Cree, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 6, 2020

15483453 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 6, 2020)

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.
15/483,453 04/10/2017 Bart Reier 7500-021 / P2697US1 3648
24112 7590 04/06/2020
COATS & BENNETT, PLLC
1400 Crescent Green, Suite 300
Cary, NC 27518
EXAMINER
CRAWFORD, JASON
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2844
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/06/2020 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BART REIER, DANIEL JAMES VAN EPPS, YUAN FANG,
DAVID POWER, LEIGH HERMAN, and THOMAS GORDON
Appeal 2019-003680
Application 15/483,453
Technology Center 2800
Before CATHERINE Q. TIMM, CHRISTOPHER C. KENNEDY, and
JULIA HEANEY, Administrative Patent Judges.
HEANEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL1
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–20. See Final Act. 1. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM IN PART.

1 This Decision refers to the Specification filed April 10, 2017 (“Spec.”),
Final Office Action dated May 15, 2018 (“Final Act.”), Advisory Action
dated June 21, 2018 (“Advisory Act.”), Appeal Brief dated Sept. 25, 2018
(“Appeal Br.”), and Examiner’s Answer dated Mar. 19, 2019 (“Ans.”).
2 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 Cree, Inc. Appeal Br.
1.
Appeal 2019-003680
Application 15/483,453
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The subject matter on appeal relates to a lighting controller configured
to wirelessly control a solid state lighting fixture with a touch-sensitive panel
configured to emit light and receive input from a user. Spec. ¶ 3. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A lighting controller comprising:
power circuitry configured to relay power from the lighting
controller to a solid state lighting fixture wired to the
lighting controller;
transmitter circuitry configured to wirelessly exchange
signals with the solid state lighting fixture;
a touch-sensitive panel configured to emit light and receive
touch input from a user;
processing circuitry electrically coupled to the power
circuitry, the transmitter circuitry, and the touch-sensitive
panel, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to:
wirelessly control, via the transmitter circuitry, an attribute
of light emitted by the solid state lighting fixture in
accordance with the touch input received via the
touch-sensitive panel; and
control the light emitted from the touch-sensitive panel to
illuminate an area around the lighting controller and
correspondingly indicate the attribute as the attribute
is wirelessly controlled.
Appeal Br. 20 (Claims Appendix) (emphasis added). The only other
independent claim, claim 11, is a method claim that recites similar features
to claim 1. Appeal Br. 14.
Appeal 2019-003680
Application 15/483,453
3
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Kerr US 7,236,154 B1 June 26, 2007
Kim
Lashina
Blase
US 2014/0246991 A1
US 2016/0205748 A1
US 2017/0064850 A1
Sept. 4, 2014
July 14, 2016
Mar. 2, 2017

REJECTIONS
The Examiner maintains the following rejections on appeal:
1. Claims 1, 2, 4–12 and 14–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over the combination of Blase, Kim and Kerr.
Final Act. 2.
2. Claims 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over the combination of Blase, Kim, Kerr, and Lashina.
Final Act. 12.
OPINION
Claim 1
The Examiner finds Blase teaches a lighting controller 110
comprising a touch-sensitive panel 510, 512 configured to emit light and
receive touch input from a user and processing circuitry 502 configured to
wirelessly control an attribute of light emitted by a solid state lighting fixture
in accordance with the touch input received via the touch-sensitive panel.
Final Act. 2 (citing Blase Fig. 5, ¶¶ 82, 86). The Examiner finds that Blase
does not teach that light emitted from the touch-sensitive panel indicates the
attribute as the attribute is wirelessly controlled, or that the touch-sensitive
panel illuminates an area around the lighting controller. Final Act. 3.
Appeal 2019-003680
Application 15/483,453
4
The Examiner finds Kim discloses a lighting controller 101
comprising processing circuitry 202 configured to wirelessly control an
attribute of light emitted by a solid state lighting fixture 111 in accordance
with the touch input received via a touch-sensitive panel 206, 400 and to
control light emitted from the touch-sensitive panel to indicate the attribute
as the attribute as the attribute is wirelessly controlled. Final Act. 3 (citing
Kim Figs. 2A, 4, ¶¶ 69, 71, 72). The Examiner further finds that Kim
teaches that the backlight of its user interface illuminates changes in the
controlled attributes by increasing the illuminated indicator on sliders 401,
403. Advisory Act. 2. The Examiner determines that it would have been
obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to illuminate the touch display
with the amount of a variable attribute as taught by Kim, in order to provide
a clear indication of attribute control. Final Act. 3.
The Examiner also finds Kerr teaches lighting controller 150
configured to illuminate an area around the lighting controller. Final Act. 4
(citing Kerr Figs. 3, 5, 5:29–7:64). The Examiner determines that it would
have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have a touch-
sensitive panel and user display illuminate the area around Kerr’s lighting
controller to provide a visual response to the adjustment of the lighting
attributes. Id.
Appellant argues that Blase does not teach controlling the light
emitted from the touch-sensitive panel to illuminate an area around the
lighting controller and correspondingly indicate the attribute as the attribute
is wirelessly controlled. Appeal Br. 7. Appellant’s argument is not
persuasive of reversible error because it is directed at the reference
individually, although the rejection is based on a combination of the
references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981)
Appeal 2019-003680
Application 15/483,453
5
(nonobviousness cannot be shown by attacking references individually where
the rejection is based on combination of the references).
Appellant further argues that Kim does not teach that light
illuminating an area around its lighting controller also indicates the
wirelessly controlled light attribute. Appeal Br. 8. Specifically, Appellant
argues that Kim’s teaching of displaying information on a display that
indicates the wirelessly controlled light attribute does not teach illuminating
an area “around the lighting controller” as recited in claim 1, because “light
on a display and light illuminating an area around the display are not the
same thing.” Id. at 9. Appellant also argues that Kim’s user interface “that
includes numerous static and/or dynamic elements having various properties
(e.g., Kim Figure 8) on the display” does not “correspondingly indicate the
attribute as the attribute is wirelessly controlled” as recited in claim 1,
because of the tendency of multiple light components emitted by the same
display to mix in ways to produce a broad variety of color combinations.
Appeal Br. 10.
Appellant’s argument directed to Kim’s teaching is not persuasive of
reversible error. Essentially, Appellant argues that a person of ordinary skill
would have understood that light on Kim’s display is not light “around” the
display, as recited in claim 1. Having considered Appellant’s position and
reviewed the Specification, we determine that the Specification does not
provide a special definition for “around,” and we therefore apply a broad
interpretation. See In re ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379
(Fed. Cir. 2007) (“the PTO must give claims their broadest reasonable
construction consistent with the specification. . . . Therefore, we look to the
specification to see if it provides a definition for claim terms, but otherwise
apply a broad interpretation.”). We determine that the broadest reasonable
Appeal 2019-003680
Application 15/483,453
6
interpretation of illuminating an area “around” a lighting controller
encompasses Kim’s teaching of light on its display. Similarly, we determine
that the Specification does not provide a special definition for
“correspondingly,” and therefore apply a broad interpretation. We
determine that the illuminated sliders for color temperature and brightness
on Kim’s interface (Kim Fig. 4) correspondingly indicate the attributes of
color temperature and brightness as those attributes are wirelessly
controlled, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of
“correspondingly.” We further determine that the evidence offered by
Appellant as to the definition of “correspondingly” (see Appeal Br. 6)
supports this interpretation.
Appellant further argues that Kerr teaches away from the proposed
combination of references because Kerr teaches differentiating the light
produced from its display in a manner that contrasts with the ambient light.
Appeal Br. 11. Specifically, Appellant argues the Kerr teaches that light
around its controller (i.e., the ambient light) should not correspondingly
indicate an attribute of the light being controlled, but rather that the attribute
of the light being controlled should be differentiated from the light around
the controller. Appeal Br. 13–14. This argument is not persuasive of
reversible error, because the Examiner does not rely on Kerr as teaching that
light around the controller correspondingly indicates an attribute of the light
being controlled. Further, Kerr does not teach away from correspondingly
indicating an attribute of the light being controlled, because it does not
discourage that feature. See In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir.
2004) (prior art does not teach away from claimed subject matter merely by
disclosing a different solution to a similar problem unless the prior art also
criticizes, discredits, or otherwise discourages the solution claimed).
Appeal 2019-003680
Application 15/483,453
7
On the record before us, we are not persuaded of reversible error in
the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1.
Claim 11 and Dependent Claims
Appellant does not separately argue independent claim 11 or
dependent claims 2, 3, 6, 7, 10–13, 16, and 20. Appeal Br. 14. Accordingly,
we affirm the rejection of these claims. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Claims 4 and 14 depend from claims 1 and 11, respectively, and
additionally recite that the lighting controller further comprises a series of
solid state indicator lights. Appeal Br. 14–15. The Examiner finds that Kim
teaches solid state indicator lights in Fig. 4, 8, and 10–14. Final Act. 4–5.
Appellant argues that Kim teaches a display unit capable of rendering an
application user interface, not solid state indicator lights as would have been
understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art. Appeal Br. 15. We agree
with Appellant that Kim does not teach solid state indicator lights, because
the Examiner has not adequately shown that Kim’s display unit and user
interface comprises a series of solid state indicator lights, as required by
claims 4 and 14. Accordingly, reverse the rejection of claims 4 and 14. For
the same reason, we reverse the rejection of claims 5 and 15, which depend
from claims 4 and 14.
Claims 8 and 18 depend from claims 7 and 17, respectively, and
additionally recite that the processing circuitry is “further configured to,
responsive to determining that the configuration value is equal to a value at
either end of the range of supported configuration values, provide feedback
to the user using the haptic feedback actuator, the audio device, or both.”
Appeal Br. 17 (Claims Appendix). The Examiner relies on Blase as
teaching haptic feedback that falls within the scope of claims 8 and 18.
Final Act 6 (citing Blase ¶ 77). Appellant argues that Blase’s haptic
Appeal 2019-003680
Application 15/483,453
8
feedback is not actuated in response to determining the claimed
configuration value being equivalent to a value of a range of configuration
values. Appeal Br. 18. We agree with Appellant that Blase’s input device
506 does not provide haptic feedback when actuated in response to
determining the claimed configuration value being equivalent to a value of a
range of configuration values. See Blase ¶ 77. Instead, Blase merely
teaches that its input device provides haptic feedback when actuated, without
any teaching of the conditions under which the input device is actuated.
Accordingly, we reverse the rejection of claims 8 and 18.
Claims 9 and 19 depend from claims 1 and 11, respectively, and
additionally recite that “to control the light emitted from the touch-sensitive
panel, the processing circuitry is configured to control the light emitted from
the touch-sensitive panel to indicate both the brightness attribute and the
color temperature attribute.” Appeal Br. 23, 26 (Claims Appendix).
Appellant argues that Kim does not teach this limitation for the same reasons
that Kim does not teach the limitations of claims 1 and 11 discussed above.
Id. at 18–19. Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of claims 9 and 19 for the
same reasons as we affirm the rejection of claims 1 and 11.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejection is AFFIRMED IN PART.
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 4-12,
14-20
103 Blase, Kim, Kerr 1, 2, 6, 7,
9–12, 16,
19, 20
4, 5, 8, 14,
15, 18
Appeal 2019-003680
Application 15/483,453
9
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
3, 13 103 Blase, Kim, Kerr,
Lashina
3, 13
Overall
Outcome:
1–3, 6, 7,
9–13, 16,
19, 20
4, 5, 8, 14,
15, 18

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 IN PART