Appeal 2007-3322
Application 09/947,094
may be altered slightly relative to that of the other LEDs without causing a
functional impact. A slight alteration in the emission angle from one LED
has no significance. No teaching from the prior art is required for one with
ordinary skill to make inane changes in a known structure. A person of
ordinary skill in the art is a person of ordinary creativity, and is not an
automaton. KSR International Co., 127 S. Ct. at 1742, 82 USPQ2d at 1397.
One with ordinary skill is presumed to possess some skills apart from what
prior art references disclose. See In re Sovish, 769 F.2d at 743, 226 USPQ at
774.
Claim 31 is different from all the rest of the claims on appeal.
According to claim 31, a string of LEDs including a sampling LED are
mounted on one side of a supporting structure and a sensor detecting light
from the sampling LED is disposed on a second side of the structure. The
Examiner characterized the recited configuration as involving a mere change
in component position without any functional significance. That is
incorrect.
It is manifestly evident from the specification that the opposing
disposition of the sampling LED and the corresponding light sensor provides
the advantage of not having the sensor obstruct light intended for the target
of illumination and obviates the need to place the sensor in a lateral side
panel. The opposing location of the sampling LED and the light sensor is
not without functional and operational significance. There is no support for
the Examiner’s finding that one with ordinary skill in the art would have
expected the Rand and the Hochstein systems to perform equally well as the
Applicants’ claimed invention. The Examiner’s reliance on In re Japikse,
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013