Ex Parte Breuer et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 27, 2019

14668727 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jun. 27, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/668,727 03/25/2015
24252 7590
OSRAM SYLVANIA Inc.
200 Ballardvale Street
Wilmington, MA 01887
06/28/2019
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Christian Breuer
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
2015P001 l OUS 5061
EXAMINER
MOTSINGER, TANYA THERESA NGO
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2637
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/28/2019 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 CHRISTIAN BREUER and BERNHARD SIESSEGGER
Appeal2018-006899
Application 14/668,727
Technology Center 2600
Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, BETH Z. SHAW, and
JASON M. REPKO, Administrative Patent Judges.
REPKO, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2018-006899
Application 14/668, 727
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1---6, 9--13, 16, 17, and 21-23. App. Br. 2. 2 Claims 18-
20 are withdrawn. Claims 7, 8, 14, and 15 are objected to as being
dependent on a rejected base claim. Final Act. 19. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
THE INVENTION
Appellants' invention generally relates to light-based communication
via solid-state lighting (SSL). Spec. ,r 2. The invention provides a
communication interface for a solid state luminaire. Id. ,r 10.
Claim 1 is reproduced below:
1. A 3 device comprising:
a power input configured to be electrically coupled in
parallel with an output of a driver of a solid-state luminaire to
draw power therefrom;
a power output configured to be electrically coupled in
parallel with an input of a solid state light source of the solid-
state luminaire; and
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is OSRAM SYLVANIA
Inc. App. Br. 1.
2 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the Final Office Action ("Final Act.")
mailed August 1, 2017; the Appeal Brief ("App. Br.") filed March 8, 2018;
the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.") mailed May 9, 2018; and the Reply Brief
("Reply Br.") filed June 22, 2018.
3 In the original claims, claim 1 begins with "A device." See Claims filed
March 25, 2015. In later claim listings, however, Appellants omitted the
article "A" from claim 1. See Claims filed May 24, 2017; App. Br. 9,
Claims App 'x. Because the claims have not been amended, we understand
the omission of the article "A" to be a typographical error and include it here
for clarity.
2
Appeal2018-006899
Application 14/668, 727
a power conditioning module electrically coupled between
the power input and the power output and configured to
communicate with at least one of:
the driver; and
a communication module operatively coupled with
the power conditioning module and configured to
communicate with a signal source external to the device.
THE EVIDENCE
The Examiner relies on the following as evidence:
Krokaugger
Franklin
Cox
Chitta et al.
Van Laanen
Knapp et al.
Kim et al.
Bradford
Wilson
Haruyama et al.
us 4,450,384
US 2005/0169643 Al
US 2008/0208489 Al
US 2008/0258551 Al
US 2010/0079262 Al
US 2011/0069960 Al
US 2011/0105134 Al
US 2014/0270793 Al
US 2015/0008844 Al
US 2015/0016825 Al
THE REJECTIONS
May 22, 1984
Aug.4,2005
Aug.28,2008
Oct. 23, 2008
Apr. 1, 2010
Mar. 24, 2011
May 5, 2011
Sept. 18, 2014
Jan. 8, 2015
Jan. 15,2015
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 2, 5, 10, and 21-23 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Chitta and Kim. Final Act. 5-10.
The Examiner rejects claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Chitta, Kim, and Franklin. Final Act. 10-11.
The Examiner rejects claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Chitta, Kim, and Van Laanen. Final Act. 11-12.
The Examiner rejects claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Chitta, Kim, and Haruyama. Final Act. 12-13.
3
Appeal2018-006899
Application 14/668, 727
The Examiner rejects claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Chitta, Kim, and Wilson. Final Act. 13.
The Examiner rejects claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Chitta, Kim, and Cox. Final Act. 13-14.
The Examiner rejects claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Chitta, Kim, and Knapp. Final Act. 14--15.
The Examiner rejects claims 13 and 16 under 3 5 U.S. C. § 1 0 3 as
unpatentable over Chitta, Kim, Krokaugger, and Bradford. Final Act. 15-
17.
The Examiner rejects claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Chitta, Kim, Kokaugger, Bradford, and Franklin. 4 Final Act. 17-18.
THE REJECTION OVER CHITTA AND KIM
Claim 1
Claim 1 recites, in part, "a power input configured to be electrically
coupled in parallel with an output of a driver of a solid-state luminaire to
draw power therefrom" ( emphasis added).
In the combination of Chitta and Kim, the Examiner finds that
Chitta's front end corresponds to the recited power unit, and Chitta's
inverter circuit corresponds to the recited driver. Final Act. 5 ( citing Chitta
Fig. 2, if 23); Ans. 2.
4 Although the rejection's heading has a different list of references, the
substantive part of the rejection discusses Chitta, Kim, Kokaugger, Bradford,
and Franklin. See Final Act. 17-18. So, for the purposes of this appeal, we
treat claim 17 as rejected over Chitta, Kim, Kokaugger, Bradford, and
Franklin.
4
Appeal2018-006899
Application 14/668, 727
Appellants argue that claim 1 requires a power input unit that draws
power from the driver's output, but Chitta's front end does not draw power
from the inverter's output in the recited way. App. Br. 6. We agree.
Chitta's Figure 2, below, illustrates the relationship between front end
210 and back end 220, containing inverter circuit 250. Chitta Fig. 2.
210 .. , ~-220 •,_" ..
- - - - - - - - - - J_ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -· - r - - - - - /' - - ...... ,. , ... ,. - , ... .
AC
; 250 Back End 2'" 1 ; S /.liv :
) ~ ) ~ ~ ! i i :: r .. ~ ..... r·--~i i ~--.. j t........ ~ ..... , ................... t.... T ]
I i J i : : i ! i [~~I ! -·1
. , . . . 1 ! 242 ! Vl'llley Fill i , l 1rwerter I Output ! U ! U j U !
Re,.tlf1er I ; ; c· ·1 ' ' ~- .. I : ' , l . , , .,1rC1J1 1 , 1.,;1rcm1 ) Stane i ... ,.-.. , ··--' 'Ii
I ! 24() /'-t··· : ! ! " H' !. ·n:i·,,1r~,.r1~, Cl"'ll-:111
\_ : ..... t!· .... ,I..... •,:. ...... o-.: • "·· ;; "· 1i! I
J •f',.. / I --~ ~ ~ .................. ! I ............... , .................. -. ..................... \"'""'
............................ ··1,,_ ................................... '. ~-- ... .. .. .. . ................... -·,,.~-,~·(')· - - _: ~70
'" 1·'"·'"··'" """ .. ---- ,
\ .... ---~ . i : 292 l Occupancy ., ... 1---·¥ ,,, ~~~~ . ! v cc : Sensor Input i :
Power Supp) ,...., ~-~--- Ctmlroi Circ,uii , · ,
230 Front End
2
IR Input ; _! .. /
Communication T ~
Circ;,iit
280 ·-·---- __ ,/
···············1·················
Fig. 2
I ......................... , I
.................. +.. Wa,lf&tation ! : 2'98
, In put , .. ,--t-·'
I . 1 ·I
I ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~· I
-- -- -- -- -- --- --- ·-- -- -- ~,
Digital 8all~st Comm. Unk 110
Chitta's Figure 2 is a simplified block diagram of a lighting-control
system's dimming ballast. Chitta , 20
Chitta's front end 210 includes valley-fill circuit 240. Id. Fig. 2. Valley-fill
circuit 240 includes capacitors that selectively charge and discharge to fill
the valleys between successive rectified voltage peaks. Id. ,r 25. This
produces a substantially DC bus voltage. Id.
Notably, Chitta's inverter 250 converts this DC bus voltage to a high-
frequency AC voltage. Id. ,r 26. That is, Chitta's front end (the power input,
5
Appeal2018-006899
Application 14/668, 727
according to the Examiner) is not electrically coupled to draw power from
inverter 250's output (the driver's output, according to the Examiner).
Id. ,r,r 25-26. Rather, inverter circuit 250 is connected to output stage 260 to
couple the AC voltage to the lamp electrodes. Id. ,r 26.
On this record, we agree with Appellants that the Examiner has not
shown that Chitta teaches its front end is "configured to be electrically
coupled in parallel with an output of a driver of a solid-state luminaire to
draw power therefrom," as recited in claim 1.
Appellants make other arguments concerning claim 1. See
App. Br. 4--7. But we need not reach these arguments because we agree that
the recited power input does not encompass Chitta's front end, which is
dispositive. Id. at 6.
Thus, we do not sustain the obviousness rejection of claim 1. We also
do not sustain the rejection of dependent claims 2, 5, and 10 for the same
reasons.
Claim 21
Claim 21 recites, in part, "a power conditioning module electrically
coupled in parallel with an output power line of a driver of the solid-state
luminaire and an input power line of a solid-state light source of the solid-
state luminaire."
In the combination of Chitta and Kim, the Examiner finds that
Chitta's control circuit 270 corresponds to the recited power-conditioning
module. Final Act. 8; Ans. 5.
Appellants argue that, unlike the recited power-conditioning module,
Chitta's control circuit 270 is not coupled in parallel with a driver's output
and an input power line. App. Br. 7. We agree.
6
Appeal2018-006899
Application 14/668, 727
The Examiner finds that the recited driver covers Chitta's inverter
circuit 250. See Final Act. 8; Ans. 19. Chitta's control circuit 270 sits
between power supply 272 and inverter circuit 250. Chitta Fig. 2. But
control circuit 270 is not coupled in parallel to the inverter's output. See id.
Rather, control circuit 270 generates the drive signals that control the
inverter's operation to provide load current to lamps LI, L2, and L3.
On this record, we agree that the Examiner has not shown that Chitta
teaches or suggests that control circuit 270 is "electrically coupled in parallel
with an output power line of a driver of the solid-state luminaire and an
input power line of a solid-state light source of the solid-state luminaire."
App. Br. 7.
Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 21. We also do not
sustain the rejection of claims 22 and 23, which depend from claim 21, for
similar reasons.
THE REMAINING OBVIOUSNESS REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejects claims 3, 4, 6, 9, 11-13, 16, and 1 7 as being
obvious over combinations of several additional references. Final Act. 10-
18. Because the additional references are not relied upon to teach the
limitation missing from Chitta, the additional references do not cure the
deficiency discussed above. See id. Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner's
rejections of claims 3, 4, 6, 9, 11-13, 16, and 17 for the same reasons
discussed above in connection with claim 1.
7
Appeal2018-006899
Application 14/668, 727
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1---6, 9--13, 16,
17, and 21-23.
REVERSED
8