Hu, Yuequan et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 20, 2019

14083070 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Dec. 20, 2019)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
14/083,070 11/18/2013 Yuequan Hu 1535-2102 1214
158862 7590 12/20/2019
MYERS BIGEL, P.A.
P.O. BOX 37428
RALEIGH, NC 27627
EXAMINER
YESILDAG, LAURA G
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2844
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/20/2019 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 YUEQUAN HU and LIQIN NI
____________

Appeal 2019-002822
Application 14/083,070
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before MONTÉ T. SQUIRE, AVELYN M. ROSS, and BRIAN D. RANGE,
Administrative Patent Judges.

SQUIRE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

Appellant2 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision to finally reject claims 1–12 and 21–28, which are all of the claims
pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 In this Decision, we refer to the Specification filed Nov. 18, 2013
(“Spec.”); Final Office Action dated May 31, 2018 (“Final Act.”); Advisory
Action dated Aug. 31, 2018 (“Advisory Act.”); Appeal Brief filed Oct. 30,
2018 (“Appeal Br.”); Examiner’s Answer dated Jan. 2, 2019 (“Ans.”); and
Reply Brief filed Feb. 27, 2019 (“Reply Br.”).
2 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies Cree, Inc. as the real party in
interest. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2019-002822
Application 14/083,070

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant’s disclosure relates to light emitting diode (LED) driver
systems and more particularly to a current sharing driver for light emitting
diodes. Spec. ¶ 1; Abstract. According to the Specification, embodiments
of the present disclosure include circuits for balancing the current between
two or more strings of LEDs in parallel and may include a plurality of LED
strings placed in parallel to form a light output, e.g., as a replacement for a
traditional incandescent or florescent light source. Spec. ¶ 4.
Claim 1 illustrates the claimed subject matter on appeal and is
reproduced below from the Claims Appendix to the Appeal Brief:
1. A system comprising:
a first string of LEDs;
a second string of LEDs connected in parallel with the first
string of LEDs;
a first current control device connected in series with the
first string of LEDs;
a second current control device connected in series with
the second string of LEDs;
a first voltage measurement device coupled to the first
string of LEDs and the second string of LEDs, the first voltage
measurement device coupled to the first current control device
and configured to control the first current control device in
response to measurements of the second string of LEDs; and
a second voltage measurement device coupled to the first
string of LEDs and the second string of LEDs, the second voltage
measurement device coupled to the second current control device
and configured to control the second current control device in
response to measurements of the first string of LEDs.
Appeal Br. 19 (Appendix A) (key disputed claim language italicized and
bolded).
Appeal 2019-002822
Application 14/083,070

3
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies on the following prior art references as evidence
in rejecting the claims on appeal:
Name Reference Date
Kotikalapoodi et al.
(“Kotikalapoodi”)
US 2008/0054815 A1 Mar. 6, 2008
Lee et al.
(“Lee”)
US 2012/0268021 A1 Oct. 25, 2012
REJECTION
On appeal, the Examiner maintains (Ans. 3) the following rejection:
claims 1–12 and 21–28 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Lee in view of Kotikalapoodi. Final Act. 2–24.
OPINION
The Examiner determines that the combination of Lee and
Kotikalapoodi suggests a system satisfying all of the limitations of claim 1
and concludes the combination would have rendered the claim obvious.
Final Act. 2–8. Regarding the “first voltage measurement device” and
“second voltage measurement device” recitations of claim 1, the Examiner
principally relies on Lee for teaching or suggesting those elements of the
claim. Id. at 3–5. In particular, the Examiner finds that Lee’s protective unit
80, which the Examiner contends connects and controls linear regulators 40,
corresponds to and falls within the scope of the “voltage measurement
device” elements of the claim. Id. at 3.
More specifically, the Examiner finds
[t]he protective unit as a whole or any one or more
elements (such as the op-amps U1 or U2) in the protective
Appeal 2019-002822
Application 14/083,070

4
unit 80 can be used as the voltage measurement device
since the protective unit [80] is connected and controlling
the linear regulator [40] in Lee.
Id. at 3 (citing Lee, Fig. 3, ¶ 29).
Alternatively, the Examiner finds that Lee’s “detecting resistors Rs of
the linear resistors 40” also correspond to and fall within the scope of a
“voltage measurement device,” as recited in the claim. Id. at 3–4 (citing Lee
¶ 25).
Appellant argues the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 should be
reversed because Lee does not teach or suggest a “first voltage measurement
device” and a “second voltage measurement device,” as recited in the claim.
Appeal Br. 9–12; Reply Br. 1–8. In particular, Appellant argues the
Examiner has failed to establish Lee’s protective unit 80 falls within the
scope of a “voltage measure device,” as claimed. Id. at 9.
Appellant contends that, contrary to the Examiner’s findings,
protective unit 80 does not control the linear regulators 40 in Lee. Appeal
Br. 9–10. Rather, the linear regulators 40 are actually controlled by PWM
signal 90, and not by protective unit 80, as the Examiner alleges. Id. at 9
(citing Lee ¶ 23). Appellant further contends that, in contrast to the claimed
first voltage measurement device, for example, which is “configured to
control the first current control device in response to measurements of the
second string of LEDs,” Lee’s protective unit 80 merely provides short
circuit protection, and there is no teaching or suggestion that it controls or
can even be configured to control a control device and operate in the manner
claimed. Id. at 10.
Appellant also argues the Examiner’s rejection should be reversed
because the Examiner’s alternative theory that Lee’s linear resistors 40
Appeal 2019-002822
Application 14/083,070

5
themselves fall within the scope of the claimed voltage measurement device
is erroneous and unsupported by sufficient evidence in the record. Id. at
10–11.
The weight of the evidence supports Appellant’s arguments. On the
record before us, we are not persuaded the Examiner has established by a
preponderance of the evidence that the cited art teaches or suggests a “first
voltage measurement device” and a “second voltage measurement device,”
as recited in the claim. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992)
(holding the examiner bears the initial burden of establishing a prima facie
case of obviousness).
In particular, we are not persuaded the portions of Lee the Examiner
cites and relies upon in the rejection teach or suggest the “voltage
measurement device” elements of the claim. The Examiner’s findings
regarding Lee’s protective unit 80 are not persuasive because, as Appellant
correctly points out, protective unit 80 does not control the linear regulators
40 and does not function as the claimed voltage measurement device, as the
Examiner alleges. Rather, Lee teaches that the linear regulators 40 are
actually controlled by PWM signal 90 (Lee ¶ 23 (disclosing “the linear
regulators 40 receive a PWM dimming signal 90 for turning on or turning
off the MOSFETs 42 of the linear regulators 40 so as to dim control the LED
strings 30”)), and that protective unit 80 provides Lee’s device short circuit
protection (id. ¶ 31).
Specifically, regarding the operation of protective unit 80, paragraph
31 of Lee discloses
[t]he first switch units Sw1 will conduct while the voltage
drop between drain and source of corresponding MOSFET
42 is larger than the threshold limit voltage, and the second
Appeal 2019-002822
Application 14/083,070

6
operation amplifier U2 outputs a protective signal so as to
cut off the DC power to achieve LED short circuit
protection.
Although Figures 1 and 3 of Lee depict that protective unit 80 may be
electrically connected to linear regulators 40, there is no teaching or
suggestion that protective unit 80 is or corresponds to a “voltage
measurement device” configured in the manner claimed.
The Examiner’s alternative theory that Lee’s linear regulators 40
themselves correspond to and fall within the scope of voltage measurement
device elements of the claim is equally unpersuasive because the Examiner
does not identify sufficient evidence in the record or provide an adequate
technical explanation to support it. The fact that paragraph 25 of Lee
discusses that the detecting resistors Rs of the linear regulators 40 may be
operated in feedback controlling mode, without more, does not necessarily
teach or suggest that the described linear regulators 40 are considered and
can be operated as voltage measurement devices configured in the manner
claimed, and the Examiner does not provide technical reasoning sufficient to
support such a finding. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418
(2007) (requiring “reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the
legal conclusion of obviousness”) (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988
(Fed. Cir. 2006)).
Moreover, in the Answer, the Examiner does not provide any
persuasive findings or discussion regarding the technical feasibility of
modifying Lee’s protective unit 80 or the linear regulators 40 to operate as
voltage measurement devices configured in the manner claimed; the impact
that would have on the operation of the Lee’s circuit; or why one of ordinary
skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in making
Appeal 2019-002822
Application 14/083,070

7
such modification. For example, the Examiner provides no discussion
regarding what impact such a modification would have on the operation and
capability of Lee’s circuit to achieve the objective of current-sharing control
of the multi-channel LED driving circuit, which is a feature that Lee teaches
is desired (Lee ¶¶ 5–7). See also Belden Inc. v. Berk–Tek LLC, 805 F.3d
1064, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“[O]bviousness concerns whether a skilled
artisan not only could have made but would have been motivated to make the
combinations or modifications of prior art to arrive at the claimed
invention.”).
Thus, for principally the same reasons provided by Appellant at pages
9–12 of the Appeal Brief and pages 1–8 of the Reply Brief, we are not
persuaded the Examiner has established by a preponderance of the evidence
that either the protective unit 80 or the linear regulators 40 disclosed by Lee
falls within the scope of a “first voltage measurement device” and a “second
voltage measurement device,” as recited in the claim.
We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 and
determination that it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of
Lee and Kotikalapoodi to arrive at the claimed subject matter.
Because claims 1–12 depend from claim 1, we also do not sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of these claims. Because claims 21 and 22 recite the
same “voltage measurement device” limitation as claim 1 and claims 23–28
recite a similar limitation, we also do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
those claims.
Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–12 and
21–28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combination of Lee and
Kotikalapoodi.
Appeal 2019-002822
Application 14/083,070

8
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–12, 21–28 103 Lee, Kotikalapoodi 1–12, 21–28

REVERSED