Ex Parte Creasman et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 11, 2019

14287812 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 11, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/287,812 05/27/2014 27820 7590 01/15/2019 WITHROW & TERRANOVA, P.L.L.C. 106 Pinedale Springs Way Cary, NC 27511 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Ethan Creasman 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. 1194-202 1049 EXAMINER LEE, NATHANIEL J. ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2875 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/15/2019 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): patents@wt-ip.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ETHAN CREASMAN and RANDY BERNARD Appeal2018-004945 Application 14/287,812 Technology Center 2800 Before CATHERINE Q. TIMM, CHRISTOPHER C. KENNEDY, and LILAN REN, Administrative Patent Judges. REN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134 from a rejection of claims 1-9, 11-27, and 31-34. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We affirm. 1 The real party in interest is identified as "Cree, Inc." Appeal Brief 1 ("App. Br.," November 14, 2017). In this opinion, we also refer to the April 20, 2017 Final Action ("Final Act.") and the February 1, 2018 Examiner's Answer ("Ans."). No Reply Brief is found in the record. Appeal2018-004945 Application 14/2 87,812 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to a directional lighting that may be controlled remotely. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A lighting fixture comprising: â€¢ a motorized pan-tilt mechanism with a head unit that includes either a light source or a socket adapted to receive a light source, wherein the motorized pan-tilt mechanism is capable of orienting the head unit to control a direction in which light emitted from the light source is directed; and â€¢ a controller associated with at least one sensor and the motorized pan-tilt mechanism the controller configured to: â€¢ receive selection information indicative of the lighting fixture being selected from a remote entity where the selection information comprises an identifier of the lighting fixture; â€¢ receive sensor information from the at least one sensor that is in communication with the controller for an orientation process, wherein the sensor information corresponds to a target projected on a surface by the remote entity; â€¢ identify the target based on the sensor information for the orientation process; and â€¢ control the motorized pan-tilt mechanism to orient the head unit such that the light emitted from the light source is directed at the target for the orientation process. Claims Appendix (App. Br. 11 ). REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Densham et al. Vo et al. US 2012/0050535 Al US 2013/0155672 Al 2 Mar. 1, 2012 Jun.20,2013 Appeal2018-004945 Application 14/2 87,812 REJECTIONS The Examiner rejects claims 1-9 and 11-26 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 102(a)(l) as being anticipated by Vo. Final Act. 3, 5. The Examiner rejects claims 27 and 31-34 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as being unpatentable over Vo in view of Densham. Final Act. 8. OPINION We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues identified by Appellants and in light of the arguments and evidence produced thereon. Cf Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 107 5 (BP AI 2010) (precedential) (cited with approval in In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("it has long been the Board's practice to require an applicant to identify the alleged error in the examiner's rejections")). Having considered the evidence presented in this Appeal and each of Appellants' contentions, we are not persuaded that Appellants identify reversible error. Thus, we affirm the Examiner'sÂ§ 103(a) rejections for the reasons expressed in the Final Office Action and the Answer. We add the following primarily for emphasis. Claim l2 Appellants argue that the Examiner reversibly erred in finding that Vo describes a controller configured to "receive sensor information ... [that] corresponds to a target projected on a surface by the remote entity" as recited in claim 1. Appellants acknowledge that Vo describes (in Figure 20 2 Appellants do not present argument separate from those for claim 1 for the rejection of dependent claims 2-9 and 11-26. App. Br. 8. These claims, therefore, stand or fall with claim 1. See id.; see also 3 7 C.F .R. Â§ 4I.37(c)(l)(iv). 3 Appeal2018-004945 Application 14/2 87,812 reproduced below) illumination target 2004 which "may be illuminated by an incident laser light 2020 emitted from a laser 2022 on a hand unit 2024." Vo ,r 111 ( cited in App. Br 7). Appellants acknowledge that Vo describes: "The light 2020 'paints' the target 2004 and this can be detected by the head unit 2002." Id. (cited in App. Br 7). Appellants, however, argue that "painting a target is not equivalent to projecting a target." App. Br. 7. ,-2010 ' -2{111 2008 Â·-" ' ,....___.,___.., I. AMP ,___ _, '--'--~----.. 2024 HAND UNIT ____ ) 5~ 20 Figure 20 of Vo illustrating "a block diagram for a passive aiming system in a track lighting system according to various embodiments of the present invention." Vo ,r 3 8. We disagree. Pointing a laser to illuminate a target is a step of projecting a target onto a location to be illuminated. This is evinced by Appellant's own specification. The specification in this case describes 4 Appeal2018-004945 Application 14/2 87,812 various figures and provides that "the remote control RC may be configured to project the target Tl, under the control of the user, onto a location to be illuminated." Spec. ,r 44. The specification continues: "The projection is analogous to pointing a laser pointer at a desired location. The projected target may range from a simple dot, circle, crosshair pattern (illustrated) or like symbol to a complex image, pattern, or machine readable code, such as a bar code or matrix code." Id. The Examiner finds that Appellants' argument that painting a target with light is different from projecting a target onto a surface is not supported by their own specification. Ans. 5. Appellants do not address this finding and the specification, as we explained above, supports the Examiner's finding. A prior art reference can anticipate a claimed invention even though it describes the claimed subject matter using different terms. See In re Schaumann, 572 F.2d 312,317 (CCPA 1978) "([A]lthough appellants would have us hold that Hildebrandt fails as an anticipation because it does not contain a description of the subject matter of the appealed claims, ipsissimis verb is, we cannot countenance a result which so obviously exhalts [sic] form over substance."). Appellants also argue that Vo does not disclose that "a lighting fixture receives selection information from a remote entity and then receives sensor information from the same remote entity." App. Br. 8. Appellants fault the Examiner for relying on both prior art hand unit circuit 900 and hand unit 2024 to meet the recited "same remote entity." Id. The Examiner finds that Appellants' argument is not commensurate in scope with the plain language of the claim. Ans. 6. The Examiner explains that instead of a lighting fixture as argued by Appellants, the claim recites 5 Appeal2018-004945 Application 14/2 87,812 receiving information from a remote entity as a function of the controller. Id. The Examiner also explains that the claim does not recite "the same remote entity" as argued by Appellants. Id. Claim 1 is an apparatus claim which "cover[ s] what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1468 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Appellants' argument, which is directed to the recited functionality of a controller, does not structurally distinguish the prior art device. See App. Br. 8. In support of the rejection, the Examiner cites to various parts of Vo and specifically finds, for example, that there is no structural distinction between the devices and that the prior art device is "configured to" preform the recited functions as recited in claim 1. Ans. 5-8 ( citing figures 5 and 20 as well as texts of Vo). Appellants do not address these fact findings by the Examiner and we in tum discern no reversible error. The rejection of claim 1 is sustained. Claim 273 The dispositive issue on appeal is whether the combined prior art teaches or suggests "a controller ... configured to receive selection information ... where the selection information comprises an identifier of the lighting fixture" as recited in claim 27. App. Br. 9. Appellants acknowledge that the prior art "hand unit circuit 900 receives track head position settings that are numerically indexed such that corresponding settings can be correlated with a specific track head" but argue that the prior art does not "disclose anything about an identifier of a 3 Appellants do not present arguments separate from those for claim 27 for the rejection of dependent claims 31-34. App. Br. 9. These claims therefore, stand or fall with claim 27. See id.; see also 37 C.F.R. Â§ 4I.37(c)(l)(iv). 6 Appeal2018-004945 Application 14/2 87,812 lighting fixture." App. Br. 9. The inquiry for an obviousness analysis, however, is whether the limitation of the claim "is described or suggested by the prior art or would have been obvious based on the knowledge of those of ordinary skill in the art." In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074 (Fed. Cir. 1988). In this case, the Examiner finds that "the track head position settings are correlated with specific track heads, the track head position settings can be used to identify the specific track heads they are correlated with and thus the track head position settings are identifiers within any reasonable interpretation of 'identifier."' Appellants do not dispute the prior art teachings, nor do Appellants identify reversible error in the Examiner's reasoning. We accordingly sustain the rejection of claim 27. DECISION The Examiner's decision is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 7