Ex Parte Cavalcanti et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 19, 2019

13636236 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jun. 19, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/636,236 09/20/2012
138325 7590
Signify Holding B.V.
465 Columbus A venue
Suite 330
Valhalla, NY 10595
06/21/2019
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Dave Cavalcanti
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
2010P00312WOUS 6608
EXAMINER
LIN,JASON
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2117
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/21/2019 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):
kim. larocca@signify.com
jo.cangelosi@signify.com
Gigi.Miller© signify. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DA VE CA V ALCANTI and V ASANTH GADDAM1
Appeal2018-008778
Application 13/636,236
Technology Center 2100
Before JOHN A. EVANS, JOHN P. PINKERTON, and
MICHAEL M. BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
BARRY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1, 4, 6-9, 12-14, and 17-21, which constitute all the claims pending
in this application. See Final Act. 1 and Appeal Br. 17-21 (Claims App'x).
Appellants have canceled claims 2, 3, 5, 10, 11, 15, and 16. Appeal Br. 3-5.
We have jurisdiction over the remaining pending claims under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify Philips Lighting Holding B.V. as the real party in
interest. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal2018-008778
Application 13/636,236
Introduction
Appellants' invention relates to a scalable network of heterogeneous
devices including a plurality of outdoor lighting fixture nodes for controlling
a plurality of lighting figures (e.g., street lights). Spec. ,i,i 36, 40. In a
disclosed embodiment, a remote management system transmits segment
controller data to segment controllers, which transmit lighting fixture control
data to the lighting fixture nodes. Id. ,i 50. "The lighting fixture nodes ...
may control at least one light output characteristic of the corresponding
street lighting fixtures ... based at least in part on the lighting fixture control
data." Id. For example, in the event of an emergency, the lighting fixture
control data sent to the lighting fixture nodes may be "information indicating
that all lighting fixtures ... should be illuminated at full power until farther
[sic] notice". Id. To monitor conditions nearby the lighting fixtures, a
plurality of sensors (e.g., for detecting motion, air quality, and visibility)
may be provided. Spec. ,i 38. In another disclosed embodiment, the
segment controller may analyze data measured from the sensors and adapt
the output of lighting fixtures according to the monitored conditions without
waiting for a command from the remote management system. Id. ,i,i 48, 52.
Claims 1, 9, and 18 are independent, of which claim 1 is
representative and reproduced below (formatting and bracketed letters added
for ease of reference):
1. A scalable network of heterogeneous devices, said
network comprising:
[a] a plurality of outdoor lighting fixture nodes, each of
said outdoor lighting fixture nodes includes a controller to
control at least one light output characteristic of at least one
outdoor lighting fixture and receive lighting fixture control data;
wherein said light output characteristic of said at least one
2
Appeal2018-008778
Application 13/636,236
outdoor lighting fixture is based at least in part on said lighting
fixture control data;
[b] at least one remote management system in
communication with said controllers;
[ c] wherein said remote management system transmits
controller data to said controllers and at least some of said
lighting fixture control data is based at least in part on said
controller data;
[ d] a plurality of sensors transmitting sensor data to at least
one of said controllers;
[ e] a segment controller configured to locally determine a
subset of said sensor data and/or the lighting fixture control data
to transmit to said remote management system, said subset of
data including information indicative of said sensor data; and
[f] wherein said segment controller locally determines at
least some of said lighting fixture control data for two or more of
the lighting fixture nodes of the plurality of outdoor lighting
fixture nodes based on said sensor data, independent of
communication with said remote management system.
Appeal. Br. 17 (Claims App'x).
Rejections and References
1. The Examiner rejected claims 1, 4, 6-9, 12-14, and 17-21
under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with
the written description requirement. Final Act. 3-8.
2. The Examiner rejected claim 18 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point
out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the applicant regards as the
invention. Id. at 8.
3. The Examiner rejected claims 1, 4, 6-8, 19, and 21 under
pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Denes (US 7,123,140 Bl;
issued Oct. 17, 2006), Walters et al. (US 2007 /0057807 A 1; published Mar.
3
Appeal2018-008778
Application 13/636,236
15, 2007) ("Walters"), Clayton (US 2008/0183316 Al; published July 31,
2008), Verfuerth et al. (US 2009/0243517 Al; published Oct. 1, 2009)
("Verfuerth"), and Mills et al. (US 2013/0154513 Al; published June 20,
2013) ("Mills"). Id. at 8-17.
4. The Examiner rejected claims 9, 12-14, and 18 under pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Denes, Walters, Clayton, Myer et
al. (US 2010/0029268 Al; published Feb. 4, 2010) ("Myer"), Verfuerth, and
Mills. Id. at 17-31.
5. The Examiner rejected claim 17 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Denes, Walters, Clayton, Myer, Verfuerth,
Mills, Eisner et al. (US 2007/0165625 Al; published July 19, 2007)
("Eisner"), and Sambhwani et al. (US 2007/0019535 Al; published Jan. 25,
2007) ("Sambhwani"). Final Act. 31-33.
6. The Examiner rejected claim 20 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Denes, Walters, Clayton, Verfuerth, Mills, and
DeZorzi (US 6,232,875 Bl; published May 15, 2001). Id. at 33-34.
Analysis
A. The § 112 rejections
In the Final Office Action, the Examiner rejected claims 1, 4, 6-9, 12-
14, and 17-21 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, because the
phrases "in a respective lighting fixture," ( claims 1, 9, and recited
commensurately in claim 18), and "determining, in said central management
system, a subset of said sensor data and/or the lighting fixture control data
for transmitting to said at least one outdoor lighting fixture nodes" ( claim
18) allegedly lack written description support. Final Act. 3-8. The
4
Appeal2018-008778
Application 13/636,236
Examiner also rejected claim 18 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, because the limitation "said controller in said at least one outdoor
lighting fixture node" allegedly lacks antecedent basis. Final Act. 8.
In response, Appellants filed an amendment requesting to delete all
recitations of "in a respective lighting fixture" ( as well as any commensurate
limitations). Response After Final Office Action 1, 3-4, 5-6, and 7-8 (filed
November 9, 2017). Therein, Appellants further requested to amend claim
18 such that the recited subset of sensor and/or lighting fixture control data
is for transmitting to the "segment controller" instead of "at least one
outdoor lighting fixture node." Id. at 5-6. Appellants also requested to
amend claim 18's recitation of "said controller in said at least one outdoor
lighting fixture node" to "said segment controller." Id. at 6.
Subsequently, in an Advisory Action prior to Appellants' Notice of
Appeal, the Examiner entered Appellants' amendments, but did not specify
whether Appellants' reply overcame the§ 112 rejections. Adv. Act. 1-2.
Appellants do not argue the§ 112 rejections in their Briefs (see Appeal Br.
7-15), but the Examiner's Answer states that "[ e ]very ground of rejection
set forth in the Office action dated September 15, 2017 from which the
appeal is taken (as modified by any advisory actions) is being maintained."
Ans. 3.
In view of Appellants' amendments to the claim language at issue, we
find the rejection of claims 1, 4, 6-9, 12-14, and 1 7-21 under pre-AIA 3 5
U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, and the rejection of claim 18 under pre-AIA
5
Appeal2018-008778
Application 13/636,236
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, moot. Therefore, we do not reach these
rejections.
B. The§ 103(a) Rejections
Appellants argue Examiner error in the§ 103(a) rejections of claims
1, 4, 6-9, 12-14, and 17-21 based solely on independent claims 1, 9, and 18,
which Appellants argue together. See App. Br. 7-15. Accordingly, we
select claim 1 as representative of all pending claims for the§ 103(a)
rejections. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner relies on Denes for teaching
limitations [a]-[d]. Final Act. 9-11 (citing Denes Fig. l; 2:61-68; 3:39-43;
4:37-40, 55-56; 7:21-23, 59-65; 8:1-16, 44-56, 58-60; 9:23-27). The
Examiner cites a combination of the remaining references-Walters,
Clayton, V erfuerth, and Mills-for limitations [ e] and [ fJ. Final Act. 11-13
(citing Walters ,-J,-J 28, 36, 42, 121; Clayton ,-J 110; Verfuerth Figs. 1-2,
,-J,-J 25, 31, 78; Mills ,-J,-J 15, 56, 71).
Appellants contend the Examiner erred because none of the cited prior
art references teaches or suggests "wherein said segment controller locally
determines at least some of said lighting fixture control data for two or more
of the lighting fixture nodes of the plurality of outdoor lighting fixture nodes
based on said sensor data, independent of communication with said remote
management system," as recited in limitation [ fJ of claim 1. App. Br. 7-15;
Reply Br. 2-9. In particular, Appellants acknowledge that Walters discloses
master controllers that "provide gateway, routing and data transfer with data
concentration and compression." Reply Br. 3-4 (citing Walters ,-J,-J 35-40);
Appeal Br. 9-10. But, Appellants contend these disclosures do not teach or
suggest "locally (via the segment controller) determining at least some of
6
Appeal2018-008778
Application 13/636,236
said lighting fixture control data ... based on sensor data," as limitation [ fJ
requires. Reply Br. 4; Appeal Br. 9-10. Appellants further acknowledge
that V erfuerth discloses a master controller that determines control data for
lighting fixtures. Appeal Br. 12-14 (citing Verfuerth, Fig. 1, ,i,i 25, 31).
But, Appellants contend that "no segment controller is described in
Verfuerth" and that Verfuerth's master controller does not determine
lighting fixture control data "independent of communication with said
remote management system" because it "is remote to the lighting nodes ...
and is thus a remote management system, as described in the present
invention." Appeal Br. 14; Reply Br. 6.
Appellants' arguments are unpersuasive because the Examiner has
shown that the combination of Walters and V erfuerth teaches the disputed
limitation. See Final Act. 11-13 (citing Walters ,i,i 28, 36, 42, 121;
Verfuerth, Figs. 1-2, ,i,i 25, 31, and 78); see also Ans. 4-10 (additionally
citing Walters, Fig. 1, ,i,i 29, 77; Verfuerth ,i,i 27, 30, 37). Each reference
cited by the Examiner must be read, not in isolation, but for what it fairly
teaches in combination with the prior art as a whole. See In re Merck & Co.,
Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986); see also In re Keller, 642 F.2d
413,425 (CCPA 1981) (explaining that when the rejection is based on a
combination of references, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking
references individually).
As an initial matter, Walters teaches "a segment controller," as recited
in limitation [ e] of claim 1. In particular, Walters discloses a plurality of
master controllers, each of which serves as a gateway between a plurality of
associated intelligent luminaire managers (ILMs) and a network operation
center. Walters Fig. 1 (items 114a, 114b), ,i 35. As the Examiner explains,
7
Appeal2018-008778
Application 13/636,236
Walters's master controller teaches a "segment" controller because it is
responsible for only a certain segment of ILMs. Ans. 4 ( citing Walters Fig.
l); see also Walters ,-J 38. As Figure 1 of Walters illustrates, a first master
controller 114a is responsible for a first network 102a of a first set of ILMs
112a, whereas a second master controller 114b is responsible for a second
network 102b of a second set ofILMs 112b. Walters Fig. 1, items 102a,
102b, 112a, 112b, 114a, and 114b. Further, each of Walter's ILMs has a
luminaire condition sensing and diagnostic system that monitors and records
status of an associated luminaire, such as the A/C power provided to the
luminaire, voltage sags, over voltage, current provided to start the luminaire,
and current drawn by the luminaire after it is lit. Id. Fig. 3B (item 312),
,-J 68. Such status data may be communicated to the associated master
controller, which may then upload it to the network operation center. Id.
,-J,-J 37, 73. Thus, Walters teaches a segment controller (master controller)
configured to locally determine a subset of sensor data or lighting fixture
control data including information indicative of said sensor data (status data
of associated luminaires) to transmit to said remote management system
(network operation center).
Verfuerth teaches "locally determin[ing] at least some of said lighting
fixture control data for two or more of the lighting fixture nodes of the
plurality of outdoor lighting fixture nodes based on said sensor data,
independent of communication with said remote management system," as
recited in limitation [ fJ of claim 1. In particular, V erfuerth discloses a
master controller that may provide intelligent control of a plurality of
lighting fixtures. Verfuerth ,-J,-J 25, 26, and 28-31. For example, Verfuerth's
master controller may monitor demand for lighting fixtures (based on signals
8
Appeal2018-008778
Application 13/636,236
received from various sensors) and generate a demand-based control signal
for transmission to the lighting fixtures to reduce power consumption during
peak or off-peak demand periods. Id. ,i,i 26, 30, and 31. This disclosed
embodiment does not involve communication with a remote management
system because, unlike other embodiments of V erfuerth, the master
controller controls the light fixtures by itself without having to receive
instructions from an external entity ( e.g., a power provider or facility
manager). See Id. ,i,i 25, 27. Further, just as Appellants' disclosure does not
refer to a segment controller-which is remote to its associated lighting
fixtures-as "a remote management system," Verfuerth's master controller
should not be interpreted as "a remote management system" merely because
it is remote to the lighting nodes. Compare Appellants' Fig. 1 (items 140A-
C) & Verfuerth, Fig. 1 (item 20), with Appellants' Fig. 1 (items l 12A-D,
122A-C, 132 A-F) & Verfuerth Fig. 1 (items 40, 70). Moreover, Appellants
do not present any persuasive evidence in the Specification or claims that
requires an element that is remote to a lighting fixture node to be interpreted
as "a remote management system."
We agree with the Examiner that it would have been obvious to
artisans of ordinary skill to use Verfuerth' s technique for intelligently
controlling a plurality of lighting fixtures in the master controller of Walters
"to provide optimum operation of the lighting equipment." Final Act. 13
(citing Verfuerth ,i 78); see also KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,
420-21 (2007) ( explaining that an ordinarily skilled artisan is "a person of
ordinary creativity, not an automaton" who can "fit the teachings of multiple
patents together like pieces of a puzzle"). Appellants do not present any
persuasive evidence or arguments that combining these teachings of Walters
9
Appeal2018-008778
Application 13/636,236
and V erfuerth to arrive at the disputed limitation would have been
unpredictable, "uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in
the art," or would have "represented an unobvious step over the prior art."
Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir.
2007) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 418-19); KSR, 550 U.S. at 416 ("The
combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be
obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.").
Because the combination of Walters and V erfuerth renders the
disputed limitation obvious, Appellants' arguments alleging deficiencies in
the remaining prior art, especially Clayton, are also unpersuasive. See App.
Br. 10-12, 15; Reply Br. 7-8. In view of the foregoing, Appellants do not
persuade us the Examiner erred.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 4, 6-9,
12-14, and 17-21 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION
We do not reach the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1, 4, 6-9,
12-14, and 17-21 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, because
the rejection is moot.
We do not reach the Examiner's decision to reject claim 18 under pre-
AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, because the rejection is moot.
We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1, 4, 6-9, 12-14,
and 17-21 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § l.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
10