Ex Parte Paulussen et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 11, 2014

11914244 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 11, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte ELVIRA JOHANNA MARIA PAULUSSEN,
MAURICE ALEXANDER HUGO DONNERS,
THEODORUS GERARDUS KAPPEN,
MARTIEN JOHAN VAN DER MEIJ, and
PAULUS QUIRINUS JOZEF NEDERPEL
____________

Appeal 2012-010805
Application 11/914,2441
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before JOHN C. KERINS, THOMAS F. SMEGAL, and LISA M. GUIJT,
Administrative Patent Judges.

SMEGAL, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Elvira Johanna Maria Paulussen et al (Appellants) seek our review
under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 5−16, the
only claims pending in the application on appeal. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Koninklijke Philips
Electronics, N.V. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2012-010805
Application 11/914,244

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
An understanding of the invention can be derived from a
reading of independent claim 6, which is reproduced below.
6. A daylight shielding device comprising:
a plurality of slats for shielding daylight from a room, a
plurality of said slats for shielding daylight from a room having
a light guiding layer and a light blocking layer extending along
each of said slats, said light guiding layer and said light
blocking layer extending substantially parallel to each other to
define said light guiding layer;
a housing attached to an area adjacent a window for
supporting said slats;
controls in said housing controlling the position and
orientation of the slats;
an illumination device attached to said housing to
illuminate a rear side of said slats when viewed in an outward
direction from said room;
wherein said illumination device and said plurality of
slats are configured so as to direct light from said illumination
device from said slats into the room;
said illumination device being a plurality of light-
emitting sources directed towards said slats;
said light guiding layer reflecting incoming light in said
light guiding layer on said slat through multiple internal
reflections from said illumination device in said light guiding
layer by reflection in said light guiding layer and said light
blocking layer;
wherein said light-guiding layer is attached on said light-
blocking layer so as to guide incoming light from said
illumination device into said light-guiding layer, said light-
guiding layer being arranged to outcouple light at a plurality of
positions in said light-guiding layer, said light guiding layer
having an end, said end of said light guiding layer being
transmissive of light into said light guiding layer, a front
surface of said light guiding layer reflective of light reflecting
within said light guiding layer, and out-coupling transmissive of
Appeal 2012-010805
Application 11/914,244

3
light being reflected within said light guiding layer exterior
through said front surface
Clms. App, Appeal Br. 20−21.

REJECTIONS ON APPEAL

The following Examiner’s rejections are before us for review.

1. Claims 6, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Chartier (US 6,877,548 B1, iss. April 12, 2005) in view of
Marusak (US 5,832,979, iss. Nov. 10, 1998) and/or Muller (DE
202004013324, pub. Dec. 16, 2004).
2. Claims 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Chartier in view of Marusak and/or Muller, and Dorsey
(2006/0082987 A1, pub. Apr. 20, 2006).
3. Claims 10−12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Chartier in view of Marusak and/or Muller, and Shaw (US
2,572,957, iss. Oct. 30, 1951) or Malone (US 3,645,317, iss. Feb. 29, 1972).
4. Claims 13−16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Chartier in view of Marusak and/or Muller, and Dorsey
and Shaw or Malone.

ANALYSIS
Obviousness of Claims 6, 8, and 9 over Chartier in view of Marusak
and/or Muller.
Claim 6.
We have considered Appellants’ arguments but do not find them
persuasive to demonstrate error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 6 as
being obvious over Chartier in view of Marusak, and Muller.
Appeal 2012-010805
Application 11/914,244

4
Appellants first contend that “Chartier merely teaches standard
vertical louvers which are highlighted by an exterior light, nothing
more,” and that “Chartier is entirely silent as to an appropriate light guiding
layer as claimed.” Appeal Br. 11–12. Appellants also contend that
“Musarak [sic] is . . . entirely silent as to an appropriate light guiding layer
as claimed” and “does not allow for internal reflection in a light guiding
layer.” Id. at 12, see also Reply Br. 3. However, the Examiner does not rely
upon Chartier for disclosing the light guiding layer, but finds that “Marusak
discloses a daylight shielding device including slats that are provided with a
light-guiding layer 18, 54 attached on a light-blocking layer 16, 52 (see col.
7, lines 44-45),” and reasons that “to incorporate this teaching into the
daylight shielding device of Chartier et al for its explicit purpose of
controlling light occluding properties would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art.” Answer 5. In particular, the Examiner finds that
Marusak “is explicit in setting forth the presence of internal reflections in a
light guiding layer and provides light emission at any point which the light
impinges upon a surface.” Id. at 11 (see Marusak 6: 27–39 (“The open areas
enable an amount of light reflection between the two layers and thereby
create a different degree of light blocking/diffusion by the vane.”)).
Appellants also contend that “no light blocking layer is provided since
Murasak [sic] seeks to allow light to pass through the vanes in a diffused
fashion.” Reply Br. 3. As noted above, the Examiner finds Marusak’s rear
sheet 16, 52 is a light blocking layer, as claimed. We note that Marusak
discloses that sheet 16, 52 may be made from opaque material. See Marusak
7:44–45, 8:4–7.
Appeal 2012-010805
Application 11/914,244

5
Appellants do not address the Examiner’s findings with respect to
the specific disclosures in Marusak, and therefore, Appellants do not apprise
us of error in such findings.
Appellants further contend that Muller “fails to disclose a light
guiding layer reflecting incoming light from an illumination device, the
reflections occurring in the light guiding layer through multiple internal
reflections”, and that “Muller simply uses glowing electroluminescence
films 34, 36 which themselves emit light after illumination from an exterior
source, the emitted light then mixed with exterior light[,]” quoting Muller: “‘
... [L]ight can simultaneously penetrate from the outside and light can
additionally be created when the light source is switched on ... ’ (See
paragraph [0013] of Muller translation).” Appeal Br. 12. Appellants argue
that Muller “is entirely silent as to a light guiding layer reflecting incoming
light in the layer through multiple internal reflections and the light blocking
layer.” Id. at 13.
The Examiner relies on Muller for disclosing “slats 10 having light-
guiding and light-blocking layers 32, 34, 36 used in conjunction with an
illumination device 48 which includes LEDs” (Answer 5, 8), and also finds
that “it is the purpose of the slat carrier 32 [of Muller] to reflect the light of
the films 34, 36” and that “Muller further discloses in paragraph [0042] that
the slats of the blind may have microprism coatings that emit light diffusely
[on the horizontal or vertical blind surfaces over the entire surface of the
blinds].” Answer 11−12. Appellants have not apprised us of error in the
Examiner’s finding that at Paragraph 42, Muller discloses microprism
coatings that meet the light guiding layer limitation of claim 6.
Appeal 2012-010805
Application 11/914,244

6
Appellants conclude that “[n]one of the references relied upon in the
rejection of claim 6 and claims 5 and 7–12 which depend from [claim] 6
teach the requisite structure set forth nor are they readily combinable as
suggested by the Examiner.” Appeal Br. 13. Appellants summarize their
arguments by contending that the Examiner failed to establish a prima facie
showing of obviousness as required by 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because such a
showing requires that “all claimed features be disclosed or suggested by the
prior art” and that there be “objective evidence of the suggestion, teaching,
motivation or rationale to combine or modify prior art references”. Id.
However, Appellants do not apprise us of error in the Examiner’s
findings that all the claimed features are disclosed in the cited references, as
discussed above, and Appellants’ position regarding the Examiner’s
rationale to combine the references is based on a rigid application of the
TSM test that is simply obsolete. Rather, the proper inquiry is whether the
Examiner has articulated adequate reasoning based on a rational
underpinning to explain why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
been led to combine the teachings of the cited art as applied in the rejection.
See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (citing In re
Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)), in which the Court rejected the
rigid requirement of a teaching or suggestion or motivation to combine
known elements in order to show obviousness. KSR, 550 U.S. at 415. The
Court noted that an obviousness analysis “need not seek out precise
teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for
a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of
ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418.
Appeal 2012-010805
Application 11/914,244

7
Here, the Examiner provided articulated reasoning with a rational
underpinning for the combination of the teachings used in the rejection, as
discussed in detail supra; KSR, 550 U.S. at 421 (“A person of ordinary skill
is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.”). In particular, the
Examiner reasons, inter alia, that “[o]ne skilled in the art could have
combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in
their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded
predictable results.” Answer 14–15, see also Id. at 5. Appellants do not
apprise us of error in the Examiner’s articulated reasoning or rational
underpinning regarding the proposed combination of Chartier in view of
Marusak, and/or Muller.
Appellants also introduce a new argument in the Reply Brief at pages
5 and 6, contending that “the Examiner has thus used not only impermissible
conclusory statements as to the teachings thereof but also impermissible
hindsight to reject the claims under 35 U.S.C. §103(a)”. However, as
explained above, the Examiner has made findings with respect to the
claimed elements and also articulated reasoning having sufficient rational
underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obvious, in the manner
described in KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 6 under 35
U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Chartier in view of Marusak,
and/or Muller for the reasons set forth at pages 4−5 of the Examiner’s
Answer and in light of the thorough response to Appellants’ arguments at
pages 7−12 of the Examiner’s Answer, as discussed supra.

Appeal 2012-010805
Application 11/914,244

8
Claims 8 and 9
While relying on the arguments regarding claim 6, Appellants also
contend that dependent claims 8 and 9 are non-obvious over Chartier inview
of Marusak, and/or Muller because none of the references “disclose diffuser
elements” (claim 8) or “light re-directing microstructure” (claim 9). More
particularly, Appellants argue that the Specification discloses that diffuser
elements and light redirecting microstructure “can promote the out-coupling
of light at a plurality of positions in said light guiding layer by changing the
direction of travel of the interiorly reflected light beams”. Appeal Br. 14,
15. However, as pointed out above, Appellants do not apprise us of error in
the Examiner’s findings with respect to the elements recited in claim 6.
Furthermore, Appellants have not apprised us of any errors in the
Examiner’s findings that “Marusak . . . sets forth a detailed discussion and
method of diffusing light (see columns 6-7) so as to promote the out-
coupling of light at a plurality of positions in the light guiding layer” or that
“[i]t is the explicit purpose of the microprism structure as disclosed by
Muller to diffuse light so as to promote the out-coupling of light at a
plurality of positions in the light guiding layer (see paragraph [0042][)]” and
that “[i]n addition, the claims of the instant application do not set forth any
structure of the diffusor elements which would differentiate from the
diffusor elements of the applied references.” Answer 13.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 8 and 9.
Claims 5 and 7 over Chartier in view of Marusak, and/or Muller, and
Dorsey.
Claims 5 and 7 depend from claim 6. In that Appellants have made
no specific argument in response to this rejection, including failing to rebut
Appeal 2012-010805
Application 11/914,244

9
the Examiner’s reliance on Dorsey, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
dependent claims 5 and 7 as being unpatentable for the same reasons stated
above with respect to claim 6.
Claims 10−12 over Chartier in view of Marusak, and/or Muller, and
Shaw or Malone.
While failing to present a separate argument for claims 10−12 in the
Appeal Brief, at pages 3 and 4 of the Reply Brief Appellants contend that “in
regards to independent claim 10, which recites that the “light-guiding layer
is provided as a transparent layer on a reflective plate,” the addition of Shaw
or Malone fails to provide proper substantiation in support of said lack of
teaching from the prior art and foundation for the suggested rejection,”
further contending that neither Shaw nor Malone discloses a “light guiding
layer” as recited by claim 6. Reply Br. 3–4. In particular, Appellants argue
that the “mirrored glass surfaces cemented together in back to back
relationship, as stated within Shaw, do not create the light guiding layer
supporting the required multiple internal reflections and out-coupling of
light at a plurality of locations from the light guiding layer, as claimed.”
Appeal Br. 4.
The Examiner finds, inter alia, that “Shaw discloses a daylight
shielding device comprising slats 24 which include a light-guiding layer of
transparent layer 25, 26, 40, 41, 56 on a reflective plate/coating 27, 28, 42-
4[4], wherein, to incorporate this teaching into the daylight shielding device
of Chartier et al, as modified by Marusak and/or Muller, for its explicit
purpose of controlling light occluding properties would have been obvious
to one of ordinary skill in the art.” Answer 6.
Appeal 2012-010805
Application 11/914,244

10
Because Appellants’ arguments do not address the Examiner’s
findings with respect to the combination of references, namely, that Marusak
and/or Muller disclose the recitations of claim 6, and Shaw is relied upon for
providing a light-guiding layer on a reflective plate, Appellants have not
apprised us of error with respect to such findings. Accordingly, we sustain
the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 10−12 as being unpatentable
over the combined teachings of Chartier in view of Marusak, and/or Muller,
and Shaw or Malone.
Obviousness of claims 13−16 over Chartier in view of Marusak,
and/or Muller, and Dorsey and Shaw or Malone.
Appellants contend that independent claim 13 is patentable because it
“specifically notes that the bounded light reflection channel is created by the
light blocking layer and the light guiding layer . . . [where] the light guiding
layer allows multiple reflections therein off of said light reflecting layer and
out-couples the reflected light at a plurality of locations in the light guiding
layer.” Appeal Br. 15. While again relying on the arguments regarding
claim 6, that “neither Chartier, Muller nor Marusak disclose such structure,”
Appellants contend that no light guiding layers are disclosed in Dorsey,
Shaw, or Malone. Id. at 15.
The Examiner finds that “the prior art references, as advanced [in the
Examiner’s Answer], discloses the structure of the claimed bounded light
reflection channel created by the light blocking layer and the light guiding
layer where the light guiding layer allows multiple reflections off of the light
reflecting layer and out-couples the reflected light at a plurality of locations
in the light guiding layer.” Answer 14. As discussed above, Appellants
have not apprised us of error with respect to such findings.
Appeal 2012-010805
Application 11/914,244

11
Regarding Shaw, Appellants again argue that “Shaw simply discloses
mirrored glass surfaces cemented together back to back so as to reflect either
natural sources of outside light into rooms, or artificial sources of light from
various areas to other areas” and also that “Malone teaches a transparent
plastic sheet.” Appeal Br. 15–16. However, the Examiner finds that “it is
the purpose of the layers as disclosed by Shaw and Malone to guide the light
in a predetermined manner” and “[a]s a matter of course, as light passes
through one transparent/translucent material to another it is bent which by
definition is refraction” and “[t]he visibility of the light is nothing more than
the result of out-coupling and is what one is to expect.” Answer 14.
Moreover, Appellants have not apprised us of error in the Examiner’s
findings that “Shaw discloses a daylight shielding device comprising slats 24
which include a light-guiding layer of a transparent layer 25, 26, 40, 41, 56
on a reflective plate/coating 27, 28, 42-45, wherein to incorporate this
teaching into the daylight shielding device of Chartier et al, as modified by
Marusak, Muller, and Dorsey et al, for its explicit purpose of controlling
light occluding properties would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
in the art.” Answer 7. The Examiner further finds that “Malone discloses a
daylight shielding device comprising slats 9 having a light-guiding layer 10,
10a, 10b, a light blocking layer 11, and a diffuser 14, 15, wherein to
incorporate this teaching into the daylight shielding device of Chartier et al,
as modified by Marusak, Muller, and Dorsey et al, for its explicit purpose of
aesthetics or for selectively controlling light occluding properties would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.” Id. The Examiner
further reasons that, with respect to such disclosures, “[a]pplying a known
Appeal 2012-010805
Application 11/914,244

12
technique to a known device ready for improvement does nothing more than
yield predictable results.” Id. at 9.
Thus, the Examiner determines that “the structure of each claimed
element is known in the prior art and performs the intended function of
guiding light so as to be reflective within the light guiding layer and out-
coupling transmissive of the light being reflected within the light guiding
layer exterior through the front surface.” Id. at 14. As discussed above,
Appellants have not apprised us of error in these findings or reasoning.
Regarding claim 14, Appellants rely on the arguments set forth above
with respect to 13, and further argue that “no discussions of [] microstructure
[as claimed in claim 14] is found in the combination of references cited.”
Answer 16. Because Appellants do not apprise us of error in the Examiner’s
finding that Muller discloses a microstructure, as discussed above, we
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 14.
Regarding claim 15, Appellants rely on the arguments set forth above
with respect to claim 13, and further argue that “no discussions of such
diffuser and out-coupling of light, as claimed [in claim 15] is found in the
combination of references cited.” Answer 16–17. Because Appellants do
not apprise us of error in the Examiner’s findings that Marusak discloses
diffuser elements, as discussed above, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 15.
Regarding claim 16, Appellants rely on the arguments set forth above
with respect to claim 13, and further argue that “no light guiding layers at all
are disclosed” in the cited prior art references. Ans. 17. Because Appellants
do not apprise us of error in the Examiner’s findings that Marusak and/or
Appeal 2012-010805
Application 11/914,244

13
Muller disclose light guiding layers, as discussed above, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 16.
For the foregoing reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection under
35 U.S.C. §103(a) of claims 13−16 over Chartier in view of Marusak, and/or
Muller, and Dorsey and Shaw or Malone.

DECISION
We AFFIRM the Examiner’s rejections.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37
C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

Klh