Component Hardware Group, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 25, 2021

2020004813 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 25, 2021)

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