Component Hardware Group, Inc.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardJun 25, 20212020004813 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 25, 2021) Copy Citation 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. 16/292,994 03/05/2019 Justine Cordero 139650.301 9330 27162 7590 06/25/2021 CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO 5 BECKER FARM ROAD ROSELAND, NJ 07068 EXAMINER KRYUKOVA, ERIN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2875 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/25/2021 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 JUSTINE CORDERO, ZOHREH ERFAN, and BRION GOMPPER Appeal 2020-004813 Application 16/292,994 Technology Center 2800 Before TERRY J. OWENS, JAMES C. HOUSEL, and JEFFREY R. SNAY, Administrative Patent Judges. OWENS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), the Appellant appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–7 and 9–11.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). The Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Component Hardware Group, Inc. (Appeal Br. 1). Appeal 2020-004813 Application 16/292,994 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to a light-emitting diode luminaire for a canopy hood. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A LED luminaire for a canopy hood comprising a heat sink assembly having a circular mounting flange and an internal cavity with a floor that extends across said cavity; an LED/driver printed circuit board removably mounted on said floor for emitting light therefrom; and a lens cover assembly removably mounted on said flange of said heat sink assembly for passage of light emitted from said printed circuit board. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Wagner US 5,481,443 Jan. 2, 1996 Cunius US 2010/0172143 A1 July 8, 2010 Wasniewski US 2012/0162994 A1 June 28, 2012 Sharrah US 2012/0182723 A1 July 19, 2012 Huang US 2013/0094178 A1 Apr. 18, 2013 Randolph US 2014/0063810 A1 Mar. 6, 2014 Pisavadia US 2014/0347848 A1 Nov. 27, 2014 Ryder US 2015/0338084 A1 Nov. 26, 2015 REJECTIONS The claims stand rejected as follows: 1) claims 1–7 and 9–11 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventors regard as the invention; 2) claims 1 and 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Randolph; 3) claims 2 and 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Randolph in view of Cunius; 4) claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Randolph in view of Appeal 2020-004813 Application 16/292,994 3 Cunius and Pisavadia; 5) claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Randolph in view of Wagner; 6) claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Randolph in view of Sharrah and Huang; 7) claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Randolph in view of Ryder; and 8) claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Randolph in view of Wasniewski. OPINION Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) The relevant inquiry under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) is whether the claim language, as it would have been interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art in light of the Appellant’s Specification, sets out and circumscribes a particular area with a reasonable degree of precision and particularity. See In re Moore, 439 F.2d 1232, 1235 (CCPA 1971). The Examiner concludes that the Appellant’s claim term “LED/driver” is indefinite because: The use of the slash in the phrasing “LED/driver” makes it unclear as to whether the intent of this limitation is to refer to an LED and to a driver printed circuit board, to either an LED or a driver printed circuit board, to an LED driver printed circuit board, to an LED printed circuit board or a driver printed circuit board, to a printed circuit board including an LED an[d] a driver, or whether another element is intended [(Final 3)]. The Examiner finds: Figure 5 of the Drawings appears to show the arrow of reference number [26] pointing to a whole assembly, rather than directed to a particular printed circuit board, LED array, or driver alone, and it is unclear as to whether the reference number [26] is intended to refer to the entire combination of a printed circuit board, driver, and LED array, or whether it is only intended to refer to the printed circuit board portion [Ans. 4)]. Appeal 2020-004813 Application 16/292,994 4 The Appellant argues (1) that Appellant’s specification and drawings disclose a single printed circuit board (26) with an array of LEDs (27) and a driver; (2) that the ordinary and customary meaning of “an LED/driver printed circuit board” in claim 1 is a single printed circuit board with an array of LEDs and a driver; and (3) that the meaning of “an LED/driver printed circuit board” to a person of ordinary skill in the art is of a single printed circuit board with an array of LEDs and a driver [(Appeal Br. 6)]. The Appellant’s Specification states: “Referring to Fig. 5, the luminaire 10 includes an LED/driver printed circuit board 26 of conventional construction with an array of LEDs 27 for emitting light when electrically activated” (Spec. 5). That Specification disclosure indicates that item 26 in Figure 5 is of conventional construction and includes a printed circuit board having an array of LEDs and a driver. The Examiner finds that “one of ordinary skill in the art would not be familiar with the phrasing “LED/driver printed circuit board” since such phrasing is not commonly used in the art” (Ans. 5). That finding is inconsistent with the Appellant’s Specification and is unsupported by evidence. The Examiner’s speculation as to what “LED/driver” possibly could mean does not establish that the claim term “LED/driver,” as it would have been interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art in light of the Appellant’s Specification, fails to set out and circumscribe a particular area with a reasonable degree of precision and particularity. Accordingly, we reverse the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) “Anticipation requires that every limitation of the claim in issue be disclosed, either expressly or under principles of inherency, in a single prior Appeal 2020-004813 Application 16/292,994 5 art reference.” Corning Glass Works v. Sumitomo Elec. U.S.A., Inc., 868 F.2d 1251, 1255–56 (Fed. Cir. 1989). The Appellant’s claim 1 requires a lens cover assembly removably mounted on a heat sink assembly’s circular mounting flange. Randolph discloses a cup-shaped mounting structure (14) that is capable of functioning as a heat spreading device (¶ 58). The mounting structure (14) has an open end and a sidewall (18) having at the open end a recess (48) which forms a ledge substantially around the open end (¶ 68; Fig. 4). An annular flange (22) is fastened to the sidewall (18) around the open end (id.). A lens assembly (16) rests on the ledge (id.). The recess (48) is sufficiently deep that the front surface of the lens assembly (16) on the ledge is flush with the front surface of the annular flange (22) (¶ 68; Fig. 6A). The lens assembly (16) has rearwardly-extending tabs (40) that slide into channels on the sidewall (18)’s interior surface and have threaded holes that align with holes in elongated slots (24) in the sidewall (18) (¶ 69; Fig. 3). Bolts (42) inserted through the holes in the elongated slots (24) and screwed into the threaded holes affix the lens assembly to the mounting structure (14) (id.). The Examiner points out that Randolph discloses (¶ 68) that “[w]hen assembled, the lens assembly 16 is mounted on or over the annular flange 22” (Ans. 7). Accordingly, the Examiner concludes that Randolph’s lens assembly (16) whose front surface is flush with the front surface of the annular flange (22) (Fig. 6B) is substantially disposed on a surface of the flange (22) and therefore is substantially on the flange (22) (id.). As for the Appellant’s claim requirement that the lens cover assembly is removably mounted on the flange, the Examiner finds that Randolph’s bolts 42 are Appeal 2020-004813 Application 16/292,994 6 removable and that, therefore, “utilizing broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language, the lens assembly [16] is substantially removably mounted to be on the flange [22]” (id.). As set forth above, Randolph’s bolts 42 mount the lens assembly (16) on the sidewall (18), not on the flange (22). The Examiner does not establish that Randolph’s lens assembly (16) mounted on the sidewall (18) such that it abuts against the flange (22) (Figs, 6A, 6B) is mounted on the flange (22) according to the broadest reasonable interpretation of “mounted on” consistent with the Appellant’s Specification. See In re Translogic Tech. Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“[D]uring examination proceedings, claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification.”) (quoting In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2000)). The Examiner, therefore, has not established that Randolph discloses every limitation of the Appellant’s sole independent claim. Consequently, we reverse the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1). The Examiner does not rely upon Randolph or any of the other applied references for a disclosure that would have rendered the above- discussed claim requirement prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. We therefore also reverse the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s rejection(s) are reversed. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–7, 9–11 112(b) Indefiniteness 1–7, 9–11 Appeal 2020-004813 Application 16/292,994 7 1, 5 102(a)(1) Randolph 1, 5 2, 4 103 Randolph, Cunius 2, 4 3 103 Randolph, Cunius, Pisavadia 3 6 103 Randolph, Wagner 6 7 103 Randolph, Sharrah, Huang 7 9 103 Randolph, Ryder 9 10 103 Randolph, Wasniewski 10 Overall Outcome 1–7, 9–11 REVERSED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation