UNITY OPTO TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD. (ASSIGNEE) et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 26, 2020

90014105 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 26, 2020)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
90/014,105 03/07/2018 9447954 55466-702.999 6847
21971 7590 08/26/2020
WILSON, SONSINI, GOODRICH & ROSATI
650 PAGE MILL ROAD
PALO ALTO, CA 94304-1050
EXAMINER
ENGLISH, PETER C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3993
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/26/2020 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte UNITY OPTO TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD
Patent Owner and Appellant
____________________

Appeal 2020-002604
Reexamination Control 90/014,1051
Patent 9,447,954 B2
Technology Center 3900
____________________

Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, MARC S. HOFF, and ERIC B. CHEN,
Administrative Patent Judges.

HOFF, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a Final Rejection of
claims 10–13, 17, and 18. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appellant’s invention (U.S. Patent No. 9,447,954 B2 to Myers) is a
flat light emitting diode (LED) panel. Power circuitry is disposed within at
least one of a number of channels within the frame. The panel includes a

1 Appellant states that the real party in interest is Unity Opto Technology
Co., LTD. Appeal Br. 5.
Appeal 2020-002604
Reexamination Control 90/014,105
Patent 9,447,954 B2

2
central wire-way disposed adjacent the back surface of the bottom assembly,
configured to route wiring to or from the power circuitry. Abstract.
Claim 10 is reproduced below:
10. A light fixture comprising:
a frame including a bottom assembly and a top assembly
coupled to the bottom assembly, the bottom assembly and the
top assembly cooperating to form a plurality of channels within
the frame, the bottom assembly having a back surface;
a substantially flat light emitting diode (LED) panel
disposed within the frame;
power circuitry disposed within at least one of the
plurality of channels within the frame, the power circuitry being
configured to electrically couple the substantially flat LED
panel to an external AC power supply; and
a central wire-way disposed adjacent the back surface of
the bottom assembly and configured to route wiring to or from
the power circuitry disposed within at least one of the plurality
of channels within the frame, wherein the central wire-way is
configured to route 16 gauge wiring and 18 gauge wiring
according to the AWG (American Wire Gauge) system.

The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence is:
Name Reference Date
Verfuerth US 2009/0147507 A1 June 11, 2009
Spada US 2008/0101094 A1 May 1, 2008
Cronk US 8,096,671 B1 Jan. 17, 2012
Jung US 2008/0297679 A1 Dec. 4, 2008
Brown US 6,240,665 B1 June 5, 2001
Schexnaider US 2005/0219860 A1 Oct. 6, 2005
Kim US 8,061,867 B2 Nov. 22, 2011
Frazier US 2010/0289428 A1 Nov. 18, 2010
Lv US 2011/0149596 A1 June 23, 2011
Mighetto US 7,387,403 B2 June 17, 2008
Glory JP 3140783 Apr. 10, 2008

Appeal 2020-002604
Reexamination Control 90/014,105
Patent 9,447,954 B2

3
Ground 1: Claims 10 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as being anticipated by Brown, or alternately, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Brown.
Ground 2: Claims 13, 17, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as being unpatentable over Brown.
Ground 3: Claims 10, 12, 13, 17, and 18 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Brown, Verfuerth, and Mighetto.
Ground 4(a): Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Brown and Spada.
Ground 4(b): Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Brown, Verfuerth, Mighetto, and Spada.
Ground 5(a): Claims 13, 17, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Brown, Jung, and Spada.
Ground 5(b): Claims 13, 17, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as being unpatentable over Brown, Verfuerth, Mighetto, Jung, and
Spada.
Ground 6: Claims 10, 12, 13, 17, and 18 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cronk, Verfuerth, and Mighetto.
Ground 7: Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Cronk, Verfuerth, Mighetto, and Spada.
Ground 8: Claims 13, 17, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as being unpatentable over Cronk, Verfuerth, Mighetto, Jung, and
Spada.
Appeal 2020-002604
Reexamination Control 90/014,105
Patent 9,447,954 B2

4
Ground 9(a): Claims 10 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
102(b) as anticipated by Glory, or in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as being unpatentable over Glory.
Ground 9(b): Claims 10 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as being unpatentable over Glory, Kim, Frazier, and Brown.
Ground 10: Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Glory and Spada.
Ground 11: Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Glory, Kim, Frazier, Brown, and Spada.
Ground 12(a): Claims 13, 17, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as being unpatentable over Glory, Spada, and Schexnaider.
Ground 12(b): Claims 13, 17, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as being unpatentable over Glory, Kim, Frazier, Brown, Spada, and
Schexnaider.
Ground 13(a); Claims 10–13, 17, and 18 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Glory, Verfuerth, and Mighetto.
Ground 13(b): Claims 10–13, 17, and 18 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Glory, Kim, Frazier, Brown,
Verfuerth, and Mighetto.
Ground 13(c): Claims 10–13, 17, and 18 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Glory, Spada, Schexnaider,
Verfuerth, and Mighetto.
Ground 13(d): Claims 10–13, 17, and 18 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Glory, Kim, Frazier, Brown,
Spada, Schexnaider, Verfuerth, and Mighetto.
Appeal 2020-002604
Reexamination Control 90/014,105
Patent 9,447,954 B2

5
Ground 14: Claims 10, 12, 13, 17, and 18 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lv, Kim, Frazier, and Brown.
Ground 15: Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Lv, Kim, Frazier, Brown, and Spada.
Ground 16: Claims 13, 17, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as being unpatentable over Lv, Kim, Frazier, Brown, Spada, and
Schexnaider.
Ground 17(a): Claims 10–13, 17, and 18 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lv, Kim, Frazier, Brown,
Verfuerth, and Mighetto.
Ground 17(b): Claims 10–13, 17, and 18 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lv, Kim, Frazier, Brown, Spada,
Schexnaider, Verfuerth, and Mighetto.

Throughout this decision, we make reference to the Appeal Brief
(“Appeal Br.,” filed Aug. 28, 2019), the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed
Jan. 22, 2020), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Nov. 22, 2019)
for their respective details.
ISSUES
1. Does the Examiner’s combination of references teach or suggest an
AC to DC converter disposed in a channel of a frame?
2. Does the Examiner’s combination of references teach or suggest a
central wire-way disposed adjacent the back surface of the bottom
assembly?
Appeal 2020-002604
Reexamination Control 90/014,105
Patent 9,447,954 B2

6
ANALYSIS
Ground 13(b): Rejection of claims 10–13, 17, and 18 over Glory,
Kim, Frazier, Brown, Verfuerth, and Mighetto
Appellant argues that the Examiner’s rejection is deficient for the
reasons expressed with respect to Ground 3, which itself refers to Ground 1,
which is a rejection over Brown alone. Appeal Br. 47. With respect to
Grounds 1 and 3, Appellant argues that Brown does not teach an AC-DC
converter disposed in a channel of a frame. Appeal Br. 28, 33. Appellant
also argues that Brown does not teach a central wire-way disposed adjacent
the back surface of the bottom assembly. Appeal Br. 29.
These arguments are not persuasive. In Ground 13(b), the Examiner
relies on Glory, rather than Brown, to teach the claimed “power circuitry,”
which is construed to comprise AC to DC conversion circuitry. Ans. 19.
Glory teaches AC to DC converter 22 “formed in a bar shape” and “housed
inside the outer shell 21.” Glory ¶ 15, Fig. 3. The Examiner relies on Kim,
Frazier, and/or Brown, rather than Glory, to teach the claimed central wire-
way. Ans. 15–17, 19.
In contesting the rejection based on Ground 13, Appellant also refers
to arguments against Ground 9, which is a rejection based on Glory alone.
Appeal Br. 47. Appellant argues that Glory does not teach the recited central
wire-way. Appeal Br. 42. This argument is not persuasive because the
Examiner relies on Kim, Frazier, and/or Brown, rather than Glory, to teach
the claimed central wire-way.
Appellant also contends that Kim, Frazier, and Brown fail to teach the
claimed central wire-way. Appeal Br. 43. Appellant argues that “the
Appeal 2020-002604
Reexamination Control 90/014,105
Patent 9,447,954 B2

7
connecting groove 107 in Kim is located near the edge of the frame,” and
that “the hole for wiring 22 in Frazier is located near the top of the frame.”
Appeal Br. 48 (citing Frazier Fig. 2). Appellant alleges that the Examiner
has no clear explanation as to how a person skilled in the art would have
modified Glory to include the claimed central wire-way. Appeal Br. 43.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument. Rather, we agree with
the Examiner’s finding that Frazier teaches a hole for wiring 22, illustrated
in Fig. 2, disposed in a central position with respect to the lateral dimension
of housing 10. Ans. 50; Frazier Fig. 2.
Appellant’s argument that the Examiner does not adequately explain
how a person of skill in the art would modify Glory to include the claimed
central wire-way is not persuasive, because the test of obviousness is not
whether the Kim, Frazier, or Brown references may be bodily incorporated
into the Glory reference. The test of obviousness is what the combined
teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill
in the art. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). We determine that
the Examiner provided reasons to combine Glory with Kim, Frazier, and/or
Brown, having a rational underpinning to support the conclusion of
obviousness. Ans. 47–48.
We conclude that the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 10–13,
17, and 18 over Glory, Kim, Frazier, Brown, Verfuerth, and Mighetto. We
sustain the Examiner’s § 103(a) rejection.
Appeal 2020-002604
Reexamination Control 90/014,105
Patent 9,447,954 B2

8

OTHER REJECTIONS
Affirmance of the rejection of claims 10–13, 17, and 18 based on
Glory, Kim, Frazier, Brown, Verfuerth, and Mighetto, renders it unnecessary
to reach the propriety of the Examiner’s decision to reject those claims based
on other grounds. Cf. In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
As such, we need not reach the propriety of the other grounds of rejection of
the claims under appeal.

CONCLUSION
1. The Examiner’s combination of references teaches an AC to DC
converter disposed in a channel of a frame.
2. The Examiner’s combination of references suggests a central wire-
way disposed adjacent the back surface of the bottom assembly.

Appeal 2020-002604
Reexamination Control 90/014,105
Patent 9,447,954 B2

9
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/
Basis
Affirmed Reversed
10, 12 102 Brown
10, 12 103 Brown
13, 17, 18 103 Brown
10, 12, 13,
17, 18
103 Brown, Verfuerth,
Mighetto

11 103 Brown, Spada
11 103 Brown, Verfuerth,
Mighetto, Spada

13, 17, 18 103 Brown, Jung,
Spada

13, 17, 18 103 Brown, Verfuerth,
Mighetto, Jung,
Spada

10, 12, 13,
17, 18
103 Cronk, Verfuerth,
Mighetto

11 103 Cronk, Verfuerth,
Mighetto, Spada

13, 17, 18 103 Cronk, Verfuerth,
Mighetto, Jung,
Spada

10, 12 102 Glory
10, 12 103 Glory
10, 12 103 Glory, Kim,
Frazier, Brown

11 103 Glory, Spada
11 103 Glory, Kim,
Frazier, Brown,
Spada

13, 17, 18 103 Glory, Spada,
Schexnaider

Appeal 2020-002604
Reexamination Control 90/014,105
Patent 9,447,954 B2

10
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/
Basis
Affirmed Reversed
13, 17, 18 103 Glory, Kim,
Frazier, Brown,
Spada,
Schexnaider

10–13, 17, 18 103 Glory, Verfuerth,
Mighetto

10–13, 17, 18 103 Glory, Kim,
Frazier, Brown,
Verfuerth,
Mighetto
10–13, 17,
18

10–13, 17, 18 103 Glory, Spada,
Schexnaider,
Verfuerth,
Mighetto

10–13, 17, 18 103 Glory, Kim,
Frazier, Brown,
Spada,
Schexnaider,
Verfuerth,
Mighetto

10, 12, 13,
17, 18
103 Lv, Kim, Frazier,
Brown

11 103 Lv, Kim, Frazier,
Brown, Spada

13, 17, 18 103 Lv, Kim, Frazier,
Brown, Spada,
Schexnaider

10–13, 17, 18 103 Lv, Kim, Frazier,
Brown, Verfuerth,
Mighetto

10–13, 17, 18 103 Lv, Kim, Frazier,
Brown, Spada,
Schexnaider,
Verfuerth,
Mighetto

Appeal 2020-002604
Reexamination Control 90/014,105
Patent 9,447,954 B2

11
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/
Basis
Affirmed Reversed
Overall
Outcome

10–13, 17,
18

The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 10–13, 17, and 18 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) is affirmed.
Requests for extensions of time in this ex parte reexamination
proceeding are governed by 37 C.F.R. § 1.550(c). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f).

AFFIRMED

msc

Appeal 2020-002604
Reexamination Control 90/014,105
Patent 9,447,954 B2

12

Patent Owner:

WILSON, SONSINI, GOODRICH & ROSATI
650 PAGE MILL ROAD
PALO ALTO, CA 94304-1050

Third party requester:

BLACK, McCUSKEY, SOUERS & ARBAUGH, LPA
220 MARKET AVENUE, SOUTH, SUITE 1000
CANTON, OH 44702