11324081 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 22, 2012)

Ex Parte Roche et al

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesAug 22, 2012

11324081 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 22, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________ Ex parte JOHN M. ROCHE and SESHA C. MADIREDDI ____________ Appeal 2010-008187 Application 11/324,081 Technology Center 3700 ____________ Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, KEN B. BARRETT and ANNETTE R. REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judges. REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-008187 Application 11/324,081 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE John M. Roche and Sesha C. Madireddi (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s decision to reject under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a): (1) claims 1 and 3 as unpatentable over Appellants’ Admitted Prior Art (hereafter “AAPA”), Fig. 1, and Chuang (US 6,827,463 B2, issued Dec. 7, 2004); and (2) claims 4-11 as unpatentable over AAPA, Chuang and Fischer (DE 297 17 444 U1, published Jan. 8, 1998).1 Claim 2 has been cancelled. We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6. THE INVENTION Appellants’ invention relates to a refrigerated display case 50 that includes a light source 150 to illuminate a product display area 70. Spec., para. [0001] and fig. 2. Claim 1, the sole independent claim, is illustrative of the claimed invention and reads as follows: 1. A refrigerated display case for maintaining food product at a desired temperature, the refrigerated display case comprising: a product display area adapted to support and to display the food product such that the food product is accessible from the front of the case through an opening, an interior top wall positioned above the product display area, the interior top wall including an outlet adjacent the opening, and an air passageway internal to the case and in fluid communication with the outlet; 1 We derive our understanding of this reference from the translation provided by Appellants, filed Jul. 11, 2007. All references to the text of this document are to portions of the translation. Appeal 2010-008187 Application 11/324,081 3 a refrigeration system for cooling air within the air passageway and supplying the refrigerated air to the product display area through the outlet, the air discharged from the outlet defining an air curtain adapted to maintain the food product at the desired temperature; and a light source disposed adjacent the interior top wall and interior of the air curtain, the light source positioned adjacent the opening and adapted to illuminate the food product within the product display area. SUMMARY OF DECISION We REVERSE. OPINION The obviousness rejection over AAPA and Chuang The Examiner found that AAPA discloses all the features of independent claim 1 with the exception of a light source disposed adjacent the interior of the air curtain. Ans. 3. The Examiner further found that Chuang discloses a display case having an air curtain 42 and a light source, i.e., reflector 54, disposed adjacent the interior of the air curtain. Id. See also, Chuang, fig. 3. In addition, the Examiner takes the position that reflectors 54 of Chuang constitute “light sources” because “they do give off light to help illuminate the interior 18 of the display case of Chuang.” Ans. 4. Appellants argue that (1) “a light source is a source of illumination that generates light and projects light outward (e.g., to reflectors);” and (2) “reflectors do not illuminate, give off, or generate light; rather, the reflectors merely redirect or reflect existing light emanating from a light source.” Reply Br. 5. Appellants further argue that Chuang “is unambiguous regarding what constitutes a light source and what constitutes a reflector, and the differences associated with these devices.” Reply Br. 6. Specifically, according to Appellants, (1) Chuang “discloses light sources 50 Appeal 2010-008187 Application 11/324,081 4 in the back area 34 of the display space 18, and reflectors 54 that are mounted to the shelves 60 and the canopy near the opening to the display space 18”; and (2) “reflectors 54 [of Chuang] reflect light from the light sources 50, and do not function as sources of lights.” Br. 9. See also, Chuang, fig. 3. We agree. Although we appreciate the Examiner’s position that reflectors 54 of Chuang “serve to help provide more light to the interior of the display case” (Ans. 4), we give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). In this case, Appellants’ Specification does not explicitly define the term “light source;”2 however, it does provide examples of light sources, i.e., light emitting diodes (LEDs), fluorescent or incandescent lamps. Spec., para. [0020]. See also, Br. 10 and Reply Br. 6. A person of ordinary skill in the art would not have reasonably found that reflector 54 of Chuang’s refrigerated display case 10 is a point of origin or procurement of light, such as a light emitting diode (LED), fluorescent or incandescent lamp. In contrast, reflector 54 of Chuang’s refrigerated display case 10 merely reflects light from light source 50 across display space 18, that is, it constitutes a “reflector” of light source 50. As such, we find that a reasonable interpretation of the term “light source,” in light of the Specification, excludes an interpretation in which a “reflector” constitutes a “light source,” as the Examiner suggests. Hence, we agree with Appellants that a reasonable interpretation of the term “light source,” as called for in independent claim 1, is that in which the “light 2 An ordinary and customary meaning of the term “source” is “b (1) : a point of origin or procurement : BEGINNING.” MERRIAM WEBSTER’S COLLEGIATE DICTIONARY (11th ed. 2005). Appeal 2010-008187 Application 11/324,081 5 source” is “a source of illumination.” See Br. 10. Accordingly, since reflector 54 of Chuang’s refrigerated display case 10 merely reflects light from light source 50 and is not a source of illumination, it does not constitute a “light source,” as required by claim 1. In conclusion, for the foregoing reasons, we cannot sustain the rejection of claims 1 and 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over AAPA and Chuang. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1076 (Fed. Cir. 1988). The obviousness rejection over AAPA, Chuang and Fischer Regarding claims 4-11, the addition of Fischer does not remedy the deficiencies of AAPA and Chuang as described above. As such, the rejection of claims 4-11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over AAPA, Chuang and Fischer likewise cannot be sustained. DECISION The decision of the Examiner is reversed as to claims 1 and 3-11. REVERSED hh