Anatoli Saveliev et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 22, 2019

13126256 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jul. 22, 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.
13/126,256 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