PHILIPS LIGHTING HOLDING B.V.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 19, 2021

2020003380 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 19, 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.
14/764,006 07/28/2015 Bjorn Christiaan Wouter KAAG 2012P00684WOUS 5483
138325 7590 08/19/2021
Signify Holding B.V.
465 Columbus Avenue
Suite 330
Valhalla, NY 10595
EXAMINER
SANDERS, JOSHUA T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2119
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/19/2021 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 BJORN CHRISTIAAN WOUTER KAAG
Appeal 2020-003380
Application 14/764,006
Technology Center 2100
Before RICHARD M. LEBOVITZ, LARRY J. HUME, and
BETH Z. SHAW, Administrative Patent Judges.
HUME, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 3, 4, 6–8, 14, 16, 17, 19, and 20.
Claims 9–11 and 13 have been withdrawn from consideration, and claims 2,
5, 12, 15, and 18 have been canceled. See Appeal Br. (Claims App.) We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as SIGNIFY HOLDING
B.V. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2020-003380
Application 14/764,006

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE2
The claimed subject matter is directed to “System and Method for
Enhanced Security for Solar Powered Lighting.” See Spec. (Title). In
particular, Appellant’s disclosed embodiments and claimed invention
“relate[] to a method and system for providing enhanced lighting security of
solar powered lighting, and, more particularly, an improved method and
system to control when a dimming override function is allowed so as to limit
and/or prevent energy reserves from being depleted during the night.”
Spec. 1:1–4.
Exemplary Claim
Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on
Appeal (italics and labeling added to contested limitations):
1. A method to control a power override function for
a solar powered device, said method comprising the steps of:
receiving an override function signal, where the override
function signal requests a change related to an increase in
energy consumption of a load of the solar powered device; and
in response to the override signal, performing the
follow[ing] steps:
determining if a current available stored energy
amount in the solar powered device can provide enough
energy for the increase in the energy consumption of the
load;

2 Our decision relies upon Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.,” filed
Oct. 23, 2019); Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Mar. 31, 2020); Examiner’s
Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Jan. 31, 2020); Final Office Action (“Final Act.,”
mailed May 31, 2019); and the original Specification (“Spec.,” filed
July 28, 2015) (claiming benefit of US 61/761,928, filed Feb. 7, 2013).
Appeal 2020-003380
Application 14/764,006

3
[(a)] estimating if an amount of energy to be
depleted due to the increase in the energy consumption
can be recovered by solar generation in one subsequent
day after the amount is depleted, before a next expected
use of the load; and
[(b)] increasing the energy consumption of the
load if both the current available stored energy can
provide enough energy, and the estimated amount of
energy to be depleted is estimated to be recovered in said
one subsequent day;
wherein the solar powered device is not connected
to a power grid, and wherein prior to receipt of the
override signal, the solar powered device was operating
at a reduced light level.
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art as evidence:
Name Reference Date
Myer et al. (“Myer”) US 2012/0020060 A1 Jan. 26, 2012
Logvinov US 2012/0280565 A1 Nov. 8, 2012
Kearns et al. (“Kearns”) US 2014/0049109 A1 Feb. 20, 2014
REJECTION
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6–8, 14, 16, 17, 19, and 20 stand rejected under pre-
AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of
Myer, Logvinov, and Kearns. Final Act. 6.
CLAIM GROUPING
Based on Appellant’s arguments (Appeal Br. 5–10) and our discretion
under 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv), we decide the appeal of the obviousness
Appeal 2020-003380
Application 14/764,006

4
rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 6–8, 14, 16, 17, 19, and 20 on the basis of
representative claim 1.3
ISSUES
Appellant argues (Appeal Br. 5–10; Reply Br. 2–7) the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over the
combination of Myer, Logvinov, and Kearns is in error. These contentions
present us with the following issues:
A. Did the Examiner err in finding the cited prior art combination
teaches or suggests “[a] method to control a power override function for a
solar powered device” that “in response to [an] override signal,” performs,
inter alia, the steps of:
[(a)] estimating if an amount of energy to be depleted due
to the increase in the energy consumption can be
recovered by solar generation in one subsequent day after
the amount is depleted, before a next expected use of the
load; and
[(b)] increasing the energy consumption of the load if
both the current available stored energy can provide
enough energy, and the estimated amount of energy to be
depleted is estimated to be recovered in said one
subsequent day;
as recited in claim 1?

3 “Notwithstanding any other provision of this paragraph, the failure of
appellant to separately argue claims which appellant has grouped together
shall constitute a waiver of any argument that the Board must consider the
patentability of any grouped claim separately.” 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
In addition, when Appellant does not separately argue the patentability of
dependent claims, the claims stand or fall with the claims from which they
depend. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Appeal 2020-003380
Application 14/764,006

5
B. Did the Examiner err in finding the cited prior art combination
teaches or suggests the limitations of claim 1 because, allegedly Logvinov
and Kearns are non-analogous art to the claimed invention and therefore are
not properly combinable with Myer?
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
“[O]ne cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references
individually where . . . the rejections are based on combinations of
references.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981). “The test for
obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be
bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference. . . . Rather,
the test is what the combined teachings of those references would have
suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.” Id. at 425.
In KSR, the Court stated “[t]he combination of familiar elements
according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more
than yield predictable results.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398,
416 (2007).
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. For the same reason, if a technique
has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary
skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar
devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless
its actual application is beyond his or her skill . . . . [A] court
must ask whether the improvement is more than the predictable
use of prior art elements according to their established
functions.
Id. at 417.
Appeal 2020-003380
Application 14/764,006

6
Further, the relevant inquiry is whether the Examiner has set forth
“some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the
legal conclusion of obviousness.” In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed.
Cir. 2006) (cited with approval in KSR, 550 U.S. at 418).
During prosecution, claims must be given their broadest reasonable
interpretation when reading claim language in light of the specification as it
would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Am. Acad. of
Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Under this standard,
we interpret claim terms using “the broadest reasonable meaning of the
words in their ordinary usage as they would be understood by one of
ordinary skill in the art, taking into account whatever enlightenment by way
of definitions or otherwise that may be afforded by the written description
contained in the applicant’s specification.” In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048,
1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
ANALYSIS
In reaching this decision, we consider all evidence presented and all
arguments actually made by Appellant. To the extent Appellant has not
advanced separate, substantive arguments for particular claims, or other
issues, such arguments are waived. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
We disagree with Appellant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 3,
4, 6–8, 14, 16, 17, 19, and 20 and, unless otherwise noted, we incorporate by
reference herein and adopt as our own: (1) the findings and reasons set forth
by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken, and (2) the
reasons and rebuttals set forth in the Examiner’s Answer in response to
Appeal 2020-003380
Application 14/764,006

7
Appellant’s arguments. We highlight and address specific findings and
arguments regarding claim 1 for emphasis as follows.
The Examiner finds the Myer reference teaches or suggests disputed
limitations (a) and (b) (Final Act. 7–8, citing Myer Fig. 34, ¶¶ 388, 433,
436–444), and finds Logvinov teaches or suggests “performing the steps of
determining and estimating in response to an override signal.” Final Act. 9.
A. All Limitations are Taught or Suggested
Limitation (a) — “estimating”
Limitation (a) of claim 1 recites “estimating if an amount of energy to
be depleted due to the increase in the energy consumption can be recovered
by solar generation in one subsequent day after the amount is depleted,
before a next expected use of the load.” Paragraph 436 of Myer, relied upon
by the Examiner, discloses various conditions, i.e., “Example Programming
for Various Energy-Savings Modes,” that determine, based upon daily
production data from the previous day, an operating mode of an energy-
efficient solar-powered outdoor lighting system. For example, “[d]uring the
nighttime hours the battery is continuously monitored. The night battery
voltage=Vnb, and If Vnb ever drops below 10 volts then turn light off and
won't come on until Vnb>= 10.5 volts.” Myer ¶ 436.
Subsequent to this determination, paragraph 388 of Myer discusses
the process in Figure 34 in which
a processor determines the current and/or predicted energy
availability and/or demand for lighting. For example, this
determination may be based on a charge, current, or voltage
level of a battery circuit, historical data regarding energy
collection (e.g. energy generated during the previous day or
Appeal 2020-003380
Application 14/764,006

8
week), energy cost data, predicted generation capability (e.g.,
based on a weather report received over a network connection,
inferred from past energy generation, or provided by a[n]
operator), historical data regarding motion detection, and/or the
like.
Myer ¶ 388. Figure 34 of Myer is illustrated below:

“FIG[]. 34 . . . illustrate[s] basic logic flow diagrams of some
embodiments of the active lighting control process, including error/alert
indication processes.” Myer ¶ 44.
With respect to paragraph 436 of Myer, the Examiner finds that the
available energy budget in Myers is determined by analyzing the battery
voltage (Veb) and the energy production (Ah) over a one day period, and
further, with respect to paragraph 388 of Myer, the “[E]xaminer notes that
lighting system is used nightly, so a one day period is the maximum period
before which the next expected use of the load may occur; although energy
production in Myer is historical, the amount is being used to estimate likely
Appeal 2020-003380
Application 14/764,006

9
energy production over subsequent days.” Final Act. 7 (citing Myer ¶¶ 388,
436–444).
Appellant responds that the Examiner’s statement “‘that only VeB and
Ah are used to set the mode’ . . . may be true . . . [but] Myer fails to use Ah,
and instead relies only upon Vnb (the night battery voltage) in his response
to a dimming override function.” Appeal Br. 7. “[W]hile the Ah value is
used to determine the mode, the resulting mode rules only apply to how
much light is to be supplied and for how long. Appellant submits that the
Ah value is not employed in an initial decision of whether or not the energy
consumption should be increased in response to an override condition.”
Appeal Br. 8.
Appellant concludes, because Myer’s mode response is based solely
on the Vnb value, Myer’s disclosure fails to teach or suggest limitation (a),
i.e., the “estimating” step of claim 1 (id.), and necessarily also does not teach
or suggest conditional limitation (b). Appeal Br. 9.
We disagree with Appellant’s arguments and agree with the
Examiner’s finding that Myer teaches or suggests limitation (a), i.e.,
“estimating if an amount of energy to be depleted due to the increase in the
energy consumption can be recovered by solar generation in one subsequent
day after the amount is depleted, before a next expected use of the load,” as
recited in claim 1.
We agree with the Examiner because Myer teaches “a processor
determines the current and/or predicted energy availability and/or demand
for lighting” that “may be based on . . . historical data regarding energy
collection (e.g. energy generated during the previous day or week), energy
Appeal 2020-003380
Application 14/764,006

10
cost data, predicted generation capability (e.g., based on a weather report
received over a network connection, inferred from past energy generation, or
provided by a[n] operator).” Myer ¶ 388. Thus, Meyer estimates the
amount of energy that is depleted by the lighting (Fig. 34) with respect to the
predicted generation capability (Meyer ¶ 338), indicates that Myer’s
disclosure, as cited by the Examiner, teaches or at least suggests estimating
if the anticipated energy consumption can be recovered in the time period
specified.
Limitation (b) — Conditionally “increasing the energy consumption”
Conditional limitation (b) recites “increasing the energy consumption
of the load if both the current available stored energy can provide enough
energy, and the estimated amount of energy to be depleted is estimated to be
recovered in said one subsequent day.” We note limitation (b), as well as
limitation (a), both are executed “in response to an override signal.”
The Examiner relies upon Myer in paragraphs 433 and 438 to teach or
suggest limitation (b). For example, in a normal mode of operation, “[i]f
motion is detected it immediately brightens up to 100% for 10 minutes after
the last-detected motion. It then dims back down to the lower setting over
one minute.” Myer ¶ 433. Paragraph 438 of Myer discloses various
conditions that determine resultant specific lighting brightness levels based
upon a range of voltage levels of voltage Vnb, i.e., a voltage measurement
that we find, given the overall disclosure of Myer, serves as a proxy for the
“current available stored energy.” Myer ¶ 438.
Appellant argues the Examiner erred because Myer’s override signals
relate to a motion detection signal (Appeal Br. 7), and contends “while the
Appeal 2020-003380
Application 14/764,006

11
Ah value is used to determine the mode, the resulting mode rules only apply
to how much light is to be supplied and for how long. Appellant submits
that the Ah value is not employed in an initial decision of whether or not the
energy consumption should be increased in response to an override
condition.” Appeal Br. 8. “Appellant submits that neither Logvino [sic] nor
Kearns teaches ‘increasing the energy consumption of the load if the current
available stored energy can provide enough energy and the amount of energy
depleted is estimated to be recovered in said one subsequent day,’ as
claimed.” Appeal Br. 10.
We note Appellant is arguing the references separately, when the
rejection is based upon what the combination of references would have
suggested to a person with ordinary skill in the art. See Keller, 642 F.2d
at 426.
The Examiner cites Logvinov for teaching providing an override
signal.
Accordingly, LOGVINOV teaches that when an override is
received from a user or a system status update overrides default
power settings (rules) (LOGVINOV [0028]) it is useful to
evaluate whether that power change creates a conflict with
power usage limits and modify the operation of the system
accordingly, ([0028]-[0029] including consideration of
consumption, output of renewable sources, and future trends
(LOGVINOV [0030]-[0031]). Although LOGVINOV teaches
this in the context of a multicomponent system, LOGVINOV
nevertheless provides a suggestion and motivation for
evaluating the state of power consumption and available future
renewable resources *in response* to an override, and
accordingly provides motivation to one of ordinary skill to
modify the order of steps in the MYER reference.
Final Act. 9.
Appeal 2020-003380
Application 14/764,006

12
The Examiner explained that “[o]ne of ordinary skill in the art would
have been motivated to do this modification in order to ‘offer an opportunity
for optimization of energy consumption and intelligent load shedding.’ in
lighting systems, as suggested by LOGVINOV [0031], and because
LOGVINOV suggests to one of ordinary skill that rearrangement of the
steps of MYER would have predictable results.” Final Act. 10.
We agree with the Examiner’s reasoning because Logvinov teaches
“in some cases, a user may temporarily or permanently override the default
rule set in order to have a device operate according to an override rule set”
(Logvinov ¶ 28), and “dealing with conflict situations may take into account
a number of factors such as the amount of power available in storage
(electric car or any other type of energy storage) and user provisioned rules
related to the allowance to consume more power at higher costs.” Id. ¶ 31.
B. Logvinov and Kearns are Properly Combinable with Myer
Appellant argues “both of these [Logvinov and Kearns] references
relate to devices that are connected to a power grid,” and are not related to
solar powered devices and, therefore, Logvinov and Kearns relate to
nonanalogous art. Appeal Br. 10.
A rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 cannot be based on non-analogous
art. Innovention Toys, LLC, v. MGA Entertainment, Inc., 637 F.3d 1314,
1321 (Fed. Cir. 2011); In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In
re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 658 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Art is analogous when it is:
(1) from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention; or
(2) reasonably pertinent to the particular problem faced by the inventor, if
the art is not from the same field of endeavor. Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1325–26.
Appeal 2020-003380
Application 14/764,006

13
“The Supreme Court’s decision in KSR . . . directs us to construe the scope
of analogous art broadly.” Wyers v. Master Lock Co., 616 F.3d 1231, 1238
(Fed. Cir. 2010). “The field of endeavor of a patent is not limited to the
specific point of novelty, the narrowest possible conception of the field, or
the particular focus within a given field.” Unwired Planet, LLC v. Google
Inc., 841 F.3d 995, 1001 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
The “Examiner believes that Logvinov and Kearns are analogous art
because they are reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which
the applicant was concerned: the operation of electrical systems including
sources and loads and providing estimates and responses to overrides and
requests.” Ans. 9.
We agree with the Examiner on this point, and further find that
Logvinov and Kearns not only satisfy the second prong of the Bigio test,
above, but we further find these references satisfy the first prong of the test,
i.e., these references are also, broadly speaking, in the same field of
endeavor as the claimed invention. The claimed method is “to control a
power override function for a solar powered device, said method comprising
the steps of. . . .” Logvinov and Kearns are titled, respectively, “SYSTEM
AND METHOD FOR AN INTELLIGENT POWER CONTROLLER”
(Logvinov, Title), and “METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR
DELIVERING POWER USING EXTERNAL DATA.” Kearns, Title. We
find these references and the claimed invention may reasonably be construed
as being generally directed to electrical power control and distribution, and
therefore may be considered to be from the same field of endeavor.
Appeal 2020-003380
Application 14/764,006

14
Thus, we are not persuaded that the Logvinov and Kearns references
are nonanalogous art to the claimed invention.4
Based upon the findings above, on this record, we are not persuaded
of error in the Examiner’s reliance on the cited prior art combination to teach
or suggest the disputed limitations of claim 1, nor do we find error in the
Examiner’s resulting legal conclusion of obviousness. Therefore, we sustain
the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claim 1, and grouped
claims 3, 4, 6–8, 14, 16, 17, 19, and 20 which fall therewith. See Claim
Grouping, supra.
REPLY BRIEF
To the extent Appellant may advance new arguments in the Reply
Brief (Reply Br. 2–7) not in response to a shift in the Examiner’s position in
the Answer, arguments raised in a Reply Brief that were not raised in the
Appeal Brief or are not responsive to arguments raised in the Examiner’s
Answer will not be considered except for good cause (see 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.41(b)(2)), which Appellant has not shown.

4 Appellant further argues, with respect to Logvinov and Kearns, that “both
of these references relate to devices that are connected to a power grid. As
such, features of the claimed invention are more critical in that relate to a
limited power reserve obtained from solar power (and ‘not connected to a
power grid’).” Appeal Br. 10. Appellant does not address the Examiner’s
finding that “at least some embodiments of Myer are not tied to a power
grid, see e.g. [0058] ‘fig. 50 is a plot of test data from a solar-powered pole
operating without any tie to the grid.’” Final Act. 8 (italics omitted).
Appeal 2020-003380
Application 14/764,006

15
CONCLUSION
We AFFIRM the Examiner’s rejection.
More specifically, Appellant has not persuasively argued that the
Examiner erred with respect to the obviousness rejection of claims 1, 3, 4,
6–8, 14, 16, 17, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the cited prior art
combination of record, and we sustain the rejection.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
References/
Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 3, 4, 6–8,
14, 16, 17,
19, 20
103(a)
Myer,
Logvinov,
Kearns
1, 3, 4, 6–8,
14, 16, 17,
19, 20

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)(1)(iv). See 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED