Citation Codes Equivalent Citations citation codes Docket Number 14570670 - (D) See more information ... Smart Summary Please sign up to generate summary. Carsten Kohlmeier-Beckmann et al. Carsten Kohlmeier-Beckmann et al. Patent Trials and Appeals Board Sep 4, 2019 14570670 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 4, 2019) Copy Citation 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. 14/570,670 12/15/2014 Carsten KOHLMEIER-BECKMANN 052204-23127 1918 79297 7590 09/04/2019 James Edward Ledbetter Dickinson Wright PLLC 1825 Eye Street, N.W., Suite 900 Washington, DC 20006 EXAMINER TANG, SON M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2685 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/04/2019 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): JLedbetter@dickinsonwright.com dwpatents@dickinsonwright.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte CARSTEN KOHLMEIER-BECKMANN, ANJA NIEMEYER, AND FRED RASZPIR Appeal 2018-002692 Application 14/570,670 Technology Center 2600 Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JAMES R. HUGHES, AND ERIC S. FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judges. DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellants,1 AIRBUS OPERATIONS GMBH, appeal from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–12, which constitute all the claims pending in this application. Final Act. 1. An oral hearing was held on August 21, 2019. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). 1 We use the word “Appellants” to refer to “Applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellants identify the real party in interest as Airbus Operations GMBH. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2018-002692 Application 14/570,670 2 We affirm. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to a system for evacuating persons from a vehicle provide emergency devices that indicate escape routes to the persons in the vehicle. These escape routes are ideally characterized by a high flow rate, at which the persons are evacuated via the escape route. (Spec. 1.) Claims 1 and 3, reproduced below, are illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A system for evacuating persons in a vehicle, comprising an emergency chute and a light signal generator structured to emit at least one visual light signal that indicates at least one preset escape route for at least one person to be evacuated, wherein the light signal generator is structured to display a first light signal that marks a region extending over a surface beyond a bottom end of the emergency chute in a direction leading away from the emergency chute, wherein the emergency chute comprises at least one slideway pointing in a direction of a first escape route, and wherein the direction leading away from the emergency chute is substantially counter to the direction of the first escape route. 3. A system for evacuating persons in a vehicle, comprising a light signal generator structured to emit at least one visual light signal that indicates at least one preset escape route for at least one person to be evacuated, wherein the light signal generator is disposed on a dividing device, which is structured to divide an emergency chute into a first slideway and a second slideway and to extend substantially over the length of the emergency chute; Appeal 2018-002692 Application 14/570,670 3 wherein the dividing device comprises a diffusely reflecting coating and wherein the light signal generating device is structured to emit a light signal in the region of the dividing device such that the diffusely reflecting coating is illuminated.2 REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Day US 3,463,915 Aug. 26, 1969 Takahashi et al. US 5,335,180 Aug. 2, 1994 Sweeney US 5,572,183 Nov. 5, 1996 Lehman et al US 6,150,943 Nov. 21, 2000 Tassey et al US 6,237,266 B1 May 29, 2001 Zonneveld US 6,966,414 B2 Nov. 22, 2005 Franco-Vila et al. US 7,018,079 B1 Mar. 28, 2006 Hutchison et al. US 7,800,511 B1 Sept. 21, 2010 REJECTIONS Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, and 9–11 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Zonneveld in view of Lehman. 2 We note that in the language of independent claim 3 “the light signal generating device” and “structured to emit a light signal in the region of the dividing device” do not have proper antecedent bases. The Examiner should further consider whether the “light signal” is the same or different from the “at least one visual light signal” previously recited. We leave it to the Examiner to further evaluate the claim language in any further prosecution on the merits. Appeal 2018-002692 Application 14/570,670 4 Claim 6 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Zonneveld in view of Lehman, and further in view of Day. Claim 12 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Zonneveld in view of Lehman and further in view of Sweeney. Claim 8 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Zonneveld in view of Lehman, and further in view of Hutchison and Takahashi. Claim 3 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Zonneveld in view of Franco-Vila and further in view of Tassey. OPINION With respect to the interpretation of the claimed inventions, we look to Appellants’ Summary of the Claimed Subject Matter in the Appeal Brief for guidance. With respect to independent claim 1, Appellants indicated that As best illustrated in application Figs. l and 2 described at specification page 14, line 19 et seq., independent claim l is directed to a system l0 for evacuating persons in a vehicle, comprising an emergency chute 14 and a light signal generator 16 structured to emit at least one visual light signal that indicates at least one preset escape route 18, 20 for at least one person to be evacuated. (App. Br. 1.) We note that element 16 in Figures 1 and 2 essentially points to the totality of the system inside and outside the vehicle without any indication thereto. With this as a guidepost to interpreting the breath of independent claim 1, we evaluate the Examiner’s factual findings and Appeal 2018-002692 Application 14/570,670 5 conclusion of obviousness. Moreover, we note that the light signal generating device at 16 generates light signals 46 and 48 on the vehicle floor indicating the escape routes 18 and 20 before the chute and light signals at the bottom of the chute 80A–80C and 82A–82C. When we further interpret the language of independent claim 1 in combination with further dependent claims, it is evident that independent claim 1 is directed to more than a single embodiment. We note that dependent claim 9 states: wherein the light signal generator is structured to display the first light signal [referred to in claim 1 as “a first light signal that marks a region extending over a surface beyond a bottom end of the emergency chute”] further in a region of a lintel and/or a sill of an evacuation door, through which the first escape route leads, wherein the first light signal indicates a first direction that is adjusted to the direction of the course of the first escape route. Independent claim 1 requires the first light signal “to display a first light signal that marks a region extending over a surface beyond a bottom end of the emergency chute in a direction leading away from the emergency chute,” but the first light signal further is required to be on the inside the vehicle at the “floor region of a lintel and/or a sill of an evacuation door.” The claim merely sets forth a single light signal and not an electrical signal that generates the light. Moreover, the first light signal cannot necessarily be in two physical locations. We limit our consideration to independent claims 1 and 3 and leave it to the Examiner to further consider the scope of the claims in any further prosecution on the merits. It is also apparent that Appellants attempt to read limitations into the broad claim language of independent claim 1 from the Specification, but Appeal 2018-002692 Application 14/570,670 6 Appellants do not specifically identify any of the numerous variations of the disclosed implementations of the disclosed invention. With respect to independent claim 3, Appellants identified only page 21, line 9, et. seq., and page 21, line 17 to correspond to the claimed invention. As best illustrated in application Figs. 1, 3 and described at specification page 21, line 9 et seq., independent claim 3 is directed to a system 10 for evacuating persons in a vehicle, comprising a light signal generator 16, 62 structured to emit at least one visual light signal that indicates at least one preset escape route for at least one person to be evacuated, wherein the light signal generator 16 is disposed on a dividing device 66. (App. Br. 1–2.) Claim 1 With respect to claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, and 9–11, Appellants argue the claims together. Therefore we select independent claim 1 as the representative claim for the group and address Appellants’ arguments thereto. See 37 CFR 41.37 (c)(1)(iv). In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, it is incumbent upon the Examiner to establish a factual basis to support the legal conclusion of obviousness. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 1988). In so doing, the Examiner must make the factual determinations set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17 (1966). “[T]he Examiner bears the initial burden, on review of the prior art or on any other ground, of presenting a prima facie case of unpatentability.” In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Furthermore, “‘there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of Appeal 2018-002692 Application 14/570,670 7 obviousness’ . . . [H]owever, the analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1741 (2007)(quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). Appellants contend that the proffered combination of the Zonneveld and Lehman references does not teach or suggest the claimed “wherein the light signal generator is structured to display a first light signal that marks a region extending over a surface beyond a bottom end of the emergency chute in a direction leading away from the emergency chute,” and “wherein the direction leading away from the emergency chute is substantially counter to the direction of the first escape route.” (App. Br. 6.) We find the Examiner has applied the Zonneveld and Lehman references as a combination which would teach or suggest the claimed invention. The Examiner relies upon the Zonneveld reference to teach and suggest a system containing a chute and light signal generator structure to emit visual signals that indicate at least one preset escape route for at least one per season to be evacuated from a vehicle where the route in Zonneveld is down the chute. (Final Act. 2–3.) The Examiner has further framed the obviousness determination relying upon the design of the Zonneveld reference to teach the emergency evacuation chute which is illuminated, but the Zonneveld reference does not explicitly show a first light signal that marks a region extending over a surface beyond a bottom end of the emergency chute in a direction leading away from the emergency chute is substantially counter to the direction of the first escape route. (Final Act. 2.) Appeal 2018-002692 Application 14/570,670 8 The Examiner relied upon the Lehman reference which discloses a system for evacuating persons in using an escape route, comprising a light signal generating device (11), which is configured to emit a plurality of visual light signals (e.g., 201–203) that marks a direction leading away from danger along an escape route [see Figs. 1–2 and 9–11]. (Final Act. 3.) The Lehman reference further teaches in FIG. 11 a device 11 wall-mounted above a door 211 of a room 212 that is adjusted angularly so that the arrow indicators projected from the device 11 define a path extending obliquely across the floor of the room toward the door 211. (Final Act. 3.) Finally, the Examiner maintains: In the same field of evacuating art, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, to modify the light signal generating device (11) taught by Lehman to the light generator mounted on the stanchions at the bottom of the chute of Zonneveld, so that the light generator can be adjusted to any appropriate direction that leads to escape route, including the direction leading away from the emergency chute, which is substantially counter the first escape route. (Final Act. 3.) In the Examiner’s statement of the grounds of rejection, the Examiner modifies the stanchions of Zonneveld reference to include a light generation to any appropriate direction as taught and suggested by the Lehman reference for egress from a dangerous location. (Ans. 3.) We agree with the Examiner’s line of reasoning. “The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference . . . .” In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). Instead, the relevant issue is “what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.” Id. “Combining the teachings of references does not involve an ability to combine their specific Appeal 2018-002692 Application 14/570,670 9 structures.” In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 968 (CCPA 1973); see also In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“It is well-established that a determination of obviousness based on teachings from multiple references does not require an actual, physical substitution of elements.”). Accordingly, we are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument directed to the bodily incorporation of the references as opposed to the combination of teachings as proposed by the Examiner. We determine that Examiner’s finding provides a “rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006), cited with approval in KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). Accordingly, the Examiner made sufficient findings to combine the teachings of the Zonneveld and Lehman references. The U.S. Supreme Court has held “[t]he combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). “If the claim extends to what is obvious, it is invalid under § 103” and “the analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” Id. at 418–19. Contrary to Appellants’ argument, the Examiner has considered the claim as a whole, and provided articulated reasoning with a rational underpinning as to why one skilled in the art would have found it obvious to combine the teachings of the Zonneveld and Lehman references. Appellants do not persuasively show why such reasoning is incorrect. Appeal 2018-002692 Application 14/570,670 10 The Examiner’s findings and conclusion are reasonable because the skilled artisan would “be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle” since the skilled artisan is “a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 420–21. Appellants do not present adequate evidence that the resulting arrangements would have been “uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art” or “represented an unobvious step over the prior art.” Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 418–19). We find Appellant’s arguments are directed to the references individually and does not address the combination of teachings as proffered by the Examiner. Appellants argue that Zonneveld and Lehman teach at most illuminating a path leading up to the foot end of the emergency chute or up to an exit door. Neither reference teaches or suggests anything about directing the evacuee beyond the end of the chute or up to and the exit door. In other words, the instant claims are distinguished both by (l) the location where the light is projected i.e. ., the surface beyond the chute - and (2) the direction at which the signal is pointed - i.e. ., substantially counter to the direction of the first escape route. (App. Br. 7.) (Emphases omitted.) Appellants further contend that there is no teaching to illuminate the location extending past the chute, as claimed “wherein the light signal generator is structured to display a first light signal that marks a region extending over a surface beyond a bottom end of the emergency chute in a direction leading away from the emergency chute.” (App. Br. 8.) Appellants also contend that the claim sets forth “a solution for what to do after the egress is important and advantagous because the Appeal 2018-002692 Application 14/570,670 11 aircraft passengers need to be led away from the bottom of the chute so that they will avoid blocking later evacuees from exiting the chute.” (App. Br. 8.) We note that the language of independent claim 1 in the preamble merely recites “evacuating persons in a vehicle” in the preamble rather than egress from the bottom of a chute. Appellants’ argument fails because it is not commensurate with the scope of the claim. See In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982) (“[A]ppellant’s arguments fail from the outset because . . . they are not based on limitations appearing in the claims.”); In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (“[The] proffered facts . . . are not commensurate with the claim scope and are therefore unpersuasive.”). Appellants contend that in combining the teachings of the Lehman light generator into the last stanchion of Zonneveld: there is nevertheless no teaching of which way would to point Lehman’s apparatus. In fact, such modification of Zonneveld in view of Lehman would be useless because Lehman merely deals with directing an evacuee to the exit door or the end of the chute, but is silent as to directing an evacuee to anything beyond that point . . . the claimed direction may not be parallel to the first escape route as designated by the direction of the emergency chute. (App. Br. 9.) We find Appellants’ argument to be unavailing because there are only a limited number of basic directions (left, right, or straight) and any selected direction would direct evacuees away from the chute where a left or right would be a fastest choice to clear the bottom of the chute. Appellants further argue that Appellant’s claimed subject matter is concerned with preventing congestion after the evacuee has reached safety, Nothing in the prior art even hints at this problem much less solves it. The Appeal 2018-002692 Application 14/570,670 12 claimed location and direction of the light signal in claim l cannot reasonably be deemed obvious, given that there is no reason whatsoever presented in the prior art to dispose the light signal in the way recited in the Appellants[’] claims . . . The Examiner’s position is that, by Lehman applying to an outdoor environment or without a door, suddenly every possible configuration of the apparatus becomes obvious. (App. Br. 10.) We disagree with Appellants, as discussed above, and do not find the argument to be commensurate in scope with the claim language. The Examiner provides a line of reasoning for the combination and Appellants do not show error in the Examiner’s factual findings or conclusion of obviousness. Moreover, Appellants’ argument is that there is “no reason whatsoever presented in the prior art to dispose the light signal in the way recited in the Appellants[’] claims,” but the claim is directed to a system with a light generator, and Appellants proffer the intended use of the light signal on the surface differentiates the claimed system. We find Appellants’ argument unavailing. Regarding apparatus claims generally, our reviewing court guides the patentability of an apparatus claim “depends on the claimed structure, not on the use or purpose of that structure.” Catalina Marketing Int’l., Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 809 (Fed. Cir. 2002). “It is well settled that the recitation of a new intended use for an old product does not make a claim to that old product patentable.” In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (citations omitted). As addressed by the court in Paragon Solutions, LLC v. Timex Corp., 566 F.3d 1075, 1090 (2009), “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett–Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb, Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1468 (Fed.Cir.1990). Appeal 2018-002692 Application 14/570,670 13 . . . Absent an express limitation to the contrary, any use of a device that meets all of the limitations of an apparatus claim written in structural terms infringes that apparatus claim . . . see also Roberts v. Ryer, 91 U.S. 150, 157, 23 L.Ed. 267 (1875) (“The inventor of a machine is entitled to the benefit of all the uses to which it can be put, no matter whether he had conceived the idea of the use or not.”). Construing a non-functional term in an apparatus claim in a way that makes direct infringement turn on the use to which an accused apparatus is later put confuses rather than clarifies, frustrates the ability of both the patentee and potential infringers to ascertain the propriety of particular activities, and is inconsistent with the notice function central to the patent system. Id. at 1091. We further note that the Lehman reference discloses laser diode projectors 46–48 and the Zonneveld reference discloses the use of light emitting diodes. We recognize there is a difference between both lights and the means of generating the light between the Lehman and the Zonneveld reference, but the claim is directed to the light direction and the informational content conveyed rather than the specific generating circuitry for providing the light signal. We agree with the Examiner that the Lehman reference teaches and suggests using a light signal to convey a direction of movement to evacuee’s from one location to another location in an egress system. We find the Zonneveld reference discloses and suggests similarly conveying information to evacuee’s by illuminating the slide and arguably illuminating a portion of the surface beyond the slide due to the ultimate placement of the last stanchions with their lights. Appeal 2018-002692 Application 14/570,670 14 We find both applied references teach and suggest the use of light signals to convey an escape route information from a vehicle or location of danger to a safer location. Although both references disclose different environments and different methodologies, we agree with the Examiner that one of ordinary skill in the art would have readily appreciated the two methods and provided a combination as set forth by the Examiner in the grounds of the rejection. We further find that the Appellants’ general arguments address the totality of the claimed invention with respect to each of the separate references, and Appellants do not substantively address the Examiner’s proffered line of reasoning and combination for mounting the light generator of Lehman on the stanchion at the bottom of the chute of Zonneveld, so that the light generator can be adjusted to any appropriate direction that leads to an escape route, including the direction leading away from the emergency chute, which is substantially counter the first escape route. Therefore, we find Appellants’ arguments do not show error in the Examiner’s factual findings or conclusion of obviousness of independent claim 1, and we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of representative independent claim 1, and dependent claims 2 and 4–12 not separately argued. Claim 3 With respect to independent claim 3, we note that the Examiner relies upon a different combination of prior art references to teach and suggest the claimed limitations, namely, the combination of the Zonneveld, Franco-Vila and Tassey references. (Final Act. 7.) Appeal 2018-002692 Application 14/570,670 15 Appellants contend that: [n]owhere in the applied Zonneveld and Tassey references, considered alone or together, is there any teaching or suggestion of an emergency chute dividing device disclosed which also comprises a diffusely reflecting coating. Zonneveld merely discloses a dividing device 58, and Tassey merely teaches photo luminescent indicators 40 arranged along an escape route but not part of any divider. The applicants submit that it is new and unobvious to use a diffusely reflecting coating in conjunction with light signal generators disposed in situ on a dividing device itself. (App. Br. 11.) We find Appellants’ argument above to be a general argument for patentability and further does not address the Franco-Vila reference in the combination. Additionally, we note that the lights on the periphery of the chute in Franco-Vila contain lights at the toe end of the chute and “toe-end lights. Here, it can be seen that the assemblies provide light around the landing area of the slide” and “specialty configurations based upon specific end uses desired by the customer. This is significant, as different lighting patterns can be extremely important when placed about different positions of the slide or slide/raft unit, indicating appropriate directions, boundaries, and the like.” (See Ans. 8; citing Franco-Vila 7:10– 15, 30–34.) In the Reply Brief, Appellants present the similar arguments made in the Appeal Brief and further detail their arguments with respect to independent claim 3 regarding the divider.3 3 Although not applied in the rejection, we note that the Day reference from 1969 discloses a chemical light indicator for emergency light elimination which is similar to the Zonneveld reference and discloses “Preferably, the chute also includes a central divider tube 18 which is used in larger aircraft Appeal 2018-002692 Application 14/570,670 16 We further note that the Franco-Vila reference discloses that the LED lighting where “it is an object of the present invention to provide an aircraft evacuation slide illumination system that can be secured to any conventional evacuation slide.” (Franco-Vila 3:55–58). We note that Appellants provided no argument to the Franco-Vila reference in the principal Appeal Brief and contends in the Reply Brief that the Franco-Vila reference only provides lighting for the perimeter of the chute. (See generally Reply Br. 9.) Finally, Appellants contend that “the lighting apparatus is disclosed in Franco-Vila are intended to project light on to a different surface. They accordingly fail to read on the arrangement in claim 3, in which a light on a dividing device illuminates the reflecting coating, which is also on the dividing device.” (Reply Br. 9.) We disagree with Appellants and find that Examiner relied upon the Tassey reference for teaching and suggesting of the use of a reflective coating in an evacuation chute. Furthermore, the Franco-Vila reference teaches placing the LED lighting on the periphery as shown in the Figures 5A and 5B which is a single slide, but column 5 of the Franco-Vila reference further discloses the prior art previously provided inadequate illumination and, “the evacuation slide and the evacuation area may not be adequately illuminated, thereby compromising the safety of the aircraft evacuees.” (Franco-Vila 5:20–22). Although column 3, lines 21–24 of the Franco-Vila reference discloses “illumination assemblies described above disposed along the substantial outer edge of said slide,” the Franco-Vila reference further to convert the slide into a double escape chute and greatly increase the possible evacuation rate.” (Day 2: 55–58.) Appeal 2018-002692 Application 14/570,670 17 discloses that “an object of the present invention to provide an aircraft evacuation slide illumination system that can be secured to any conventional evacuation slide and does not include a plastic housing to cover the light source.” (Franco-Vila 3:56–58.) We find one such conventional evacuation slide to be the double slide as disclosed by the Zonneveld reference. With the specific teaching that the prior art lighting was insufficient for safety reasons, we agree with the Examiner’s line of reasoning in the combination that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have additionally included the LED lighting of the Franco-Vila reference on the divider of the Zonneveld reference in place of the lighting on the stanchions. With the reduced height of the lighting elements than on the stanchions, it would have been readily apparent to skilled artisans that additional light may be needed from the divider. As a result, we find Appellants’ arguments do not show error in the Examiner’s factual findings or conclusion of obviousness of independent claim 3. DECISION We sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 1–12. DECISION SUMMARY Claims Rejected Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–12 § 103 1–12 None Appeal 2018-002692 Application 14/570,670 18 FINALITY AND RESPONSE 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