Ex Parte Schubert

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 21, 2012

11587409 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 21, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
________________

Ex parte JAN-GRIGOR SCHUBERT
________________

Appeal 2010-004772
Application 11/587,409
Technology Center 2800
________________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, ROBERT E. NAPPI, and
JASON V. MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-004772
Application 11/587,409

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 10 – 20, 23, 31, and 32. The Examiner finds that claims
21 and 22 are directed to allowable subject matter. App. Br. 3; see also Fin.
Rej. 10. Claims 1 – 9 and 24 – 30 are canceled. App. Br. 3. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b)(1).
We affirm.
Invention
The invention is directed to a household appliance comprising a body
and a door which surround an interior, and a light source for illuminating the
interior. See Abstract. The household appliance includes a light source and a
light sensor, id., where the light sensor is connected to a light guide, see
Spec. ¶ [0020] and Fig. 1.
Exemplary Claims (Emphases Added)
10. A cupboard- or chest-like household appliance comprising:
a body enclosing an interior compartment, the body
having an access opening and a back wall opposite the access
opening;
a door being movable between open and closed states
with respect to the body for providing access to the interior
compartment through the access opening;
a light source for illuminating the interior compartment;
and
a door opening sensor detecting the open or closed state
of the door and adjusting the operating state of the light source
based on the detected state of the door;
Appeal 2010-004772
Application 11/587,409

3
wherein the door opening sensor includes a light sensor
being exposed to ambient light when the door is open and being
shielded from ambient light when the door is closed and a light
guide that guides light onto the light sensor, the light guide
being located closer to the access opening than the light source
as viewed in a direction from the back wall toward the access
opening.
13. A cupboard- or chest-like household appliance comprising:
a body enclosing an interior compartment;
a door being movable between open and closed states
with respect to the body for providing access to the interior
compartment;
a light source for illuminating the interior compartment,
the light source operable to emit light that illuminates a
substantial portion of the interior compartment; and
a door opening sensor detecting the open or closed state
of the door and adjusting the operating state of the light source
based on the detected state of the door;
wherein the door opening sensor includes a light sensor
being exposed to ambient light when the door is open and being
shielded from ambient light when the door is closed,
wherein the light sensor is shielded from the light of the
light source when the door is closed.
Rejections
The Examiner rejects claims 10 – 12, 141, 16, 17, 19, 20, 23, 31, and
32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mantle (US
6,102,548; Aug. 15, 2000) and Mitzel (US 6,402,338; June 11, 2002). Ans. 3
– 6, 8 – 11, 14, and 15.

1 The Examiner did not list claim 14 in the statement of rejection for this
rejection. Ans. 3. However, the Examiner listed claim 14 in the body of the
rejection. Ans. 5 – 6.
Appeal 2010-004772
Application 11/587,409

4
The Examiner rejects claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Mantle, Mitzel, and Liu (US 6,203,167 B1; Mar. 20,
2001). Ans. 6, 7, 11, and 12.
The Examiner rejects claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Mantle, Mitzel, and Choi (US 2004/0001334; Jan. 1,
2004). Ans. 7, 12, and 13.
The Examiner rejects claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Mantle, Mitzel, and Sejzer (US 5,243,504; Sept. 7, 1993).
Ans. 13.
ISSUES
1. Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Mantle and
Mitzel teaches or suggests “a light guide that guides light onto the light
sensor, the light guide being located closer to the access opening than the
light source as viewed in a direction from the back wall toward the access
opening,” as recited in claim 10?
2. Did the Examiner err in finding that Liu teaches or suggests
“wherein the light sensor is shielded from the light of the light source [for
illuminating the interior compartment] when the door is closed,” as recited
in claim 13?
ANALYSIS
We only consider those arguments that Appellant actually raise in the
Briefs. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2009). Arguments in the Reply
Brief that could have been presented in the Appeal Brief to rebut rejections
made in the Final Office Action are waived and are not considered. Ex parte
Borden, 93 USPQ2d 1473, 1474 (BPAI 2010) (informative decision) (“[T]he
Appeal 2010-004772
Application 11/587,409

5
reply brief [is not] an opportunity to make arguments that could have been
made in the principal brief on appeal to rebut the Examiner’s rejections, but
were not.”).
Claim 10
Claim 10 recites a door opening sensor that includes a light sensor and
“a light guide that guides light onto the light sensor.” The Examiner finds
that Mantle, which is directed to a mailbox lighting system, teaches or
suggests a light sensor, but lacks the teaching of a light guide. See Ans. 4.
The Examiner relies on Mitzel, which is directed to an enclosure
illumination system, to teach or suggest a light guide. See id. (citing col. 7,
ll. 54 – 67). Specifically, the Examiner finds that Mitzel’s lens 62 guides
light onto a sensor and therefore teaches or suggests a light guide. See Ans.
16.
Appellant contends that the Examiner erred, arguing that Mitzel’s lens
62 acts to diffuse light generated by LEDs (light-emitting diodes) 54 rather
than guide light to a light sensor. See Ans. 10. Appellant submits that an
opening in lens 62 merely allows a sensor to be unobstructed by lens 62.
However, Mitzel teaches that in one embodiment, instead of having an
opening in lens 62 to allow light to reach a sensor, lens 62 can be shaped to
provide a lens effect to focus a sensor’s viewing range. See Mitzel col. 7, ll.
62 – 64. That is, Mitzel teaches having lens 62 simultaneously diffuse light
from LEDs 54 and focus light onto a sensor. Focusing a sensor’s viewing
range falls within a broad, but reasonable, interpretation of guiding light to a
sensor. Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of
Mantle and Mitzel teaches or suggests a light guide (a lens) that guides light
onto the light sensor (that focuses the viewing range of a light sensor).
Appeal 2010-004772
Application 11/587,409

6
Claim 10 further recites “the light guide being located closer to the
access opening than the light source as viewed in a direction from the back
wall toward the access opening.” Appellant argues that placing Mitzel’s lens
62 over Mantle’s light source 58 would lead to the lens 62 and the light
source appearing to be at the same distance from the access opening. See
App. Br. 16; Reply Br. 15. However, Appellant’s argument is not
commensurate with the scope of claim 10, which does not have any
recitations directed to whether the light guide appears to be closer to the
access opening than the light source. Instead, claim 10 recites the light guide
being located closer to the access opening than the light source. In the
configuration identified by Appellant, where Mitzel’s lens 62 is placed over
Mantle’s light source 58, the light guide (the portion of lens 62 focusing
light onto the light sensor) would be located closer to the access opening
than Mantle’s light source 58, regardless of the outward appearance. Such a
configuration would be similar to Mitzel’s placement of lens 62 to cover and
diffuse the light from LEDs 54, where lens 62 is in front of LEDs 54. See
Mitzel Figs. 5 and 6. Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that the
combination of Mitzel and Mantle teaches or suggests “the light guide being
located closer to the access opening than the light source as viewed in a
direction from the back wall toward the access opening,” as recited in claim
10.
Appellant also contends that the Examiner erred in concluding that it
would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill to combine the
teachings and suggestions of Mitzel and Mantle because “it is entirely
unclear how replacing the light housing 54 of the Mantle et al reference with
the lens 62 of the Mitzel et al reference would alter the operation of the
Appeal 2010-004772
Application 11/587,409

7
Mantle et al reference or provide any benefit.” App. Br. 12. However, the
Examiner finds that an artisan of ordinary skill would appreciate that using
Mitzel’s light guide in Mantle’s device would enable tailoring the focus of
Mantle’s sensor viewing range for enclosures of varying dimensions. See
Ans. 4, 16, and 17; see also Mitzel col. 7, ll. 62 – 65. Appellant does not
provide arguments or evidence that persuasively show error in this
articulated reasoning, which has a rational underpinning. Therefore, we
agree with the Examiner that it would have been obvious to an artisan of
ordinary skill to combine the teachings and suggestions of Mitzel and
Mantle.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection
of claim 10. We also sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
claims 11, 12, 14, 16, 17, 19, 20, 23, 31, and 32, which are not argued
separately. See App. Br. 9 – 13.
Appellant’s arguments with respect to claims 15 and 18 are similar to
the arguments Appellant makes with respect to claim 10. See App Br. 15 –
17. Accordingly, for the reasons discussed supra, we also sustain the
Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of claims 15 and 18.
Claim 13
Claim 13 recites “a light source for illuminating the interior
compartment” and a door opening sensor that includes a light sensor,
“wherein the light sensor is shielded from the light of the light source when
the door is closed.” The Examiner relies on Liu, which is directed to a
drawer light fixture, to teach or suggest a light unit with a photo sensor that
is shielded from the light of the light unit’s light source. See Ans. 6 (citing
Liu Fig.2 and col. 3, ll. 54 – 59).
Appeal 2010-004772
Application 11/587,409

8
Appellant argues that Liu does not teach or suggest the claimed
shielding because Liu “merely states that ‘very little light’ falls on the
photoconductor 65 when the drawer 12 is closed.” App. Br. 14; see also
Reply Br. 23 – 25. However, the Examiner correctly finds that Liu illustrates
a device having a photoconductor 65 situated on one end, a light source 27
on the other end, and opaque material between the two ends shielding the
photoconductor 65 from the light source 27. See Ans. 17; see also Liu Fig. 2.
Moreover, the fact that Liu also teaches that very little light falls on the
photoconductor 65 provides additional evidence that the photoconductor 65
is shielded from (i.e., protected from full exposure to) the light source. See
Liu col. 4, ll. 24 – 26. Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that Liu
teaches or suggests “wherein the light sensor is shielded from the light of the
light source [for illuminating the interior compartment] when the door is
closed.”
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection
of claim 13.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 10 – 20, 23, 31, and 32 is
affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

msc