Ex Parte Bradford

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 30, 2017

13565220 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 30, 2017)

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.
13/565,220 08/02/2012 Everett Bradford 1194-109 2729
27820 7590 02/01/2017
WITHROW & TERRANOVA, P.L.L.C.
106 Pinedale Springs Way
Cary, NC27511
EXAMINER
RICHARDSON, JANY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2844
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/01/2017 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):
patents @ wt-ip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte EVERETT BRADFORD
Appeal 2015-007894
Application 13/565,220
Technology Center 2800
Before ROMULO H. DELMENDO, AVELYN M. ROSS, and
JEFFREY R. SNAY, Administrative Patent Judges.
SNAY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision2 rejecting claims 1, 9, 13—15, 17—19, and 21—23. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellant identifies Cree, Inc. as the real party in interest. Appeal Brief
filed Feb. 13, 2015 (“App. Br.”) at 1.
2 Final Action entered Aug. 11, 2014 (“Final Act.”) at 3—6; Examiner’s
Answer entered June 30, 2015 (“Ans.”) at 2-6.
Appeal 2015-007894
Application 13/565,220
BACKGROUND
The subject matter on appeal is directed to a “solid-state lighting
device that safely handles over-voltage conditions.” Specification filed Aug.
2, 2012, as amended June 25, 2014, (“Spec.”) 12. When a string of LED
lights is connected to a power supply when the power supply is providing an
output signal (so-called “hot plugging”), excessive voltage applied to string
may result in an excessive current surge, potentially causing failure of the
LEDs. Spec. 1 65. Appellant discloses provision of a solid-state switch
coupled in series with an LED string, and a system controller configured to
control the switch based on a monitored current delivered to the LED string
during an initial powering-up period following a hot plugging or other
startup event. Id. 14.
Details of the appealed subject matter are recited in illustrative claim
1, which is reproduced below from the Claims Appendix of the Appeal
Brief:
1. A lighting device comprising:
• a first string of LEDs and a first semiconductor
switch coupled in series between a power supply node
and ground;
• a system controller configured to, during a period
when the lighting device is powering up after being
initially provided power by a power supply:
• monitor a drive current through the first
string of LEDs, and
• modulate a control signal provided to the
first semiconductor switch based on the drive
current to prevent the drive current from exceeding
a maximum allowable drive current value for the
first string of LEDs.
App. Br. 11, Claims Appendix.
2
Appeal 2015-007894
Application 13/565,220
REJECTIONS
I. Claims 1, 9, 13, 14, 17, and 21—23 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Kajita.3
II. Claims 15, 18, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Kajita.
DISCUSSION
I
With regard to Rejection I, Appellant argues the rejected claims as a
group. App. Br. 5—9. In accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv), we
select claim 1 as representative, and decide the appeal of Rejection I based
on the representative claim alone.
Appellant does not dispute the Examiner’s findings that Kajita
describes a lighting device comprising a string of LEDs and a semiconductor
switch (transistor 43 in Kajita’s Figure 1), coupled in series between a power
supply node and ground, and a system controller configured to modulate a
control signal provided to the switch to prevent the drive current to the LED
string from exceeding a maximum allowable value. Compare Final Act. 3
with App. Br. 5—9; Reply Br. 2—5. At issue in this appeal is whether Kajita’s
controller is configured to modulate the switch’s control signal “when the
lighting device is powering up,” as is recited in claim 1. Appellant contends
it is not. App. Br. 5. Particularly, Appellant argues that Kajita describes
operation of the controller to prevent overcurrent which otherwise would
result in an operating LED string when some of the LEDs in the string fail.
3 US 2007/0159736 Al, issued July 12, 2007 (“Kajita”).
3
Appeal 2015-007894
Application 13/565,220
Id. at 6 (citing Kajita H 6, 24, 25, 29). According to Appellant, that
operation in Kajita involves controlling current to the LED string “when the
LED unit 10 is already operational, i.e., not when the LED unit 10 is
powering up, as recited in claim 1Id.
However, Appellant does not present persuasive evidence or technical
reasoning that would support the contention that Kajita’s controller would
not also function when the LED unit is powering up.4 The fact that Kajita’s
controller is operable to prevent overcurrent while the LED string is
operational does not necessarily preclude the controller from operating in the
described manner when the LED lighting unit is powering up. Kajita
explains that the controlling element limits current to correct an overcurrent
condition arising when one or more LEDs in a string are broken and short-
circuited. Kajita 1 6. When current to the string exceeds a threshold value,
the switch (transistor 43) is regulated to limit the current and thereby correct
the overcurrent condition. Id. H 25, 29. Particularly, “when the current 110
is greater than the threshold current value X2, the transistor 43 is partially on
to limit the current 110.” Id. 125. See also id. 129 (“[Wjhen the current 110
increases above the threshold current value X2, the transistor 43 of the
overcurrent protection circuit 40 limits the current 110 immediately.”).
Appellant fails to present persuasive evidence that Kajita’s controller would
4 Appellant does not propose any particular meaning for the term “powering
up” as it is used in claim 1. Nor does Appellant dispute the Examiner’s
finding that Kajita discloses a generic switch configured to turn the LED
unit on and off, compare Ans. 7 (citing Kajita 126) with Reply Br. 3, such
that Kajita’s LED unit necessarily would power up when the unit is switched
from off to on.
4
Appeal 2015-007894
Application 13/565,220
not have performed as described when current exceeds the threshold value
when the LED unit is powering up.
Appellant also argues that the Examiner’s finding that Kajita’s
controller is configured to operate as described during a powering up period
relies on “possibilities or probabilities” that generally are insufficient to
support a finding of inherency. App. Br. 7. We disagree. The Examiner’s
finding that Kajita’s controller is configured to operate during power-up is
based not on possibilities or probabilities, but on the above-noted electronic
structure of Kajita’s lighting device and the reasonable expectation that,
absent any evidence to the contrary, Kajita’s controller would operate
whenever power is delivered to the lighting unit and an overcurrent
condition is encountered. As such, we are persuaded that a preponderance
of the evidence supports the Examiner’s finding that Kajita’s controller is
configured to operate when the lighting unit is powering up.
For the foregoing reasons, Appellant does not persuade us of
reversible error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 9, 13, 14, 17, and
21—23 over Kajita. Accordingly, we sustain Rejection I.
II
With regard to Rejection II, Appellant argues the rejected claims as a
group and rely upon the same arguments presented in connection with
Rejection I. App. Br. 9. We therefore sustain Rejection II for the reasons
given in connection with Rejection I.
5
Appeal 2015-007894
Application 13/565,220
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 9, 13—15, 17—19, and 21—
23 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136.
AFFIRMED
6