Ex Parte Gaydoul

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 1, 2013

11649084 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 1, 2013)

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. 11/649,084 01/03/2007 Ekkehard Gaydoul AMB-P05131US01 6190 24131 7590 08/02/2013 LERNER GREENBERG STEMER LLP P O BOX 2480 HOLLYWOOD, FL 33022-2480 EXAMINER HAN, JASON ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2875 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/02/2013 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 EKKEHARD GAYDOUL ____________ Appeal 2011-000192 Application 11/649,084 Technology Center 2800 ____________ Before ERIC B. CHEN, JOHN A. EVANS, and BARBARA A. PARVIS, Administrative Patent Judges. PARVIS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of claims 1-9 and 11-17. Claim 10 has been cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. Appeal 2011-000192 Application 11/649,084 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant’s invention relates to a fiber-optic device for functional and decorative interior lighting of aircraft cabins. (Abstract.) The fiber-optic device has a source and at least one fiber-optic waveguide system that guide light to a lighting location. (Id.) The waveguide may have a glass-fiber bundle or a monofiber light-guiding rod. (Id.) Independent claim 1 is exemplary, with the disputed limitation in italics: 1. A fiber-optic device for the functional and decorative interior lighting of aircraft cabins, the fiber-optic device comprising: at least one central light source; at least one fiber-optic waveguide system with optical waveguides for guiding light from said light source to a lighting location in an aircraft cabin; said optical waveguides being combined on a light-inlet side to form a light-receiving surface corresponding to said light source and said optical waveguides having at least one glass-fiber bundle; said at least one glass-fiber bundle having glass fibers with light outlet-side ends forming a light outlet surface; said light outlet surface being preshaped into a shape selected from the group consisting of a point light, a line of lights and a flat light; and said at least one glass-fiber bundle having a protective sheath made of a glass fabric. Claims 1-9 and 11-13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) as being unpatentable over de la Peña (US 5,690,408; Nov. 25, 1997), Ansems Appeal 2011-000192 Application 11/649,084 3 (US 5,803,575; Sept. 8, 1998), and Ziadi (US 5,647,658; July 15, 1997). Ans. 3-9. Claim 14 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) as being unpatentable over de la Peña, Ansems, Ziadi and Van Iderstine (US 3,723,722; Mar. 27, 1973). Ans. 9-10. Claims 15-16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) as being unpatentable over de la Peña and Ziadi. Ans. 10-12. Claim 17 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) as being unpatentable over de la Peña, Ziadi, and Krupa (US 2004/0246744 A1; Dec. 9, 2004). Ans. 12-13. ANALYSIS §103 Rejection — de la Peña, Ansems, and Ziadi Claims 1 – 9 and 11 – 13 We are unpersuaded by Appellant’s arguments (Br. 7-10) that the combination of de la Peña, Ansems, and Ziadi would not have rendered obvious independent claim 1, which includes the limitation “a protective sheath made of a glass fabric.” The Examiner found that Ansems describes a sheath “made from a mixture of glass fiber and silicone.” (Ans. 4, 13 (citing Ansems col. 3, ll. 45- 51).) The Examiner also found that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the fiber-optic device of de la Peña so that it could be used within an aircraft cabin, as taught by Ziadi (Ans. 5 (citing Ziadi Fig. 1); see also Ans. 16 (citing de la Peña col. 2, ll. 27-33, col. 3, ll. 44-47).) Accordingly, the Examiner concluded that at the time of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to Appeal 2011-000192 Application 11/649,084 4 modify the glass fiber bundle of de la Peña to incorporate Ansems glass sheath for greater protection. (Ans. 5, 15.) de la Peña relates to fiber-optic lighting for aircraft. (de la Peña col. 2, ll. 28-29.) The fiber-optic lighting of de la Peña comprises a centralized light source and a fiber-optic bundle. (de la Peña col. 3, ll. 34.) The fiber- optic bundle includes a plurality of fiber-optic sub-bundles diverging therefrom, which extend through-out the interior of the aircraft to desired output locations. (de la Peña col. 3, ll. 44-47.) The individual optical fibers of the fiber-optic bundle consist of silicon-based material such as glass, for optical efficiency and temperature compatibility. (de la Peña col. 3, ll. 56- 59.) Ansems relates to a light generator for introducing light into an optical fiber bundle. (Ansems col. 2, ll. 58-59.) The fiber bundle of Ansems includes fibers made from PMMA (polymethacrylate), which are surrounded by a sheath made from a mixture of glass fiber and silicone. (Ansems col. 3, ll. 46-50.) Ziadi relates to a fiber-optic lighting system to light the cabin interior of a commercial passenger aircraft by transmitting light from a remote light source to individual light fixtures throughout the aircraft. (Ziadi col. 1, ll. 5- 10.) Appellant argues that Ansems does not teach “anything about their sheath other than it surrounds a glass fiber bundle . . . .” (Br. 10.) However, the Examiner found that Ansems teaches the claimed sheath by describing that Ansems fiber bundle is made of fibers, “which are surrounded by a sheath made from a mixture of glass fiber and silicone.” (Ans. 13 (citing Ansems col. 3, ll. 50-51).) To the extent that Appellant argues that the Appeal 2011-000192 Application 11/649,084 5 claimed glass fabric of the protective sheath would be a fabric not including silicone (Ans. 10), Appellant’s argument is not commensurate with the scope of the claims. Appellant’s Specification describes that the glass fabric of the sheath comprises materials other than glass, “it is possible for the glass-fiber bundle to have a protective sheath of glass fabric, preferably made of glass/silk mesh.” (Spec. p. 7, ll. 23-25.) The USPTO gives claims their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Thus, Ansems sheath made of glass fiber and silicone teaches the claimed protective sheath made of a glass fabric. Appellant also argues one of ordinary skill in the art would not have obtained a suggestion to combine the teachings in the cited references in a manner defined by claim 1 because such a combination would have resulted in a configuration that injects toxic smoke in a cabin of an aircraft in the event of a cabin fire. (Br. 7.) Appellant argues that it is well known that in the event of a cabin fire toxic hydrocarbons would be released by the silicone of Ansems’ sheath. (Br. 9.) However, Appellant does not provide objective evidence, but instead relies on attorney argument. (Br. 7-9.) Arguments of counsel cannot take the place of factually supported objective evidence. See, e.g., In re Huang, 100 F.3d 135, 139-140 (Fed. Cir. 1996). Appellant further argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to combine Ansems building lighting system with de la Peña’s exterior lighting system and Ziadi’s interior lighting system. However, we find that modifying Ansems’s disclosure of light generator for introducing light into an optical fiber bundle, which is surrounded by a sheath made from a glass fiber mixture with de la Peña description of fiber- Appeal 2011-000192 Application 11/649,084 6 optic lighting for aircraft and Ziadi’s disclosure of fiber-optic lighting for an aircraft cabin is no more than a predictable use of familiar prior art elements according to their established functions, therefore rendering the recited invention obvious. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007). Furthermore, the Examiner has articulated reasoning with a rational underpinning to combine Ansems, de la Peña, and Ziadi (Ans. 5, 14-16.) Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a). Claims 2-9 and 11-13 depend from claim 1, and Appellant has not presented substantive arguments with respect to these claims (Br. 7- 10). Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 2-9 and 11-13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) for the same reasons discussed supra with respect to claim 1. §103 Rejection — de la Peña, Ansems, Ziadi and Van Iderstine Claim 14 Claim 14 depends from claim 1, and Appellant has not presented substantive arguments with respect to this claim (Br. 11). Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) for the same reasons discussed supra with respect to claim 1. §103 Rejection — de la Peña and Ziadi Claims 15 – 16 Appellant nominally argues claim 15 separately by relying on one of the same arguments presented for claim 1. (Br. 11-12.) For the reasons discussed supra with respect to claim 1, we are not persuaded by this argument. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a). Claim 16 depends from claim 15, and Appellant Appeal 2011-000192 Application 11/649,084 7 has not presented substantive arguments with respect to this claim (Br. 11- 12). Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for the same reasons discussed supra with respect to claim 1. §103 Rejection — de la Peña, Ziadi, and Krupa Claim 17 Appellant nominally argues that claim 17 is not obvious in view of de la Peña, Ziadi, and Krupa because Krupa teaches using an LED as a light source in a medical or industrial endoscope, not in a lighting system in an aircraft cabin. (App. Br. 12.) We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments because modifying de la Peña’s and Ziadi’s disclosure of fiber- optic lighting for aircraft with Krupa’s disclosure of an LED light is no more than a predictable use of familiar prior art elements according to their established functions, therefore rendering the recited invention obvious. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417. Furthermore, the Examiner has articulated reasoning with a rational underpinning to combine de la Peña, Ziadi, and Krupa (Ans. 12-13, 16-17.) Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a). DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-9 and 11-17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a). No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED Appeal 2011-000192 Application 11/649,084 8 msc