Ex Parte SUZUKI et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 30, 2018

14171089 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 30, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/171,089 02/03/2014
23373 7590 12/04/2018
SUGHRUE MION, PLLC
2100 PENNSYLVANIA A VENUE, N.W.
SUITE 800
WASHINGTON, DC 20037
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Hiroshi SUZUKI
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.
Q209845 3287
EXAMINER
TOPOLSKI, MAGDALENA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3643
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/04/2018 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):
PPROCESSING@SUGHRUE.COM
sughrue@sughrue.com
USPTO@sughrue.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Exparte HIROSHI SUZUKI, RYOUICHI TAKEUCHI, and
HIRONORI ARA
Appeal2018-003905
Application 14/171,089 1
Technology Center 3600
Before EDWARD A. BROWN, BENJAMIN D. M. WOOD, and
BRANDON J. WARNER, Administrative Patent Judges.
BROWN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner's
decision rejecting claims 1--4 and 6-8, which are all of the pending claims.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Showa Denko K.K. ("Appellant") is the applicant, under 37 C.F.R. § 1.46,
and is identified as the real party in interest. Br. 2.
Appeal2018-003905
Application 14/171,089
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A plant cultivation lamp used in a plant cultivation method
including a step of independently performing a sequence of
irradiating a plant with red light and a sequence of irradiating the
plant with blue light within a certain period of time, comprising:
a light irradiation unit that includes one or more red light
emitting elements that emit red light and one or more blue light
emitting elements that emit blue light; and
a control unit that controls the light irradiation unit to
independently and continuously alternate between the red light
emitting elements and the blue light emitting elements every 3 to
48 hours.
Br. 16 (Claims App. 1).
REJECTIONS
The Final Office Action includes the following rejections under 35
U.S.C. § 103:
1. Claims 1, 2, and 6 are rejected as unpatentable over Okamoto
(JP 08-103167, published Apr. 23, 1996) and Tazawa (JP 06-276858,
published Oct. 4, 1994).
2. Claim 3 is rejected as unpatentable over Okamoto, Tazawa, and
Karpinski (US 2007/0151149 Al, published July 5, 2007).
3. Claim 4 is rejected as unpatentable over Okamoto, Tazawa, and
Pan (US 2012/0293993 Al, published Nov. 22, 2012).
4. Claim 7 is rejected as unpatentable over Okamoto, Tazawa, and
Maxik (US 2013/0139437 Al, published June 6, 2013).
5. Claim 8 is rejected as unpatentable over Okamoto, Tazawa, and
Iwatomo (JP 2003-158922 A, published June 3, 2003).
2
Appeal2018-003905
Application 14/171,089
ANALYSIS
Rejection 1
As to claim 1, the Examiner finds that Okamoto discloses a plant
cultivation lamp comprising a light irradiation unit that includes red light
emitting elements and blue light emitting elements that emit red light and
blue light, respectively, and a control unit that controls the light irradiation
unit to independently and continuously alternate between the red light
emitting elements and blue light emitting elements. Final Act. 2-3 ( citing
Okamoto, Abstract, claim 1, Figs., ,r,r 2, 7). 2 The Examiner explains that
"Okamoto is solely relied upon to teach the claimed limitation of 'a control
unit that controls the light irradiation unit to independently and continuously
alternate between red light emitting elements and blue light emitting
elements.'" Ans. 3. The Examiner finds that Okamoto is silent as to
alternating between red light and blue light every 3 to 48 hours, as claimed.
Final Act. 3.
The Examiner relies on Tazawa to address this omission in Okamoto.
Final Act. 3. Particularly, the Examiner finds that Tazawa teaches
"alternating between 8 hours of green light and 16 hours of white light"
(citing Tazawa ,r 9) 3 and "a control structure that alternates between two
artificial lights every 3 to 48 hours (Tazawa is controlling artificial light
exposure times)," that is, "Tazawa teaches the missing control feature of
Okamoto (i.e. the time period of the controller)" (Ans. 4--5). The Examiner
2 The Examiner refers to the English-language translation of Okamoto,
which is of record in the present application.
3 The Examiner refers to the English-language translation of the
Specification of Tazawa, which is of record in the present application.
3
Appeal2018-003905
Application 14/171,089
relies on Tazawa as a general teaching that it is known in the art to have an
artificial light source radiate a plant for a fixed time period, and, particularly,
a period of 3 to 48 hours. Id. at 6. The Examiner concludes that it would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to alternate between
Okamoto's lights (i.e., red and blue lights) every 3 to 48 hours, as taught by
Tazawa, to enhance certain characteristics of plants due to exposure to
different time periods of different colors of light. Final Act. 3.
Appellant contends that Okamoto does not teach or suggest a control
unit as recited in claim 1. Br. 9. Appellant acknowledges that Okamoto
describes that the red lights and blue lights may be turned on alternately, but
Appellant contends that "Okamoto suggests such alternate irradiation should
be performed at high speed." Id. at 10 (citing Okamoto ,r 6). According to
Appellant, Okamoto describes that simultaneous irradiation of red and blue
light provided improved plant growth ( citing Okamoto ,r 11 ), and "the high
speed flashing of red and blue light would be expected to have a similar
effect as simultaneous irradiation of red and blue light, but the high speed
flashing reduces power consumption." Id.
Okamoto discloses that "very high-speed intermittent light can be
given to a plant." Okamoto ,r 6. However, Okamoto does not appear to
disclose that the periods of light emission are limited to "very high-speed
intermittent light." For example, claim 1 of Okamoto cited by the Examiner
does not limit the emission time period for the blue or red light emitting
diodes. It is the Examiner's position that Okamoto broadly teaches the use
of red and blue light emitting devices with "independent and continuous
alteration between red and blue light." See Ans. 3. We note that Tazawa,
like Okamoto, describes LEDs (light emitting diodes) (see Tazawa ,r 10),
4
Appeal2018-003905
Application 14/171,089
where the Examiner relies on Tazawa for teaching using an artificial light
source to radiate a plant for a fixed time period, as in the claimed plant
cultivation lamp (see Ans. 6).
Appellant contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art would
understand that high-speed intermittent irradiation with red light and blue
light in Okamoto corresponds to irradiation with white light in the daytime
in Tazawa. Br. 10-11. Accordingly, Appellant asserts, combining Tazawa
with Okamoto would result in 8 hours irradiation with green light and 16
hours irradiation with red light and blue light being repeatedly performed,
and not in irradiation with red light and blue light independently, alternately
and continuously, as claimed. Id. at 11.
We are not persuaded that Okamoto's teachings are limited to using
only high-speed intermittent irradiation with red light and blue light. Also,
Appellant provides no supporting evidence to show that such high-speed
intermittent irradiation with red light and blue light is equivalent to
irradiation with white light in the daytime. Nor does Appellant show
persuasively that one of ordinary skill in the art would combine Tazawa with
Okamoto to additionally use green light radiation.
The Examiner points out that claim 1 is directed to a plant cultivation
lamp, not to a method of cultivating a plant. Ans. 4, 5. As such, claim 1
does not require actually using the plant cultivation lamp in a plant
cultivation method, let alone in "a plant cultivation method including a step
of independently performing a sequence of irradiating a plant with red light
and a sequence of irradiating the plant with blue light within a certain period
of time," as recited in the preamble. Nor does claim 1 require that the
control unit "control[] the light irradiation unit to independently and
5
Appeal2018-003905
Application 14/171,089
continuously alternate between the red light emitting elements and the blue
light emitting elements every 3 to 48 hours" during any specific hours of a
day (e.g., during day time hours and/or night time hours).
As the Examiner finds that Okamoto teaches benefits of using red
light and blue light for cultivating plants, and Tazawa teaches that it is
known in the art to use an artificial light source to radiate a plant for a fixed
time period, including the claimed time period, we are not persuaded that the
Examiner has failed to articulate an adequate reason with some rational
underpinning to combine the teachings of Okamoto and Tazawa to result in
the claimed plant cultivation lamp. Additionally, Appellant does not provide
any evidence to show that the claimed plant cultivation lamp provides any
advantage or unexpected result because the control unit controls the light
irradiation unit "to independently and continuously alternate between the red
light emitting elements and the blue light emitting elements every 3 to 48
hours."
For these reasons, we sustain the rejection of claim 1, and of claims 2
and 6, which are not separately argued, as unpatentable over Okamoto and
Tazawa.
Rejections 2-5
Appellant presents no argument for the rejections of claims 3, 4, 7,
and 8. Accordingly, we sustain the rejections of claim 3 as unpatentable
over Okamoto, Tazawa, and Karpinski; claim 4 as unpatentable over
Okamoto, Tazawa, and Pan; claim 7 as unpatentable over Okamoto, Tazawa,
and Maxik; and claim 8 as unpatentable over Okamoto, Tazawa, and
I watomo, for the same reasons as those discussed for parent claim 1.
6
Appeal2018-003905
Application 14/171,089
DECISION
We affirm the rejections of claims 1--4 and 6-8.
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
7