefrom.
Moreover, Appellants did not set forth any separate patentability
arguments for any of the remaining claims on appeal. Therefore, we sustain
the Examiner’s rejections of those claims as well.

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-12, 19-24, 29-
35, and 37 and reverse the decision rejecting claims 25-28.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
llw