Martinus Petrus. Creusen et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 16, 2019

13882636 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Dec. 16, 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.
13/882,636 04/30/2013 Martinus Petrus Creusen 2010P00912WOUS 9638
138325 7590 12/16/2019
Signify Holding B.V.
465 Columbus Avenue
Suite 330
Valhalla, NY 10595
EXAMINER
O TOOLE, COLLEEN J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2842
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/16/2019 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):
Gigi.Miller@signify.com
jo.cangelosi@signify.com
kim.larocca@signify.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MARTINUS PETRUS CREUSEN, RALPH KURT,
HAIMIN TAO, CARSTEN DEPPE, GEORG SAUERLAENDER, and
PETER HUBERTUS FRANCISCUS DEURENBERG
Appeal 2019-000535
Application 13/882,636
Technology Center 2800
Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, JEFFREY T. SMITH, and
BRIAN D. RANGE, Administrative Patent Judges.

GARRIS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 2–4, 9–13, 18, 19, 28, and 29. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Philips Lighting
Holding B.V.. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2019-000535
Application 13/882,636

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to an apparatus comprising a light emitting
diode (LED) module comprising an LED string of a first LED segment 11
and one or more further LED segments 12–14 in combination with a current
control device 45, wherein the current control device, the first LED segment
and the one or more further LED segments are all connected in series with
each other between first and second LED driver input terminals 30, 39
(independent claim 4, Fig 1a). The claims also are directed to a
corresponding method of driving such an LED string (remaining
independent claim 10). Claim 4, reproduced below, is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter:
4. An apparatus, comprising:
a light emitting diode (LED) module comprising an LED string of a
first LED segment and one or more further LED segments, wherein each
LED segment comprises at least one LED; and
an LED driver circuit comprising:
first and second LED driver input terminals adapted to be connected
to a rectified AC mains voltage such that the rectified AC mains voltage is
applied across the first and second LED driver input terminals, wherein the
first LED segment and the one or more further LED segments are connected
together in series with each other between the first and second LED
driver input terminals;
one or more switching devices, each switching device being
connected across a corresponding one of the one or more further LED
segments;
control circuitry for controlling an open state or a closed state of each
of the switching devices which are connected across the further LED
segments, the control circuitry being adapted to control all of the switching
devices which are connected across the further LED segments to have a
closed state whenever the rectified AC mains voltage is less than a
predetermined voltage level, and to control a first one of the switching
devices connected across a first one of the further LED segments to have an
Appeal 2019-000535
Application 13/882,636

3
open state whenever the rectified AC mains voltage is greater than the
predetermined voltage level; and
a current control device, wherein the current control device, the first
LED segment[,] and the one or more further LED segments are all connected
in series with each other between the first and second LED driver input
terminals, where the current control device is adapted to pulse width
modulate a current flowing through it,
wherein the first LED segment emits light having a first color
temperature, and the first one of the further LED segments emits light
having a second color temperature higher than the first color temperature,
and the light emitted by the first LED segment and the light emitted by
the first one of the further LED segments are superimposed.
REJECTIONS
Under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), the Examiner rejects claims 2, 4,
9–13, 18, 19, 28, and 29 as unpatentable over Yamamoto (US 7,564,198 B2,
issued July 21, 2009) in view of Grootes (US 7,317,403 B2, issued Jan. 8,
2008) and rejects claims 3 as unpatentable over these references in
combination with Melanson (US 7,288,902 B1, issued Oct. 30, 2007).2
OPINION
We sustain the Examiner’s rejections for the reasons expressed in the
Final Office Action, the Examiner’s Answer, and below.
In rejecting claim 4, the Examiner finds that Yamamoto discloses all
aspects of the claimed apparatus except for the limitation concerning a
current control device (Final Act. 2–3 (citing Yamamoto Fig. 7)), and
Appellant does not argue otherwise (see generally Appeal Br.). The

2 Appellant submits arguments specifically directed to independent claim 4
(Appeal Br. 11–14) and relies on these arguments in addressing the other
claims under rejection (id. at 14–15). Therefore, claims 2, 3, 9–13, 18, 19,
28, and 29 will stand or fall with representative claim 4.
Appeal 2019-000535
Application 13/882,636

4
Examiner finds that Grootes teaches a current control device and concludes
that it would have been obvious “to use the current control device taught by
Grootes in the circuit of Yamamoto to separately control the brightness of
the LEDs” (Final Act. 3 (citing Grootes Fig. 4 elements 40–42, col. 3, ll. 23–
28)).
Referring to Grootes’s Figure 4, Appellant argues “Grootes permits
separate control of the LEDs by placing each string of LEDs in parallel with
the other LED strings, destroying the serial relationship required by the
independent claims” (Appeal Br. 13). Appellant further argues “Yamamoto
cannot be combined with Grootes in a way that preserves the series
relationship required by the claims and also provides the separate control of
the LEDs segments of Grootes that the Final Office Action relies on for the
motivation to combine” (id.). According to Appellant, “any combination of
Yamamoto with Grootes that did retain a series combination of the LEDs
would necessarily lack any ability to control the LEDs separately, thus
destroying the Final Office Action’s motivation to combine” (id. at 13–14).
Contrary to Appellant’s arguments, the parallel connection of multiple
LED strings shown in Figure 4 of Grootes does not result in “destroying the
serial relationship required by the independent claims” (Appeal Br. 13).
More specifically, claim 4 does not require multiple LED strings and
correspondingly does not require a serial connection of multiple LED
strings. Rather, the claim recites “a light emitting diode (LED) module
comprising an LED string of a first LED segment and one or more further
LED segments” in combination with “a current control device, wherein the
current control device, the first LED segment, and the one or more further
LED segments are all connected in series with each other” (claim 4). The
Appeal 2019-000535
Application 13/882,636

5
Figure 4 embodiment of Grootes includes a serial connection between a
current control device (e.g., Grootes element 40) and the multiple LED
segments of an individual LED string (e.g., Grootes element 32) as required
by claim 4.
In responding to Appellant’s arguments, the Examiner finds that
Figure 7 of Yamamoto discloses an LED module comprising an LED string
of multiple serially connected LED segments (e.g., Yamamoto blocks (N-1),
1, 0) (Ans. 2). The Examiner additionally finds that Figure 4 of Grootes
discloses plural current control devices 40–42 and LED strings 32–34 where
each current control device is serially connected to its associated LED string
and the segments contained therein (id. at 3 (citing Grootes col. 3, ll. 23–28,
col. 4, ll. 52–54)). We observe that Appellant does not challenge these
particular findings in the record before us (i.e., no Reply Brief has been
filed). We agree with the Examiner that the above findings support a
conclusion that it would have been obvious to provide Yamamoto with an
individual current control device for each LED string to separately control
LED brightness as taught by Grootes.
These circumstances lead us to determine that Appellant’s arguments
fail to reveal error in the Examiner’s rejection of representative claim 4.
CONCLUSION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 2–4, 9–13, 18, 19,
28, and 29.
Appeal 2019-000535
Application 13/882,636

6
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
2, 4, 9–13,
18, 19, 28,
29
103(a) Yamamoto,
Grootes
2, 4, 9–13,
18, 19, 28,
29

3 103(a) Yamamoto,
Grootes, Melanson
3
Overall
Outcome
2–4, 9–13,
18, 19, 28,
29

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED