Ex Parte Boleko Ribas et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 7, 2016

12528455 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 7, 2016)

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.
12/528,455 03/04/2010 Salvador Expedito Boleko Ribas 2007P00224WOUS 3915
138325 7590 12/09/2016
PTTTT TPS T TfrTTTTNfr R V
EXAMINER
465 Columbus Avenue CHANG, SUNRAY
Suite 330
Valhalla, NY 10595 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2121
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/09/2016 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):
kim.larocca@philips.com
j o. c angelosi @ philips. com
Gigi.Miller@philips.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SALVADOR EXPEDITO BOLEKO RIBAS,
MATTHIAS WENDT and VOLKMAR SCHULZ
Appeal 2016-001649
Application 12/528,455
Technology Center 2100
Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, JEFFREY S. SMITH, and
TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner
twice rejecting claims 1, 2, 7, 8, 13—15, 18, 25—27, and 38-46, all the claims
pending in the application. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
The present invention relates generally to a computer-controlled
lighting system, and more particularly to “the automatic configuration of the
Appeal 2016-001649
Application 12/528,455
lighting system for achieving a desired illumination of a work surface”
(Spec. 1,11. 6-8).
Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A controllable lighting system for illuminating a work surface,
the system comprising:
an interface for defining one or more parameters of the work
surface and a desired illumination of the work surface, the interface operable
with a processing unit for determining a location of the work surface relative
to one or more components of the lighting system;
a plurality of luminaires for illuminating the work surface, the
luminaires including a sensor for determining one or more parameters
associated with position and/or orientation thereof within the lighting
system;
the processing unit operable for determining configuration
parameters based at least in part on the position and/or orientation
parameters of the luminaires, wherein the configuration parameters facilitate
configuring the luminaires such that the desired illumination of the work
surface is achievable;
wherein the work surface comprises a plurality of sections and
wherein processing unit is configured to determine the configuration
parameters based on a plurality of reference measurement points on the work
surface to calculate a point-by-point analysis which estimates a contribution
of each luminaire of the lighting system to each section of the work surface.
Appellants appeal the following rejections:
Rl. Claims 1, 7, 8, 13—15, 18, 38-40, and 42-46 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Krah (US 2008/0068372 Al,
Mar. 20, 2008).
R2. Claims 2, 25—27, and 41 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over Krah and Nuver (US 4,009,387, Feb. 22, 1977).
2
Appeal 2016-001649
Application 12/528,455
Claim Groupings
Based on Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief, we will decide
the appeal on the basis of claim 1, as set forth below. See 37 C.F.R.
§41.37(c)(l)(iv).
ANALYSIS
Rejection under § 102 over Krah
Issue 1: Did the Examiner err in finding that Krah describes “a
plurality of luminaires for illuminating the work surface, the luminaires
including a sensor for determining one or more parameters associated with
position and/or orientation thereof within the lighting system,” “the
processing unit operable for determining configuration parameters based at
least in part on the position and/or orientation parameters of the
luminaires'1'’ and “wherein processing unit is configured to... estimates a
contribution of each luminaire of the lighting system to each section of the
work surface,” as recited in claim 1?
Appellants contend the claim requires “each of the luminaires
provides such positioning information of the luminaire and orientation
information for the luminaire in order to calculate such contribution
aspects,” and that Krah “is detecting the angle of the incident light beam and
is not detecting any information in regards to the specific and plurality of
luminaires” (App. Br. 7). Specifically, Appellants argue Krah “tracks
observers to adjust the proper deflection angles of the projected light beams
for left and right images to assure that they correctly reach the observers
respective left and right eyes,” and “does not establish such positional
3
Appeal 2016-001649
Application 12/528,455
orientation or determination parameters with regards to a plurality of
luminaires within a lighting system” (App. Br. 8; see Reply Br. 4).
Claim 1 recites, inter alia, “determining one or more parameters
associated with position and/or orientation thereof within the lighting
system” (see claim 1). The Examiner finds the scope of this limitation,
when read in light of Appellants’ Specification (see Spec. 3,11. 18—24),
defining a luminaire as “any lamp, light fixture or light module comprising
for example a lamp and an optic” encompasses the sub-images from the
projector which is part of lighting equipment or lighting infrastructure (Ans.
18). We agree with the Examiner.
Specifically, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that Krah’s angles
to define light paths in coordination with the surface function describes the
claimed determining one or more parameters associated with position and/or
orientation within the lighting system (see Ans. 3 4).
For example, Krah discloses:
The corresponding image modulators 118 and 120 are then
controlled by the modulation function 602 to modulate the left
and right sub-images 114 and 116 and pass the respective image
data signals 702 (i.e., 702L and 702R) to the projector 122
whenever the modulation functions 602 has a value of 1.
Similarly, when the modulation function 602 has a value of 0, no
signal is passed to the projector 122. This causes the image data
signal 702 to be modulated for projection by the projector 122
at only the precise moments when the angles of the incident beam
304 are correct in coordination with the surface function 302 to
define respective discrete light paths 402 that cause the image
data 702 and the left and right sub-images therein (114 and 116,
represented by 702L and 702R) to be respectively spatially
directed to reflect from the projection screen 124 individually
and substantially exclusively to the locations of the respective
left and right eyes 208 and 210 of the observer 132.
4
Appeal 2016-001649
Application 12/528,455
(Krah 193, emphases added). In other words, Krah describes modulating
signals through a projector specifically when there will be appropriate light
paths to reflect from the projection screen, based on angles and a surface
function. As such, Krah describes a projector projecting signals upon a
projection screen, wherein the projection is based on light paths which is
based on relative position and/or orientation information between various
elements of the system, including the projector and the projection screen.
Appellants do not provide persuasive evidence or argument that
Krah’s projector projecting signals onto a projection screen, wherein the
signals are dependent upon the relative position and/or orientation
information between the associated projector and projection screen does not
describe the “luminaires including a sensor for determining one or more
parameters associated with position and/or orientation thereof within the
lighting system” and “determining configuration parameters based at least in
part on the position and/or orientation parameters of the luminaires,” as
recited in claim 1. Thus, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that Krah’s
projector and projected signals describes luminaires as required by claim 1,
and Krah’s reliance on angles resulting from signals projected from the
projector onto the projection screen describes the configuration parameters
based on position and/or orientation parameters, as required by claim 1.
Issue 2: Did the Examiner err in finding that Krah describes “an
interface for defining one or more parameters of the work surface and a
desired illumination of the work surface,” as recited in claim 1?
Appellants contend Krah determines “the position of the observer 132
in relation to the screen and significantly not determining the location of a
5
Appeal 2016-001649
Application 12/528,455
work surface relative to the one or more components of the lighting system”
(Reply Br. 3).
However, the Examiner finds, and Appellants fail to rebut, that Krah’s
XR and Xl describe the claimed sections of the work surface, and the
contribution of the projected sub-images to each section describes the
claimed contributions of the luminaires on the sections of the work surface
(Ans. 19), and that Krah “considers both angular (orientation) and location
information” (Ans. 20).
For example, Krah discloses:
Referring now to FIG. 2, therein is shown a depiction 200 of a
single pixel 202 on the surface of the projection screen 124 (FIG.
1). Left and right light beams 204 and 206 are shown following
paths from the projector 122 to the pixel 202 on the projection
screen 124...
For each pixel 202, being dome-shaped in this embodiment,
there is exactly one location Xl and one location Xr where the
projected light beams 204 and 206 respectively reflect to enter
the observer’s respective left and right eyes 208 and 210...
...there is thus ideally only one location each, XL and XR
respectively, at which the light is reflected into the corresponding
left eye 208 and right eye 210 of the observer 132.
(Krah || 61—63, emphases added). In other words, Krah describes the
projector beaming signals onto the projection screen, and specifically XLand
XR representing reflecting points within a pixel on the projection screen.
Krah also describes the projection is based on light paths which is based on
relative position and/or orientation information between various elements of
the system including the projector and the projection screen (see Krah 193).
As noted supra, Appellants do not address the Examiner’s findings
regarding Krah’s XL and Xr which represent sections of a projection screen
that is illuminated by a projector. As such, Appellants do not provide
6
Appeal 2016-001649
Application 12/528,455
persuasive evidence or argument that Krah’s projecting onto specific
sections of a projection screen does not describe “defining one or more
parameters of the work surface and a desired illumination of the work
surface” and “determining a location of the work surface relative to one or
more components of the lighting system,” as recited in claim 1.
For at least these reasons, we are unpersuaded the Examiner erred.
Accordingly, the Examiner’s § 102(e) rejection of independent claim 1, as
well as commensurate independent claims 38 and 39, and dependent claims
7, 8, 13—15, 18, 40, and 42-46, not separately argued are sustained (see App.
Br. 8).
Rejection under § 103 over Krah and Nuver
Appellants have provided no separate arguments towards patentability
for claims 2, 25—27, and 41 (see App. Br. 8). Therefore, the Examiner’s
§103 rejection of claims 2, 25—27, and 41 is sustained for similar reasons as
noted supra.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s § 102(e) rejection R1 of claims 1, 7, 8,
13-15, 18, 38-40, and 42-46.
We affirm the Examiner’s § 103(a) rejection R2 of claims 2, 25—27,
and 41.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
7