PHILIPS LIGHTING HOLDING B.V.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 12, 2021

2020000796 (P.T.A.B. May. 12, 2021)

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.
15/739,799 12/26/2017 SANJEEV KUMAR PUVVADA
SATHYANARAYANA
2015P00314WOUS 1023
138325 7590 05/12/2021
Signify Holding B.V.
465 Columbus Avenue
Suite 330
Valhalla, NY 10595
EXAMINER
DEMETER, HILINA K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2674
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/12/2021 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 SANJEEV KUMAR PUVVADA SATHYANARAYANA,
SANJAY BHAT, and PRAMOD KUKHSHAL
____________
Appeal 2020-000796
Application 15/739,799
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, ADAM J. PYONIN,
and GARTH D. BAER, Administrative Patent Judges.

PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s rejection. 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. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Philips
Lighting Holding B.V. (now known as Signify Holding B.V.). Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2020-000796
Application 15/739,799

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant’s disclosure relates to an “augmented reality device and
method for assisting a user in choosing appropriate luminaire fixtures to
install within their home.” Abstract. Claims 1–13 are pending; claims 1 and
9 are independent; claim 1 is reproduced below for reference:
1. A mobile device, comprising:
a display panel;
a camera adapted to capture an image;
an orientation determination sensor; and
a processor, the processor adapted to:
receive orientation data from the orientation
determination sensor, the orientation data indicating a
determined orientation of the mobile device,
automatically select a luminaire category from a
set of luminaire categories based on the determined orientation
of the mobile device, each luminaire category associated with at
least one orientation,
select a virtual image of a luminaire fixture of the
selected luminaire category from among a stored set of virtual
luminaire images,
generate an augmented reality image by combining
the selected virtual image of the luminaire fixture of the
selected luminaire category with the image captured by the
camera, and
control the display panel to display the generated
augmented reality image.

Appeal Br. 18.

The Examiner’s Rejection
Claims 1–13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Padilla (US 2014/0347394 A1; Nov. 27, 2014) and
Jayadevaprakash (US 9,552,674 B1; Jan. 24, 2017). Final Act. 3.
Appeal 2020-000796
Application 15/739,799

3
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellant’s
arguments. Arguments Appellant could have made but chose not to make
are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2018). We
disagree with Appellant that the Examiner erred and adopt as our own the
findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner, to the extent consistent with
our analysis below. We add the following primarily for emphasis.
Appellant argues that
[a]t no point does Padilla teach or suggest a device that receives
orientation data from an orientation detection sensor of the
device. Furthermore, Padilla is entirely silent as to utilizing
orientation data to automatically select a luminaire category
from a set of luminaire categories based on such orientation
data.

Appeal Br. 12, citing Padilla ¶¶ 36–37. Appellant contends that

[a]t best Jayadevaprakash discusses selecting different
luminaires, or different “lighting arrangements” for display in a
room. As such, Jayadevaprakash is entirely silent as to
automatically selecting a luminaire category from a set of
luminaire categories based on the determined orientation of a
mobile device.

(Appeal Br. 13, citing Jayadevaprakash 9:65–57, 5:65–6:4), and also
contends that
Jayadevaprakash recites that “the distance and orientation of the
marker may be taken into account to properly size and place the
virtual object in the image.” Although not stated expressly, the
passages recited above at least imply that the use of the
orientation determining sensor is simply to aid in the creation of
an augmented reality image where it would be necessary for the
device to know the orientation between the computing device
and the plane of the two-dimensional marker so that the
Appeal 2020-000796
Application 15/739,799

4
augmented reality image may properly generate an appropriate
perspective for user visualization and not to assist in any way to
the selection of a luminaire category from a set of luminaire
categories.

Appeal Br. 15, citing Jayadevaprakash Abstract.
We do not agree with Appellant’s argument. Appellant’s arguments
do not address the combined teachings of Padilla and Jayadevaprakash. See
Appeal Br. 10–16; see also In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981)
(“[O]ne cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually
where, as here, the rejections are based on combinations of references.”).
Regarding Padilla, the Examiner finds, and we agree, that Padilla
teaches “different AR targets 204 can be associated with different sets of
possible light fixtures” (Ans. 3, citing Padilla ¶ 29) so that a user is able “to
view the AR view of the room 100 and a different light fixture from a
different set of light fixtures.” Ans. 4, citing Padilla ¶ 29. Further, the
Examiner finds, and we agree, that Padilla illustrates “AR views of [a] room
100 including example AR views of possible light fixtures.” Final Act. 4,
citing Padilla Figs. 6A–6B, ¶¶ 24, 39 (emphasis omitted).
Regarding Jayadevaprakash, the Examiner finds, and we agree, that
Jayadevaprakash teaches that “computing device 700 also includes at least
one orientation sensor,” which “may be used to determine an angle of a
plane associated with a two-dimensional marker i.e. target.” Ans. 4
(emphasis omitted), citing Jayadevaprakash columns 9–10; see particularly
9:65–10:3. The Examiner further finds that Jayadevaprakash “illustrates that
the [user interface] may also allow the user to select other lighting options in
place of the existing lighting currently available (e.g., light fixture 430). In
this instance, other lighting options are provided via a lighting widget 433
Appeal 2020-000796
Application 15/739,799

5
i.e. luminaire categories.” Ans. 4 citing Jayadevaprakash Fig. 4, columns 5–
6. We agree with the Examiner because lighting widget 433 “allows a user
to view various different lighting arrangements . . . to view how these
various lighting arrangements would affect the light directed onto the virtual
object in a camera view” Jayadevaprakash 5:67–6:4. Notably, Figure 4 of
Jayadevaprakash illustrates a light fixture affixed to the ceiling that provides
directional light downwards, and light widget 433 automatically offers
different lighting arrangements including downward and upward lighting
fixtures. See Jayadevaprakash Fig. 4 (items 430, 434, 436).
We do not agree with Appellant’s argument that “[a]t no point does
Padilla teach or suggest a device that receives orientation data from an
orientation detection sensor of the device” (Appeal Br. 12) because the
Examiner relies on the combination of Padilla with Jayadevaprakash for this
recitation (Final Act. 4, 5). One skilled in the art, having considered the
combined teachings of Padilla and Jayadevaprakash, would understand the
importance of both multiple perspectives and lighting arrangements (as
design incentives and/or market forces) in determining a suitable lighting
fixture when considering lighting options via an augmented reality system.
When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design
incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it,
either in the same field or a different one. If a person of
ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, § 103
likely bars its patentability.

KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007). Here, we agree
with the Examiner that the claimed “automatically select[ing] a luminaire
category from a set of luminaire categories based on the determined
orientation of the mobile device, each luminaire category associated with at
Appeal 2020-000796
Application 15/739,799

6
least one orientation” is obvious in view of the combination of cited
references (see Final Act. 5; Advisory Act. 2), as the limitation is “the
predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions”
(KSR, 550 U.S. at 417).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claim 1, as well as independent claim 9 commensurate in scope, and all
dependent claims not separately argued.

DECISION SUMMARY

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

AFFIRMED

Claim(s)
Rejected
35
U.S.C. §
Reference(s)/Basis

Affirmed Reversed
1–13 103 Padilla,
Jayadevaprakash
1–13