Anatoli Saveliev et al.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardJul 22, 201913126256 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jul. 22, 2019) Copy Citation 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. 13/126,256 04/27/2011 Anatoli Saveliev 2008P01100WOUS 1976 136186 7590 07/22/2019 Lumileds (PLG) Attn: Monica Ward 370 West Trimble Road San Jose, CA 95131 EXAMINER LUQUE, RENAN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2844 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 07/22/2019 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): IPG_Docketing@lumileds.com Paralegal@convergenceiplaw.com eofficeaction@appcoll.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte ANATOLI SAVELIEV and SVEN PROBST ____________________ Appeal 2018-007123 Application 13/126,256 Technology Center 2800 ____________________ Before LINDA M. GAUDETTE, BRIAN D. RANGE, and LILAN REN, Administrative Patent Judges. RANGE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL SUMMARY Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 4–7, 10, 11, 13–18, and 22–25. We have jurisdiction. 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Lumileds LLC. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2018-007123 Application 13/126,256 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE2 Appellants describe the invention as relating to providing power to a gas discharge lamp. Spec. 1:7–9. In particular, the Specification explains that discharge bulb ballasts detect a turning point at which bulb voltage starts rising after the bulb is switching on. Id. at 1:16–23. The Specification explains that after exceeding this turning point, the power control unit supplies the discharge bulb with a power less than its initial first power. Id. Claim 1, reproduced below with emphasis added to certain key recitations, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A device for providing an amount of power to a gas discharge lamp, the device comprising a control circuit for controlling a supply circuit for supplying the power according to a power versus voltage graph, the power versus voltage graph defining a first state for supplying a first amount of power, the power versus voltage graph defining a second state for supplying a second amount of power, the first state ending at a boundary voltage value of a voltage signal and the second state starting at the boundary voltage value, the control circuit comprising a calculator for calculating the boundary voltage value as a function of a measured, non- steady-state voltage value of the voltage signal that has been measured after a predefined time-interval from a cold start of the gas discharge lamp. Appeal Br. 12 (Claims App.). 2 In this Decision, we refer to the Final Office Action dated September 20, 2017 (“Final Act.”), the Appeal Brief filed March 7, 2018 (“Appeal Br.”), the Examiner’s Answer dated May 4, 2018 (“Ans.”), and the Reply Brief filed June 29, 2018 (“Reply Br.”). Appeal 2018-007123 Application 13/126,256 3 REJECTION On appeal, the Examiner maintains (Ans. 2) the rejection of claims 1, 10, 11, 13, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Kumagai et al., U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2007/0210723 A1, Sept. 13, 2007 (“Kumagai”). ANALYSIS We review the appealed rejection for error based upon the issues identified by Appellants and in light of the arguments and evidence produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential), cited with approval in In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[I]t has long been the Board’s practice to require an applicant to identify the alleged error in the examiner’s rejections.”). After considering the evidence presented in this Appeal and each of Appellants’ arguments, we are not persuaded that Appellants identify reversible error. Thus, we affirm the Examiner’s rejections for the reasons expressed in the Final Office Action and the Answer. We add the following primarily for emphasis. Appellants do not present substantively distinct arguments for any claims before us. Appeal Br. 8. We therefore limit our discussion to claim 1. All remaining claims stand or fall with that claim. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2013). The Examiner finds that Kumagai discloses a device for providing an amount of power to a gas discharge lamp. Final Act. 2 (citing Kumagai). The Examiner finds that Kumagai teaches controlling power according to a power versus voltage graph and that Kumagai teaches a control circuit comprising a calculator for calculating a boundary voltage value as a function of measured, non-steady-state voltage value. Id. at 2–3. Appeal 2018-007123 Application 13/126,256 4 Appellants argue that Kumagai measures or detects voltages V1 and V2 and calculates time elapsed between the voltage values. Appeal Br. 6. Appellants thus argue that Kumagai does not calculate a boundary voltage value as recited in claim 1. Id. The preponderance of the evidence does not support Appellants’ position. Kumagai teaches at paragraph 150 that its device determines voltage at two distinct divided voltage points. Kumagai then teaches: “An absolute value of a difference between two pieces of A/D converted data is calculated to obtain the detection value of the lamp voltage V1a of the discharge lamp DL.” Kumagai ¶ 150; see also Ans. 8 (citing Kumagai ¶ 150). Thus, while counterintuitive based on Kumagai’s nomenclature, Kumagai expressly teaches that its device calculates “the detection value” of voltage rather than directly detecting it. Compare Kumagai ¶ 150 with Reply Br. 2 (“As its name implies, detection value V2 is detected (not calculated) value of the detected lamp voltage V1a.”), 3 (“Kumagai simply does not disclose calculating detection value V2 or V1”). Kumagai also teaches that its detection values are used to calculate target voltage. Kumagai ¶ 161. Although Kumagai also calculates time as argued by Appellants (Appeal Br. 6–7), Kumagai determines times, at least in part and in some embodiments, based on calculated detection values. Id. ¶ 155. Because Appellants’ arguments are premised on an interpretation of Kumagai’s detection values that is not supported by the preponderance of the evidence, Appellants’ arguments fail to identify reversible error in the Examiner’s rejection. We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection. Appeal 2018-007123 Application 13/126,256 5 DECISION For the above reasons, we affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 10, 11, 13, and 16. 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation