Ex Parte Sanders

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 31, 2017

12790521 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 31, 2017)

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.
12/790,521 05/28/2010 Gerald R. Sanders L1097.10001US02 1753
97149 7590
Maschoff Brennan
1389 Center Drive, Suite 300
Park City, UT 84098
EXAMINER
JUNGE, KRISTINA N S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3638
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/04/2017 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
docket @ mabr. com
info@mabr.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GERALD R. SANDERS
Appeal 2015-004532
Application 12/790,521
Technology Center 3600
Before CHARLES N. GREENHUT, JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, and
PAUL J. KORNICZKY, Administrative Patent Judges.
Opinion for the Board filed by Administrative Patent Judge PAUL J.
KORNICZKY.
Opinion Dissenting filed by Administrative Patent Judge JEFFREY A.
STEPHENS.
KORNICZKY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant, Gerald R. Sanders,1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from
the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 4, 6—10, 12—23, and 28.2 We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Appellants identify Lightheaded Ventures, LLC as the real party in
interest. Appeal Br. 4.
2 Claims 2, 3, 5, 11, and 24—27 are cancelled. Id.
Appeal 2015-004532
Application 12/790,521
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to systems and methods for displaying
illuminated images. Claims 1, 8, and 19 are the independent claims.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A headboard to display and illuminate an image, the
headboard comprising:
an aperture located at a front of the headboard;
an opening located at a top of the headboard;
a track system comprising a first track, a second track, and
a third track;
an image imprinted on a graphic panel, the graphic panel
slidingly received within the second track via the opening, the
graphic panel removable from the headboard via the opening;
a protective cover configured to be received within the
first track, the protective cover configured to substantially cover
the aperture and the image while the image is at least partially
received within the second track; and
a light panel including an edge-lit panel and a plurality of
light emitting diodes, the light panel configured to be slidingly
received within the third track via the opening and positioned
behind the graphic panel, the light panel removable from the
headboard via the opening such that the edge-lit panel and the
plurality of light emitting diodes are together removed from the
headboard via the opening as the light panel is removed from the
headboard, the plurality of light emitting diodes of the light panel
providing a sole source of illumination to the image from behind
the graphic panel;
wherein the track system is positioned with respect to the
aperture such that the image is at least partially visible through
the aperture while the image is at least partially received within
the second track.
2
Appeal 2015-004532
Application 12/790,521
REFERENCES
In rejecting the claims on appeal, the Examiner relied upon the
following prior art:
Paul US 6,658,677 B2 Dec. 9, 2003
Carlson US 2004/0074129 A1 Apr. 22, 2004
Kim US 2006/0150463 A1 July 13, 2006
Kimmet US 7,186,015 B2 Mar. 6, 2007
Kirschner US 7,679,888 B2 Mar. 16,2010
Choi WO 2008/032968 A1 Mar. 20, 2008
REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
1. Claims 1, 6, 7, and 19—21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Paul, Choi, and Kimmet.
2. Claims 4 and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Paul, Choi, Kimmet, and Carlson.
3. Claims 8, 9, 13, and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Paul and Kimmet.
4. Claims 10 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Paul, Choi, and Kimmet.
5. Claim 15 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Paul, Kimmet, and Kirschner.
6. Claims 16 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Paul, Kimmet, and Carlson.
7. Claim 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Paul, Kimmet, and Kim.
8. Claims 23 and 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Paul, Choi, Kimmet, Carlson, and Kirschner.
3
Appeal 2015-004532
Application 12/790,521
Appellants seek our review of these rejections.
ANALYSIS
The three independent claims 1, 8, and 19 all require “a light panel
including an edge-lit panel and a plurality of light emitting diodes.” Appeal
Br. 24 (claim 1), 25 (claim 8), 27 (claim 19).
The Examiner finds that Kimmet discloses “a display system with a
light panel (Figure 1, #106) including an edge-lit panel and a plurality of
light emitting diodes (Figure 1, #126a-d).” Non-Final Act. 4. According to
the Examiner, the broadest reasonable interpretation of edge-lit panels
means “FEDs are positioned around the perimeter or edges of a light panel,
and direct light inward from the edges or perimeter of the display.” Ans. 3.
In response to the Examiner’s rejection, Appellant contends that
Kimmet discloses a back-lit panel, not an edge-lit panel. See Reply Br. 4—
11. Appellant is correct. According to the Specification, in edge-lit panels,
“the light source is disposed along one or more edges of the light box” 100,
and, in back-lit panels, “the light source is disposed behind the image.”
Spec. 116; Reply Br. 5. Appellant identifies several prior art patents that
differentiate between (1) edge-lit panels with the light source disposed along
the outer edges of a panel, a plate, or a frame holding a panel or plate (see,
e.g., US 4,974,354 (hereinafter “Hembrook”), US 2002/0007576 (hereinafter
“Gai”), US 2010/0011638 (hereinafter “Choi”)) and (2) back-lit panels with
the light source disposed on the back of panels or plates, inboard from the
outer edges of the panels/plates (see Carlson and Kimmet). We agree with
Appellant that, according to paragraph 16 of the Specification and the
weight of the evidence before us, an edge-lit panel requires that the light
4
Appeal 2015-004532
Application 12/790,521
source is disposed along one or more outer edges of the panel, not inboard
from the edges. Because Kimmet discloses that the lights 126A—D are
disposed on the surface inboard from the panel edges (e.g., 114 inches
inboard from the panel edge (see Kimmet 6:45—46, Fig. 4; Reply Br. 10)),
Kimmet’s plate 106 cannot reasonably be considered an edge-lit panel as
required by the independent claims. We also note that Kimmet’s title is
“Backlight Display System.” “Prior art references may be ‘indicative of
what all those skilled in the art generally believe a certain term means . . .
[and] can often help to demonstrate how a disputed term is used by those
skilled in the art.’ Accordingly, the PTO’s interpretation of claim terms
should not be so broad that it conflicts with the meaning given to identical
terms in other patents from analogous art.” In re Cortright, 165 F.3d 1353,
1358 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (citations omitted). Paul and Choi do not remedy the
deficiencies of Kimmet.
Thus, the rejections of independent claims 1, 8, and 19, and their
dependent claims 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12—18, 20-23, and 28, are not sustained.
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 4, 6—10,
12-23, and 28 are REVERSED.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
REVERSED
5
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GERALD R. SANDERS
Appeal 2015-004532
Application 12/790,521
Technology Center 3600
Before CHARLES N. GREENHUT, JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, and
PAUL J. KORNICZKY, Administrative Patent Judges.
STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge, dissenting.
I respectfully dissent from the decision of the majority to reverse the
rejections of the pending claims. I agree with the Examiner that Kimmet
teaches an “edge-lit panel” under the broadest reasonable interpretation of
that phrase that is consistent with the Specification.
Paragraph 16 of Appellant’s Specification provides:
In various embodiments, light box 100 may be edge lit or back
lit. In edge lit embodiments the light source is disposed along
one or more edges of the light box. In back lit embodiments, the
light source is disposed behind the image. Various techniques
may be employed to evenly illuminate the image, both in
embodiments that are edge lit and in embodiments that are back
lit.
Paragraph 16 describes the “light box 100” as being edge lit or back lit, and
states that in “edge lit embodiments the light source is disposed along one or
more edges of the light box” (emphasis added), but also makes clear that a
Appeal 2015-004532
Application 12/790,521
light box is back lit when “the light source is disposed behind the image”
(emphasis added). In Figure 1 of the Specification, which depicts light box
100, the edges of the light box extend past the edges of the image to form a
border around the image. Given the distinction described between disposing
the light source “along one or more edges of the light box” versus “behind
the image,” one of ordinary skill in the art would understand from paragraph
16 of the Specification that the terms “edge lit” and “back lit” are used to
specify where the light source is placed in relation to the four comers of the
image at the front of the light box. For example, a “back lit” light box may
have an array of LEDs evenly spaced behind the full area of the image,
rather than simply along one or more edges. One of ordinary skill would
further understand from the Specification that, in either case, light will
illuminate the image from behind, and the image will be “backlit” in that
sense of the word. Figure 4 of the Specification, which is reproduced below,
supports this understanding.
2
Appeal 2015-004532
Application 12/790,521
FIG, 4
400
Figure 4 of the Specification “illustrates a partially exploded view of a light
box incorporating a track system utilized in displaying illuminated images.”
Spec. para. 6.
Light panel 330 shown in Figure 4 “is an edge-lit panel that is inserted
into track 324.” Spec. para. 19. “[G]raphic panel 340 includes an image,
and may be inserted into track 326,” which “is disposed in front of light
panel 330 for illumination.” Id. Thus, the Specification teaches that light
will illuminate the image from behind, even when the light panel is “edge
lit.”3
3 The Specification does not describe the “[v]arious techniques [that]
may be employed to evenly illuminate the image, both in embodiments that
3
Appeal 2015-004532
Application 12/790,521
Kimmet uses the term “backlight” to describe illumination of an
image from behind, not to specify whether the lights are placed only along
the edges of the image or also closer to the center behind the image. As to
placement of the light source, Kimmet’s Figure 1, which is reproduced
below, shows light emitting devices 126A, 126B, 126C, and 126D are
placed at the four comers of the image near the edges of glass panel 106.
are edge lit and in embodiments that are back lit” (Spec. para. 16),
presumably because such techniques are well known. Light panel 330 may
have a reflective surface in the back and a diffusive surface in the front to
evenly distribute the light. Using these techniques, light panel 330 would
illuminate graphic panel 340 from behind in a similar way whether LEDs are
mounted only along the edges or also closer to the center of the light panel.
4
Appeal 2015-004532
Application 12/790,521
Figure 1 is an exploded view of Kimmet’s backlight image system 10.
Kimmet col. 2,11. 49—50.
Kimmet teaches “the light emitting devices 126 are positioned in the
comers of the glass plate 106 with the light emitting portion 202 aimed
toward the center of the glass plate [106] with the radiating axis of the light
being parallel to the glass plate 106.” Kimmet col. 4,11. 39-43. In teaching
lighting devices placed at the four comers of the glass plate, Kimmet teaches
an “edge lit” panel within the meaning used in Appellant’s Specification.
Kimmet further teaches that an opaque border on glass plate 106 may
be used to hide traces 128 and other electrical components from view from
the front of glass plate 106. Kimmet col. 6,11. 35—38. Placing Kimmet’s
LEDs at the inner edge of a one-and-one-half inch border (see Kimmet col.
6,11. 45^46) around glass plate 106 does not make the panel “back lit,” as
opposed to “edge lit.” As shown in Kimmet’s Figure 1, the image also has a
border, so the light source is not “disposed behind the image” (Spec. para.
16) such that the light box would be considered “back lit” within the
meaning of Appellant’s paragraph 16.4 To find that Kimmet’s panel is also
not “edge lit” because the LEDs do not abut the outer edge of glass plate 106
allows for a lighting configuration between “edge lit” and “back lit” that is
not contemplated by the description in paragraph 16 of Appellant’s
Specification. At the very least, it is not unreasonable to constme claim 1 ’s
4 As noted above, Figure 1 of Appellant’s Specification also shows a
frame surrounding the image. Appellant’s drawings and written description
do not provide dimensions or show precise placement of the light source(s)
for the edge lit embodiment, but the LEDs are presumably at least contained
within the edges of light box 100 and not intended to be mounted outside the
outer edge.
5
Appeal 2015-004532
Application 12/790,521
“edge lit panel” to encompass a panel with lighting devices near the edges of
the panel that are also at the border of the image in front of the panel.
Because Kimmet’s light devices are not “behind the image” and are disposed
near the edges of Kimmet’s glass plate 106,1 agree with the Examiner that
Kimmet teaches an “edge lit panel” under the broadest reasonable
interpretation of that phrase consistent with the Specification. Ans. 3.
To the extent the majority finds Kimmet does not teach an “edge lit
panel” because Kimmet’s light emitting devices are “behind” glass plate 106
(in the z-axis direction, where the image surface defines an x-y plane), I
disagree for two reasons. First, this finding is based on a narrower
construction of “edge lit panel” than is justified by the Specification, as
discussed above. Second, were such a construction proper, Kimmet’s light
“panel” should also be understood to include back board 108, which has
reflector 132 formed on it “to match the opening bounded by the light
emitting devices 126 on the glass plate 106.” Kimmet col. 3,11. 20—22.
Kimmet’s light emitting devices are disposed between these two layers (106
and 108), and thus are not “behind” the light panel but shine into its edge
under such a construction. See Kimmet col. 3,11. 16-43, col. 4,11. 39—43.
For the foregoing reasons, Appellant’s argument that Kimmet does
not teach an “edge lit panel” is not persuasive5 of error in the Examiner’s
5 The word “persuasive” is not meant to suggest Appellant bears the
ultimate burden of proving patentability. “After evidence or argument is
submitted by the applicant in response [to a prima facie case of
unpatentability], patentability is determined on the totality of the record, by a
preponderance of evidence with due consideration to persuasiveness of
argument.” In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (emphasis
added); see also id. at 1445—46 (“The Board explained why it was
unpersuaded by [Appellant’s] arguments on appeal. We discern no
6
Appeal 2015-004532
Application 12/790,521
rejection of claim 1. Appellant’s additional arguments relating to claim 1
and the remaining claims are similarly not persuasive of error. Accordingly,
I would affirm the Examiner’s rejections.
irregularity in the procedure.”). My conclusion “was reached after careful
consideration of the appealed claims, the evidence of obviousness relied
upon by the examiner and the arguments advanced by the appellant and the
examiner.” Id. at 1445 (internal quotation omitted).
7