Ex Parte Woelfing et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 24, 2018

14553953 (P.T.A.B. May. 24, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/553,953 11/25/2014 Bernd W oelfing
27623 7590 05/24/2018
OHLANDT, GREELEY, RUGGIERO & PERLE, LLP
ONE LANDMARK SQUARE, 10TH FLOOR
STAMFORD, CT 06901
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.
2133.266USU 2183
EXAMINER
KAISER, SYED M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2844
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/24/2018 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 BERND WOELFING
and
ANDREAS HATZENBUEHLER
Appeal2017-007636
Application 14/553,953
Technology Center 2800
Before ROMULO H. DELMENDO, JEFFREY R. SNAY, and
DEBRA L. DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
DELMENDO, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
The Applicant (hereinafter "Appellant") 1 appeals under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134(a) from the Primary Examiner's final decision to reject claims 1-15.2
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 The Appellant is the Applicant, "Schott AG," which, according to the
Brief, is the real party in interest (Appeal Brief filed December 8, 2016,
hereinafter "Appeal Br.," 1).
2 Appeal Br. 4--9; Reply Brief filed April 24, 2017, hereinafter "Reply Br.,"
1--4; Final Office Action entered March 18, 2016, hereinafter "Final Act.,"
2-7; Examiner's Answer entered February 23, 2017, hereinafter "Ans.," 2-
9.
Appeal2017-007636
Application 14/553,953
I. BACKGROUND
The subject matter on appeal relates to a driver circuit with a
semiconductor light source, e.g., a light emitting diode LED. (Specification
filed November 25, 2014, hereinafter "Spec.," ,r 2). Figure 1 is illustrative
and is reproduced from the application as follows:
2
r"'/(. t_...., ......... . Sensor
~..........,...~~I --....
LED
5
Controller
7--
/ R ~1 I / 4
1
I..__
11
i.._6 Fig. 1
Figure 1 above is a schematic illustration of a driver circuit 1 including: a
LED 2 driven by a pulse width modulator 5; a sensor 3; a controller 4, which
may be connected to an external control means (not shown) via which it
receives a signal representing a desired light color and/or desired brightness;
a voltage source 6; a variable resistor 7 through which the voltage applied at
pulse width modulator 5 can be increased or decreased; and an invariable
series resistor 11 (id. ,r,r 62-75).
2
Appeal2017-007636
Application 14/553,953
Representative claim 1 is reproduced from the Claims Appendix to the
Appeal Brief (Appeal Br. 10), with key limitations emphasized, as follows:
1. A driver circuit with a semiconductor light source,
compnsmg:
at least one pulse width modulation driven semiconductor
light source;
at least one sensor measuring a luminous intensity of light
emitted by the semiconductor light source;
a variable voltage source powering the semiconductor
light source; and
a controller connected to the at least one sensor and the
variable voltage source, the controller controlling the luminous
intensity of the light emitted by the semiconductor light source
by adjusting a duty cycle of the pulse width modulation, and the
controller controlling the variable voltage source such that,
when the duty cycle falls outside a desired tolerance range for
the duty cycle to control the luminous intensity, a voltage
applied to the semiconductor light source is adjusted by the
controller through the variable voltage source such that the
duty cycle returns to the desired tolerance range to control the
luminous intensity.
II. REJECTION ON APPEAL
On appeal, claims 1-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I02(a)(l)
(AIA) as anticipated by Roberts et al. 3 (hereinafter "Roberts"). 4
III. DISCUSSION
The Appellant provides various arguments under separate
subheadings identified by certain claim(s). We address these arguments
separately to the extent that they satisfy the requirements for separate
3 US 2007/0115248 Al, published May 24, 2007.
4 Ans. 2-9; Final Act. 2-7.
3
Appeal2017-007636
Application 14/553,953
consideration of a claim as set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). 5 Thus,
except for those claims separately argued, all claims stand or fall with
representative claim 1.
A. Claims 1 and 9
The Appellant states that claims 1 and 9 stand or fall together (Appeal
Br. 4 ). Therefore, we need to address only claim 1.
The Examiner finds that Roberts describes a driver circuit and a
semiconductor light source meeting every limitation recited in claim 1 (Final
Act. 2-3). Regarding the disputed limitations highlighted above in
reproduced claim 1, the Examiner finds that Roberts discloses a variable
voltage boost converter operating in concert with a pulse width modulation
(PWM) controller that may be configured to control luminous intensity
(brightness) according to set duty cycle values (Ans. 4--5).
The Appellant contends that "Roberts fails to disclose or suggest that
its 'variable voltage boost converter' are controlled to adjust the voltage
applied when the duty cycle [falls] outside a desired tolerance as claimed"
(Appeal Br. 4). According to the Appellant, "Roberts clearly discloses
constant voltage control and merely discloses the use of duty cycle with
respect to turning on or off a particular LED string" (id. at 5). The Appellant
urges that "the adjustment of the variable voltage source now claimed
provides several advantages that are simply not possible from Roberts" (id.
at 6).
5 Under this rule, merely pointing out what a claim recites or a skeletal
argument that a reference does not disclose or suggest a limitation is not an
argument that requires our separate consideration. Cf In re Lovin, 652 F .3d
1349, 1356---57 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
4
Appeal2017-007636
Application 14/553,953
The Appellant's arguments fail to identify any reversible error in the
Examiner's rejection. In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
Roberts's Figure 8 is reproduced as follows:
CONTROLLER
nil
FIGURES
23A
236
23C
23D
30
Roberts's Figure 8 above depicts a system including a controller 230, which
may be programmed to provide pulse width modulation (PWM), and a bar
driver circuit 320 that includes four current supply circuits 400A-400D,
each controlled by control signals 342 from controller 230, for each LED
string 23A-23D in four bar assemblies 30 (Roberts ,r,r 67, 81 ).
A current supply circuit 400 is shown in further detail in Roberts's
Figure 9, reproduced as follows:
400--.,
\ 430
VIN DIODE+
40
450
1 .... DIODE·
PWM
5
Appeal2017-007636
Application 14/553,953
Roberts' s Figure 9 above is described as a schematic circuit diagram of a
current supply circuit 400 configured to supply an on-state drive current to a
string of solid state lighting devices (e.g., architectural and/or accent lighting
in the form of LEDs) (id. ,r,r 3, 9, 34). Specifically, Roberts teaches that the
current supply circuit 400 receives an input voltage VIN and has a variable
voltage boost converter configuration including a PWM controller 410, a
charging inductor 420, a diode 430, an output capacitor 440, first and second
control transistors 450, 460, and a sense resistor 470 (id. ,r 83).
Roberts teaches that "[t]he apparent brightness of an LED string 23
may be approximately proportional to the duty cycle of the LED string 23,
i.e., the fraction of the timing loop in which the LED string 23 is being
supplied with current" (id.) ( emphasis added). Although Roberts states that
the "LED string 23 may be supplied with a substantially constant current
during the period in which it is turned on[,]" Roberts also teaches that "[b ]y
manipulating the pulse width of the current signal, the average current
passing through the LED string 23 may be altered even while maintaining
the on-state current at a substantially constant value" (id. ,r 84) ( emphasis
added). Roberts teaches (id. ,r 87) ( emphases added):
[T]he register valuef61 for a given LED string 23 may
correspond directly to the duty cycle for the LED string 23.
However, any suitable counting process may be used provided
that the brightness of the LED string 23 is appropriately
controlled.
6 According to Roberts, the controller 230 translates a value corresponding
to a duty cycle (i.e., a value from O to 100) into a register value based on the
number of cycles in a timing loop (id. ,r 86).
6
Appeal2017-007636
Application 14/553,953
Thus, contrary to the Appellant's argued position (Appeal Br. 5),
Roberts' s disclosure is not limited to using duty cycle for turning the LED
strings on and off. Rather, consistent with the Examiner's findings (Ans. 4--
5; Final Act. 2-3), Roberts also teaches using duty cycle for controlling
brightness.
Where, as here, a claim is anticipated, secondary considerations for
nonobviousness such as advantages or unexpected results, as alleged by the
Appellant or the Inventors, are irrelevant. See, e.g., In re Malagari, 499
F.2d 1297, 1302 (CCPA 1974).
Therefore, we sustain the Examiner's rejection as entered against
claim 1.
B. Claims 2 and 3
The Appellant's arguments against claims 2 and 3 are identical
(Appeal Br. 6-7). Therefore, we need to address only claim 2, which
depends from claim 1 and recites that the "variable voltage source comprises
a variable resistor controlled by the controller" (Appeal Br. 10).
The Examiner finds that field effect transistor 450 in Roberts (Fig. 9)
acts as a controllable "variable resistor" (Final Act. 3). The Appellant does
not dispute the Examiner's finding that Roberts's transistor 450 is a
"variable resistor" (Appeal Br. 6). Rather, the Appellant argues that
transistor 450 is "controlled to provide a constant current and, not, variable
voltage as claimed" (id.).
The Appellant's argument is not persuasive. As we found above,
Roberts teaches that control transistors 450 and 460 are part of a variable
voltage boost converter configuration (Roberts ,r 82). Roberts teaches that
when the PWM signal in current supply circuit 400 is a logic HIGH, the
7
Appeal2017-007636
Application 14/553,953
circuit supplies power to LED string 23 and when the PWM signal in current
supply circuit is a logic LOW, current through the LED string 23 is turned
off (id. ,r 83). In addition, and as we pointed out above, Roberts teaches that
"[b ]y manipulating the pulse width of the current signal, the average current
passing through the LED string 23 may be altered even while maintaining
the on-state current at a substantially constant value" (id. ,r 84). Therefore, a
person skilled in the relevant art would have drawn a reasonable inference
that Roberts's control transistor is a "variable resistor" as required by claim
2. In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826 (CCPA 1968) ("[I]n considering the
disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific
teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art
would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom.").
For these reasons, we uphold the rejection as entered against claims 2
and 3.
C. Claims 6--8
The Appellant states that claims 6-8 stand or fall together (Appeal Br.
7). Therefore, we limit our discussion to claim 6.
Claim 6 depends from claim 1 and recites that "the variable voltage
source is adjustable in at least 5 increments" (Appeal Br. 11 ).
The Examiner finds that Roberts teaches a value corresponding to a
duty cycle (from Oto 100) that may be translated by controller 230 into a
register value based on the number of cycles in a timing loop and that a
timing loop including 10,000 clock cycles would have an increment of a
single clock cycle in the control of LED string brightness (Ans. 7 (relying on
Roberts ,r,r 86-87)).
8
Appeal2017-007636
Application 14/553,953
The Appellant argues that the "the claimed increments provide
benefits that cannot be predicted from the disclosure of Roberts" (Appeal Br.
7 (relying on Spec. ,r 47)). According to the Appellant, "step-down
converters like those of Roberts are not designed to provide very small
currents as compared to the maximum current, so that the dynamic range of
a step-down converter is limited to one to two orders of magnitude"
(Reply Br. 4 (relying on Spec. ,r 8)).
Again, however, secondary considerations of nonobviousness cannot
overcome an anticipation rejection. Moreover, the statements in the
Specification concerning advantages or benefits are either not germane to
claim 6 or lack factual support (i.e., objective evidence such as comparative
data or a sworn declaration from a disinterested expert).
For these reasons, we uphold the rejection as entered against claim 6.
D. Claims 10 and 11
The Appellant states that claims 10 and 11 stand or fall together
(Appeal Br. 7). Therefore, we confine our discussion to claim 10.
Claim 10 depends from claim 9. These claims are reproduced from
the Claims Appendix ( Appeal Br. 11) below:
9. A method for operating a driver circuit for a
semiconductor light source, comprising:
driving at least one semiconductor light source through
pulse width modulation;
sensing a luminous intensity of light emitted by the
semiconductor light source;
adjusting a duty cycle of the pulse width modulation based
on the sensed luminous intensity;
powering the semiconductor light source by a variable
voltage source;
controlling the variable voltage source, when the duty
cycle falls outside a desired tolerance range for the duty cycle to
9
Appeal2017-007636
Application 14/553,953
control the luminous intensity, to increase or decrease voltage
applied to the semiconductor light source such that the duty cycle
returns to the desired tolerance range to control the luminous
intensity.
10. The method as claimed in claim 9, wherein the
voltage applied to the semiconductor light source is reduced in
case of a duty cycle of less than 30 %.
The Examiner's position is that the values corresponding to a duty
cycle from Oto 100 in the prior art (Roberts ,r 86) describes "a duty cycle of
less than 30 %" (Ans. 8; Final Act. 5). The Appellant disagrees (Appeal Br.
8).
We agree with the Examiner. A person skilled in the relevant art
would have drawn a reasonable inference from the disclosed duty cycle
values in Roberts that any percentage between O and 100 is envisaged. Here,
"less than 30 %" recited in claim 10 constitutes a significant portion of the
disclosed prior art genus of 0-100%, which is already in the possession of
the public. Cf In re Schaumann, 572 F.2d 312, 316-17 (CCPA 1978).
Therefore, we sustain the rejection entered against claim 10.
E. Claims 12 and 13
The Appellant states that claims 12 and 13 stand or fall together
(Appeal Br. 8). Therefore, we confine our discussion to claim 12.
Claim 12 depends from claim 9 and recites that "the voltage applied to
the semiconductor light source is reduced in case of a duty cycle of less than
70%" (Appeal Br. 11 ).
The Appellant's arguments in support of claim 12 are analogous to the
arguments offered in support of claim 10 (id. at 8). For the same or
analogous reason given in our discussion above for claim 10, we also sustain
the rejection entered against claim 12.
10
Appeal2017-007636
Application 14/553,953
IV. SUMMARY
The Examiner's rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(l) of claims 1-15
as anticipated by Roberts is sustained. Therefore, the Examiner's final
decision to reject claims 1-15 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
11