Ex Parte Tsukamoto

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 11, 2012

10894699 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 11, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte HIRONORI TSUKAMOTO
____________

Appeal 2010-004453
Application 10/894,699
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before LANCE LEONARD BARRY, JEAN R. HOMERE, and
JAMES R. HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judges.

BARRY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Patent Examiner rejected claims 1-15 and 17. The Appellant
appeals therefrom under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

Appeal 2010-004453
Application 10/894,699
2
INVENTION
The following claim illustrates the invention on appeal:
1. A lamp unit for a vehicular headlamp, comprising:
a semiconductor light emitting element;
a projection lens disposed on an optical axis of the
semiconductor light emitting element; and
a shielding member disposed in the rear of the projection
lens, wherein
a distance between the shielding member and the
projection lens is substantially greater than a distance between
the shielding member and the semiconductor light emitting
element,
the semiconductor light emitting element is disposed
proximately behind the shielding member and directed to a
front of the lamp unit on the optical axis, and
an upper edge of the shielding member is positioned
proximate to the optical axis such that the shielding member
blocks substantially all of lower light emitted from the
semiconductor light emitting element.

REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 3, and 5-8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2001/0019484 Al
("Schauwecker") and U.S. Patent No. 6,565,247 B2 ("Thominet").
Claim 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Schauwecker, Thominet, and European Patent Application
Pub. No. EP 1 213 532 A2 ("Taniuchi").
Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Schauwecker, Thominet, and U.S. Patent No. 6,280,071
Bl ("Yamamoto").

Appeal 2010-004453
Application 10/894,699
3
Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Schauwecker, Thominet, and U.S. Patent No. 6,296,382
B1("Hamelbeck").
Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Schauwecker, Thominet, Hamelbeck, and Yamamoto.
Claims 11-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 5,211,465 ("Suzuki").
Claim 17 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Suzuki and Japanese Patent Application Pub. No. JP
09114400 A.

DISCUSSION
Based on the Appellant's arguments, we will decide the appeal of
claims 1, 3, and 5-8 on the basis of claim 1 and the appeal of claims 11-15
on the basis of claim 11. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).

PROXIMATELY
The first dispositive issue before us follows. Did the Examiner err in
finding that Schauwecker and Suzuki each teaches or would have suggested
a light emitting element disposed proximately behind a shielding member, as
required by representative claims 1 and 11?
The Examiner finds that "Schauwecker et al. in Fig.l show that the
distance between shielding member [18] and lens [26] is greater than
distance between the light body [16] and the shielding member [18]." (Ans.
9.) The Appellant argues that "[t]he light source 14 is clearly a significant
distance from the screen 18 and, accordingly, cannot reasonably be said to
Appeal 2010-004453
Application 10/894,699
4
be disposed proximately behind the screen 18, as required by claim 1."
(Reply Br. 5.)
The Examiner also finds that "Suzuki in Fig.l shows the light source
[33], which is immediately proceeding or following behind the shielding
member [38]." (Ans. 10.) The Appellant argues that "[t]he light bulb 32 is
clearly a significant distance from the shade 38 and, accordingly, is not
disposed proximately behind the shade 38, as required by claim 11." (Reply
Br. 9.)
"During prosecution . . . the PTO gives claims their 'broadest
reasonable interpretation.'" In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1324 (Fed. Cir.
2004) (quoting In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2000)).
"Moreover, limitations are not to be read into the claims from the
specification." In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993)
(citing In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321 (Fed. Cir. 1989)).
Here, the Appellant does not quantify how close the claimed light
emitting element and shielding member must be for the element to be
"proximately" behind the member as claimed. It is uncontested that
Schauwecker and Suzuki both teach a light source disposed behind a shield.
The fact that the light source and shield are both contained within a
vehicular headlamp evidences that these are proximate each other.
Therefore, we conclude that the Examiner did not err in finding that
Schauwecker and Suzuki each teach or would have suggested a light
emitting element disposed proximately behind a shielding member, as
required by representative claims 1 and 11.

Appeal 2010-004453
Application 10/894,699
5
SUBSTANTIALLY ALL
The second dispositive issue before us follows. Did the Examiner err
in finding that Schauwecker and Suzuki each teaches or would have
suggested the shielding member blocking substantially all of lower light
emitted from the light emitting element, as required by representative claims
1 and 11?
The Examiner makes the following findings about Schauwecker.
Fig.l of Schauwecker et al. shows that the upper edge of the
shielding member [18] is aligned with the optical axis [13] of
the lamp, therefore all light emitted by portion of the light
source located below the optical axis [13] is blocked by the
shielding member [18]. In addition, since the upper edge of the
shielding member [18] is located in the outer focal point of the
reflector (page 1, [0015]), all light reflected by lower portion of
the reflector is also blocked by the shielding member, as shown
in Fig.l.
(Ans. 10.) The Appellant makes the following argument.
Fig. 1 of Schauwecker clearly shows a beam of light emitted
downwards from the light source 14 bypassing the screen 18.

Appellant further notes that, as shown in Fig. 2 and Fig. 4
of Schauwecker, the screen 18 has an opening 40 or a plurality
of openings 42 such that even a substantial amount of the light
that is incident on the screen 18 passes therethrough.
(Reply Br. 7.)
The Examiner makes the following findings about Suzuki.
The upper edge of the shade [38] shown in Fig.5 is located in
the vicinity of the focal point [f2] (co1.3, lines 37-39), therefore
blocks all lower light reflected by lower portion of the reflector,
because all light beams reflected from lower portion of the
reflector, hit in the focal point [f'2].

Appeal 2010-004453
Application 10/894,699
6
(Ans. 11.)
The Appellant makes the following argument.
Fig. 5 of Suzuki clearly shows a beam of light emitted
downwards from the light bulb 32 bypassing the shade 38.
Appellant further notes that, as shown in Fig. 5 of
Suzuki, the shade 38 has an opening 39 in its lower portion to
allow air flow, through which a significant amount of lower
light directly emitted from the light bulb 32, i.e., not reflected
by the reflector 31, can pass.
(Reply Br. 10.)
It is uncontested that the respective shielding members of
Schauwecker and Suzuki each blocks a substantial amount of lower light
emitted from the associated light emitting element. Giving the
representative claims the broadest, reasonable construction, the phrase
"substantially all" does not require the shields to block all light. It is broad
enough to allow some light to pass beyond or through the shielding member.
That some of the lower light may not be blocked by the shielding members
does not negate the rejections.
Therefore, we conclude that the Examiner did not err in finding that
Schauwecker and Suzuki each teaches or would have suggested the
shielding member blocking substantially all of lower light emitted from the
light emitting element, as required by representative claims 1 and 11.
Rather than arguing the rejections of claims 2, 4, 9, 10, and 17
separately, the Appellant relies on the aforementioned arguments, which
were unpersuasive, and thus does not establish that the Examiner erred in
any of the rejections under § 103(a).

Appeal 2010-004453
Application 10/894,699
7
DECISION
We affirm the rejection of claims 1 and 11 and those of claims 2-10,
12-15, and 17, which fall therewith.
No time for taking any action connected with this appeal may be
extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

llw