Ex Parte Williams et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 16, 2018

14332931 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 16, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/332,931 07/16/2014
138325 7590 03/20/2018
PHILIPS LIGHTING HOLDING B.V.
465 Columbus A venue
Suite 330
Valhalla, NY 10595
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Jonathan Williams
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.
2014P01934US 5070
EXAMINER
CRAWFORD, JASON
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2844
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/20/2018 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@lighting.com
jo.cangelosi@lighting.com
Gigi.Miller@lighting.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE
THE PA TENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JONATHAN WILLIAMS,
Ananthakrishnan Viswanathan, John L. Melanson, and
August Laible
Appeal 2017-001103
Application 14/332,931
Technology Center 2800
Before MARK NAGUMO, JULIA HEANEY, and JANEE. INGLESE,
Administrative Patent Judges.
NAGUMO, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Jonathan Williams, Ananthakrishnan Viswanathan, John L. Melanson,
and August Laible ("Williams"), 1 timely appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a)
from the Final Rejection of all pending claims 1-5, 7, 11-15, and 17.2 We
have jurisdiction. 35 U.S.C. § 6. We REVERSE.
1 The applicant under 37 C.F.R. § 1.46, and hence the Appellant under
35 U.S.C. § 134, is the real party in interest, identified as Koninklijke Philips
N.V. (Appeal Brief, filed April 8, 2016 ("Br."), 2.)
2 Office Action mailed 6 November 2015 ("Final Rejection," cited as
"FR").
Appeal 2017-001103
Application 14/332,931
A. Introduction3
OPINION
The subject matter on appeal relates to "systems and methods for
maintaining desired behavior of a dimmer associated with a lighting
system." (Spec. 1, 11. 6-7.) The '913 Specification explains that, "[i]n
general, dimmers generate an output signal in which a portion of an
alternating current ('AC') input signal is removed or zeroed out." (Id. at 2,
11. 8-9.) The Specification teaches that a class of conventional dimmers,
namely leading-edge and trailing-edge dimmers, operate by providing no
voltage at the beginning or the end of the alternating current cycle, as
illustrated in Figures 2 and 4, respectively, shown below.
flG, 2
(;~R.~t)R !-.Rf)
Fig. 2: leading edge dimming
408
....
>····402
,....~ .... ·· ~
i .;
t4 i:;
FIG,4
WlUOR Afff)
Fig. 4: trailing edge dimming with
dimmer control signal ("DCS") for
pulse width modulation ("PWM")
3 Application 14/332,931, Systems and methods for maintaining dimmer
behavior in a low-power lamp assembly, filed 16 July 2014. We refer to the
'"931 Specification," which we cite as "Spec."
2
Appeal 2017-001103
Application 14/332,931
As indicated by these figures, the time ON and the time OFF can be varied
by modulating the pulse width of the "dimmer control signal" ("DCS.") The
intensity of the lamp varies according to the extent of this "pulse width
modulation" ("PWM").
A commonly used analog dimmer is said to be based on a triode for
alternating current ("triac") to modulate a phase angle of each cycle of the
AC supply voltage. (Id. at 2, 11. 10-11.) Triacs are said to require certain
levels of current at various stages for stable operation. (Id. at 6.) More
specifically, such conventional dimmers, which "are designed for use with
resistive loads, such as incandescent light bulbs, often do not perform well
when supplying a raw, phase modulated signal to a reactive load such as an
electronic power converter, as may be used in connection with a low-power
lamp." (Id. at 6, 11. 24-27.) "Thus," the Specification continues, "lighting
systems including such reactive loads must typically include circuitry for
handling reactive energy of the dimmer and other components of the lighting
system in order to achieve compatibility between the dimmer and the load so
that the dimmer operates in a stable manner." (Id. at 11. 27-30.) The
Specification describes "reactive energy associated with [the] dimmer" as
"reactive energy incident to ensuring compatibility between dimmer 7024
and lamp 742)." (Spec. 14, 1. 31, to 15, 1. 1.)
Prior art methods of dealing with the reactive energy include
dissipating the reactive energy in a dissipative circuit integral to the lamp
assembly housing, which then requires dealing with the generated heat,
4 Throughout this Opinion, for clarity, labels to elements are presented in
bold font, regardless of their presentation in the original document.
3
Appeal 2017-001103
Application 14/332,931
which can be considerable. (Id. at 7, 11. 1-9, discussing Figure 5, not
reproduced here.) Another approach, illustrated in Figure 6 (not reproduced
here), passes the reactive energy to the lamp itself-but this approach is said
to limit the dimming range of the lighting system to an undesirable extent.
(Id. at ll. 10-22.)
Williams seeks patent protection for a system that provides energy to
a primary [LED] lamp corresponding to the desired level input by the
control, while transferring the reactive energy associated with the dimmer to
a secondary lamp. In this way, the reactive energy is not dissipated in the
primary lamp; rather, it is dissipated in a second lamp external to the
primary lamp assembly. (Id. at 1. 28, to 9, 1. 7.) An example of such a
circuit is illustrated in Figure 8A, which is reproduced below.
P'WM
VDD
[-Pw~~coorno'l},_ 804
732A
,-' ,
MAIN
LAMP
742
{Figure 8A shows a block diagram of a circuit for directing reactive energy
to secondary lamp 752}
4
Appeal 2017-001103
Application 14/332,931
Signal from the dimmer is input at the left into rectifier section 734,
which converts the alternating current voltage to a rectified voltage having
only one polarity. (Spec. 13, 11. 24-27.) EMI filter 736 rejects
electromagnetic interference. (Id. at 11. 27-30.) In controller 712A, pulse-
width-modulation (PWM) control 804 activates and deactivates switch 806
to charge inductor 808 when switch 806 is active and to discharge
inductor 808 to secondary lamp 752 when switch 806 is inactive. In this
way, control circuitry 712A "engage[s] buck-boost converter 802A when it
determines reactive energy of lighting system 700 is present to be directed to
secondary lamp 752." (Id. at 16, 11. 9-11.) In summary, the apparatus sends
the energy set by the dimmer to main lamp 741, and reactive energy from
the dimmer is sent to secondary lamp 742.
Claim 1 below is representative and reads:
An apparatus comprising:
a control circuit for controlling delivery of energy from an
input of a lamp assembly to a load of the lamp assembly,
wherein the control circuit is configured to:
determine from an input signal on the input of the lamp
assembly a control setting of a dimmer electrically
coupled to the input;
transfer a first amount of energy from the input to the load
to cause the load to generate light external to the lamp
assembly in accordance with the control setting, wherein
the control setting indicates a user-desired amount of
energy to be transferred to the load; and
transfer a second amount of energy from the input to a
second load to cause the second load to dissipate the
second amount of energy external to the lamp assembly,
wherein the second amount of energy comprises
reactive energy associated with the dimmer.
(Claims App., Br. 8, some indentation, paragraphing, and emphasis added.)
5
Appeal 2017-001103
Application 14/332,931
Remaining independent claim 11 is directed to a corresponding
method of dimming a lamp.
The Examiner maintains the following ground of rejection: 5, 6
Claims 1-5, 7, 11-15, and 17 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) in view of Puvanakijjakom.7
B. Discussion
The Board's findings of fact throughout this Opinion are supported by
a preponderance of the evidence of record.
The Examiner finds Puvanakijjakom anticipates the claimed apparatus
because "the second amount of energy comprises reactive energy associated
with the dimmer (see Fig 1 and paragraph [0046], activation of US (in
response to the dimmer) creates reactive energy stored in L4 (reactive
because it is an inductor) that will discharge to the second load 208)."
(FR 3, 11. 8-11.) Puvanakijjakom Figure 1 is shown on the following page.
5 Examiner's Answer mailed August 18, 2016 ("Ans.").
6 Because this application was filed after the 16 March 2013, effective date
of the America Invents Act, we refer to the AIA version of the statute.
7 Voravit Puvanakijjakom et al., Dimmable multichannel driver for solid
state light sources, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2013/0293151 Al;
pub. (7 November 2013), based on an application filed 13 March 2013 (U.S.
Patent No. 9, 119,250; issued 25 August 2015).
6
Appeal 2017-001103
Application 14/332,931
{Puvanakijjakom Figure 1 is shown below}
. .
: .. ·-·-·····~~-····~~---~
{Puvanakijjakom Fig. 1: block diagram of an LED dimmer control circuit}
Paragraph [0046] describes Second LED Drive Circuit 220, which is
illustrated in Figure 7,8 reproduced below.
{Puvanakijjakom Fig. 7 shows a circuit diagram of second LED driver 220}
8 Puvanakijjakom refers to "FIG. 8" in paragraph [0046], because of an
earlier reference to "FIG. 2," which is absent from the set of drawings, and
which results in the increment of each subsequent figure number. The figure
numbering was corrected in the issued patent.
7
Appeal 2017-001103
Application 14/332,931
As Williams urges, "[ w ]hile this portion of Puvanakijjakorn
contemplates discharging of an inductor [L4] to a second load [208], and
that element ... may operate based on the output of a dimmer, there is no
indication or requirement within Puvanakijjakorn that such discharged
energy is 'reactive energy associated with the dimmer."' (Br. 5, 11. 17-20;
emphasis added.) Detailed review of Puvanakijjakom supports Williams's
representations in this regard. The Examiner has not, for example, explained
how any reactive energy generated by the dimmer is passed through
controller US in second LED driver 220 to second LED load 208. Nor is it
apparent, for example, that there is any provision in Puvanakijjakom for an
element or signal corresponding to PWM control 804, which is used by
Williams to direct reactive current to the secondary LED load.
The silence on these matters is not surprising given the problem to
which Puvanakijjakom is directed. Namely, when incandescent lights are
dimmed, their output shifts towards a lower, warmer color temperature.
(Puvanakijjakom 1 [0003].) However, when LED light sources are dimmed,
they are said to "typically hold their color temperature." (Id. at [0004].)
Accordingly, Puvanakijjakom describes "a dimmable multichannel driver
for solid state light sources ... [that] allow[ s] at least two solid state light
source loads to be driven in a manner that allows for control of the current
flowing through the solid state light source to generate illumination at a
desired light color temperature." (Id. at [0006].)
While it is not impossible that the apparatus described by
Puvanakijjakom in fact behaves in the manner required by the appealed
claims, Williams argues persuasively that the Examiner has not shown that
that is necessarily the case. See, e.g., In re Montgomery, 677 F.3d 1375,
8
Appeal 2017-001103
Application 14/332,931
1379-80 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (elements found to be present inherently must
necessarily be present in or result from the prior art.) Indeed, as Williams
argues, "[t]he only way energy stored in inductor L4 could be considered
'associated with the dimmer' is if the Examiner is interpreting any energy
present in the circuit of Figure 7 to be 'associated with the dimmer."' (Br. 5,
11. 20-22.) As noted supra, however, the '931 Specification describes
"reactive energy associated with the dimmer" as "reactive energy incident to
ensuring compatibility between dimmer 702 and lamp 742)." (Spec. 14,
1. 31, to 15, 1. l; emphasis added.) Accordingly, the weight of the evidence
is that the Examiner's interpretation of the term "reactive energy associated
with the dimmer" is unreasonably broad, and that the appealed claims cannot
be read on the apparatus described by Puvanakijjakom.
We therefore reverse the rejection for anticipation.
C. Order
It is 0 RD ERED that the rejection of claims 1-5, 7, 11-15, and 1 7 is
reversed.
REVERSED
9