Ex Parte Cavalcanti et al

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardJun 19, 2019

13636236 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jun. 19, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/636,236 09/20/2012 138325 7590 Signify Holding B.V. 465 Columbus A venue Suite 330 Valhalla, NY 10595 06/21/2019 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Dave Cavalcanti 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. 2010P00312WOUS 6608 EXAMINER LIN,JASON ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2117 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/21/2019 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): kim. larocca@signify.com jo.cangelosi@signify.com Gigi.MillerÂ© signify. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte DA VE CA V ALCANTI and V ASANTH GADDAM1 Appeal2018-008778 Application 13/636,236 Technology Center 2100 Before JOHN A. EVANS, JOHN P. PINKERTON, and MICHAEL M. BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges. BARRY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from a Final Rejection of claims 1, 4, 6-9, 12-14, and 17-21, which constitute all the claims pending in this application. See Final Act. 1 and Appeal Br. 17-21 (Claims App'x). Appellants have canceled claims 2, 3, 5, 10, 11, 15, and 16. Appeal Br. 3-5. We have jurisdiction over the remaining pending claims under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We affirm. 1 Appellants identify Philips Lighting Holding B.V. as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal2018-008778 Application 13/636,236 Introduction Appellants' invention relates to a scalable network of heterogeneous devices including a plurality of outdoor lighting fixture nodes for controlling a plurality of lighting figures (e.g., street lights). Spec. ,i,i 36, 40. In a disclosed embodiment, a remote management system transmits segment controller data to segment controllers, which transmit lighting fixture control data to the lighting fixture nodes. Id. ,i 50. "The lighting fixture nodes ... may control at least one light output characteristic of the corresponding street lighting fixtures ... based at least in part on the lighting fixture control data." Id. For example, in the event of an emergency, the lighting fixture control data sent to the lighting fixture nodes may be "information indicating that all lighting fixtures ... should be illuminated at full power until farther [sic] notice". Id. To monitor conditions nearby the lighting fixtures, a plurality of sensors (e.g., for detecting motion, air quality, and visibility) may be provided. Spec. ,i 38. In another disclosed embodiment, the segment controller may analyze data measured from the sensors and adapt the output of lighting fixtures according to the monitored conditions without waiting for a command from the remote management system. Id. ,i,i 48, 52. Claims 1, 9, and 18 are independent, of which claim 1 is representative and reproduced below (formatting and bracketed letters added for ease of reference): 1. A scalable network of heterogeneous devices, said network comprising: [a] a plurality of outdoor lighting fixture nodes, each of said outdoor lighting fixture nodes includes a controller to control at least one light output characteristic of at least one outdoor lighting fixture and receive lighting fixture control data; wherein said light output characteristic of said at least one 2 Appeal2018-008778 Application 13/636,236 outdoor lighting fixture is based at least in part on said lighting fixture control data; [b] at least one remote management system in communication with said controllers; [ c] wherein said remote management system transmits controller data to said controllers and at least some of said lighting fixture control data is based at least in part on said controller data; [ d] a plurality of sensors transmitting sensor data to at least one of said controllers; [ e] a segment controller configured to locally determine a subset of said sensor data and/or the lighting fixture control data to transmit to said remote management system, said subset of data including information indicative of said sensor data; and [f] wherein said segment controller locally determines at least some of said lighting fixture control data for two or more of the lighting fixture nodes of the plurality of outdoor lighting fixture nodes based on said sensor data, independent of communication with said remote management system. Appeal. Br. 17 (Claims App'x). Rejections and References 1. The Examiner rejected claims 1, 4, 6-9, 12-14, and 17-21 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. Â§ 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. Final Act. 3-8. 2. The Examiner rejected claim 18 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. Â§ 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the applicant regards as the invention. Id. at 8. 3. The Examiner rejected claims 1, 4, 6-8, 19, and 21 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Denes (US 7,123,140 Bl; issued Oct. 17, 2006), Walters et al. (US 2007 /0057807 A 1; published Mar. 3 Appeal2018-008778 Application 13/636,236 15, 2007) ("Walters"), Clayton (US 2008/0183316 Al; published July 31, 2008), Verfuerth et al. (US 2009/0243517 Al; published Oct. 1, 2009) ("Verfuerth"), and Mills et al. (US 2013/0154513 Al; published June 20, 2013) ("Mills"). Id. at 8-17. 4. The Examiner rejected claims 9, 12-14, and 18 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Denes, Walters, Clayton, Myer et al. (US 2010/0029268 Al; published Feb. 4, 2010) ("Myer"), Verfuerth, and Mills. Id. at 17-31. 5. The Examiner rejected claim 17 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Denes, Walters, Clayton, Myer, Verfuerth, Mills, Eisner et al. (US 2007/0165625 Al; published July 19, 2007) ("Eisner"), and Sambhwani et al. (US 2007/0019535 Al; published Jan. 25, 2007) ("Sambhwani"). Final Act. 31-33. 6. The Examiner rejected claim 20 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Denes, Walters, Clayton, Verfuerth, Mills, and DeZorzi (US 6,232,875 Bl; published May 15, 2001). Id. at 33-34. Analysis A. The Â§ 112 rejections In the Final Office Action, the Examiner rejected claims 1, 4, 6-9, 12- 14, and 17-21 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. Â§ 112, first paragraph, because the phrases "in a respective lighting fixture," ( claims 1, 9, and recited commensurately in claim 18), and "determining, in said central management system, a subset of said sensor data and/or the lighting fixture control data for transmitting to said at least one outdoor lighting fixture nodes" ( claim 18) allegedly lack written description support. Final Act. 3-8. The 4 Appeal2018-008778 Application 13/636,236 Examiner also rejected claim 18 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. Â§ 112, second paragraph, because the limitation "said controller in said at least one outdoor lighting fixture node" allegedly lacks antecedent basis. Final Act. 8. In response, Appellants filed an amendment requesting to delete all recitations of "in a respective lighting fixture" ( as well as any commensurate limitations). Response After Final Office Action 1, 3-4, 5-6, and 7-8 (filed November 9, 2017). Therein, Appellants further requested to amend claim 18 such that the recited subset of sensor and/or lighting fixture control data is for transmitting to the "segment controller" instead of "at least one outdoor lighting fixture node." Id. at 5-6. Appellants also requested to amend claim 18's recitation of "said controller in said at least one outdoor lighting fixture node" to "said segment controller." Id. at 6. Subsequently, in an Advisory Action prior to Appellants' Notice of Appeal, the Examiner entered Appellants' amendments, but did not specify whether Appellants' reply overcame theÂ§ 112 rejections. Adv. Act. 1-2. Appellants do not argue theÂ§ 112 rejections in their Briefs (see Appeal Br. 7-15), but the Examiner's Answer states that "[ e ]very ground of rejection set forth in the Office action dated September 15, 2017 from which the appeal is taken (as modified by any advisory actions) is being maintained." Ans. 3. In view of Appellants' amendments to the claim language at issue, we find the rejection of claims 1, 4, 6-9, 12-14, and 1 7-21 under pre-AIA 3 5 U.S.C. Â§ 112, first paragraph, and the rejection of claim 18 under pre-AIA 5 Appeal2018-008778 Application 13/636,236 35 U.S.C. Â§ 112, second paragraph, moot. Therefore, we do not reach these rejections. B. TheÂ§ 103(a) Rejections Appellants argue Examiner error in theÂ§ 103(a) rejections of claims 1, 4, 6-9, 12-14, and 17-21 based solely on independent claims 1, 9, and 18, which Appellants argue together. See App. Br. 7-15. Accordingly, we select claim 1 as representative of all pending claims for theÂ§ 103(a) rejections. 37 C.F.R. Â§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv). In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner relies on Denes for teaching limitations [a]-[d]. Final Act. 9-11 (citing Denes Fig. l; 2:61-68; 3:39-43; 4:37-40, 55-56; 7:21-23, 59-65; 8:1-16, 44-56, 58-60; 9:23-27). The Examiner cites a combination of the remaining references-Walters, Clayton, V erfuerth, and Mills-for limitations [ e] and [ fJ. Final Act. 11-13 (citing Walters ,-J,-J 28, 36, 42, 121; Clayton ,-J 110; Verfuerth Figs. 1-2, ,-J,-J 25, 31, 78; Mills ,-J,-J 15, 56, 71). Appellants contend the Examiner erred because none of the cited prior art references teaches or suggests "wherein said segment controller locally determines at least some of said lighting fixture control data for two or more of the lighting fixture nodes of the plurality of outdoor lighting fixture nodes based on said sensor data, independent of communication with said remote management system," as recited in limitation [ fJ of claim 1. App. Br. 7-15; Reply Br. 2-9. In particular, Appellants acknowledge that Walters discloses master controllers that "provide gateway, routing and data transfer with data concentration and compression." Reply Br. 3-4 (citing Walters ,-J,-J 35-40); Appeal Br. 9-10. But, Appellants contend these disclosures do not teach or suggest "locally (via the segment controller) determining at least some of 6 Appeal2018-008778 Application 13/636,236 said lighting fixture control data ... based on sensor data," as limitation [ fJ requires. Reply Br. 4; Appeal Br. 9-10. Appellants further acknowledge that V erfuerth discloses a master controller that determines control data for lighting fixtures. Appeal Br. 12-14 (citing Verfuerth, Fig. 1, ,i,i 25, 31). But, Appellants contend that "no segment controller is described in Verfuerth" and that Verfuerth's master controller does not determine lighting fixture control data "independent of communication with said remote management system" because it "is remote to the lighting nodes ... and is thus a remote management system, as described in the present invention." Appeal Br. 14; Reply Br. 6. Appellants' arguments are unpersuasive because the Examiner has shown that the combination of Walters and V erfuerth teaches the disputed limitation. See Final Act. 11-13 (citing Walters ,i,i 28, 36, 42, 121; Verfuerth, Figs. 1-2, ,i,i 25, 31, and 78); see also Ans. 4-10 (additionally citing Walters, Fig. 1, ,i,i 29, 77; Verfuerth ,i,i 27, 30, 37). Each reference cited by the Examiner must be read, not in isolation, but for what it fairly teaches in combination with the prior art as a whole. See In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986); see also In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,425 (CCPA 1981) (explaining that when the rejection is based on a combination of references, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually). As an initial matter, Walters teaches "a segment controller," as recited in limitation [ e] of claim 1. In particular, Walters discloses a plurality of master controllers, each of which serves as a gateway between a plurality of associated intelligent luminaire managers (ILMs) and a network operation center. Walters Fig. 1 (items 114a, 114b), ,i 35. As the Examiner explains, 7 Appeal2018-008778 Application 13/636,236 Walters's master controller teaches a "segment" controller because it is responsible for only a certain segment of ILMs. Ans. 4 ( citing Walters Fig. l); see also Walters ,-J 38. As Figure 1 of Walters illustrates, a first master controller 114a is responsible for a first network 102a of a first set of ILMs 112a, whereas a second master controller 114b is responsible for a second network 102b of a second set ofILMs 112b. Walters Fig. 1, items 102a, 102b, 112a, 112b, 114a, and 114b. Further, each of Walter's ILMs has a luminaire condition sensing and diagnostic system that monitors and records status of an associated luminaire, such as the A/C power provided to the luminaire, voltage sags, over voltage, current provided to start the luminaire, and current drawn by the luminaire after it is lit. Id. Fig. 3B (item 312), ,-J 68. Such status data may be communicated to the associated master controller, which may then upload it to the network operation center. Id. ,-J,-J 37, 73. Thus, Walters teaches a segment controller (master controller) configured to locally determine a subset of sensor data or lighting fixture control data including information indicative of said sensor data (status data of associated luminaires) to transmit to said remote management system (network operation center). Verfuerth teaches "locally determin[ing] at least some of said lighting fixture control data for two or more of the lighting fixture nodes of the plurality of outdoor lighting fixture nodes based on said sensor data, independent of communication with said remote management system," as recited in limitation [ fJ of claim 1. In particular, V erfuerth discloses a master controller that may provide intelligent control of a plurality of lighting fixtures. Verfuerth ,-J,-J 25, 26, and 28-31. For example, Verfuerth's master controller may monitor demand for lighting fixtures (based on signals 8 Appeal2018-008778 Application 13/636,236 received from various sensors) and generate a demand-based control signal for transmission to the lighting fixtures to reduce power consumption during peak or off-peak demand periods. Id. ,i,i 26, 30, and 31. This disclosed embodiment does not involve communication with a remote management system because, unlike other embodiments of V erfuerth, the master controller controls the light fixtures by itself without having to receive instructions from an external entity ( e.g., a power provider or facility manager). See Id. ,i,i 25, 27. Further, just as Appellants' disclosure does not refer to a segment controller-which is remote to its associated lighting fixtures-as "a remote management system," Verfuerth's master controller should not be interpreted as "a remote management system" merely because it is remote to the lighting nodes. Compare Appellants' Fig. 1 (items 140A- C) & Verfuerth, Fig. 1 (item 20), with Appellants' Fig. 1 (items l 12A-D, 122A-C, 132 A-F) & Verfuerth Fig. 1 (items 40, 70). Moreover, Appellants do not present any persuasive evidence in the Specification or claims that requires an element that is remote to a lighting fixture node to be interpreted as "a remote management system." We agree with the Examiner that it would have been obvious to artisans of ordinary skill to use Verfuerth' s technique for intelligently controlling a plurality of lighting fixtures in the master controller of Walters "to provide optimum operation of the lighting equipment." Final Act. 13 (citing Verfuerth ,i 78); see also KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 420-21 (2007) ( explaining that an ordinarily skilled artisan is "a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton" who can "fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle"). Appellants do not present any persuasive evidence or arguments that combining these teachings of Walters 9 Appeal2018-008778 Application 13/636,236 and V erfuerth to arrive at the disputed limitation would have been unpredictable, "uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art," or would have "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); KSR, 550 U.S. at 416 ("The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results."). Because the combination of Walters and V erfuerth renders the disputed limitation obvious, Appellants' arguments alleging deficiencies in the remaining prior art, especially Clayton, are also unpersuasive. See App. Br. 10-12, 15; Reply Br. 7-8. In view of the foregoing, Appellants do not persuade us the Examiner erred. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 4, 6-9, 12-14, and 17-21 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a). DECISION We do not reach the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1, 4, 6-9, 12-14, and 17-21 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. Â§ 112, first paragraph, because the rejection is moot. We do not reach the Examiner's decision to reject claim 18 under pre- AIA 35 U.S.C. Â§ 112, second paragraph, because the rejection is moot. We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1, 4, 6-9, 12-14, and 17-21 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a). No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ l.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 10