Ex Parte Datta et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 20, 2017

13639880 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 20, 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.
13/639,880 01/04/2013 Michael Datta 2010P00446WOUS 5546
138325 7590 11/22/2017
PHILIPS LIGHTING HOLDING B.V.
465 Columbus Avenue
Suite 330
Valhalla, NY 10595
EXAMINER
CHAN, WEI
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2844
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/22/2017 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):
kim. larocca @ lighting.com
j o. c angelosi @ lighting .com
Gigi. Miller @ lighting. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MICHAEL DATTA and GREGORY CAMPBELL
Appeal 2017-001146
Application 13/639,880
Technology Center 2800
Before GRACE KARAFFA OBERMANN, DONNA M. PRAISS, and
JENNIFER R. GUPTA, Administrative Patent Judges.
PRAISS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL1
Appellants2 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision to reject claims 1—14 and 17 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).3
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
1 In this opinion, we refer to the Specification filed Oct. 8, 2012 (“Spec.”),
the Final Office Action mailed June 8, 2015 (“Final Act.”), the Appeal Brief
filed Sept. 8, 2015 (“Br.”), and the Examiner’s Answer dated May 23, 2016
(“Ans.”).
2 Appellants identify Koninklijke Philips N.V. as the real party in interest.
Br. 1.
3 Claims 15 and 16 stand objected to as being dependent upon a rejected
base claim, but otherwise allowable. Final Act. 23.
Appeal 2017-001146
Application 13/639,880
We AFFIRM.
The invention relates to a method for “digitally detecting the presence
of a dimmer in a solid state lighting system and correcting for power loss
when a dimmer is present.” (Spec. 11). Independent claims 1 and 17 are
illustrative (disputed limitations italicized):
1. A method of controlling an amount of power delivered
by a power converter to a solid state lighting load, the method
comprising:
determining whether a dimmer is present between a
voltage source and the power converter based on a rectified input
voltage from the voltage source; and
when the dimmer is determined to be present, adjusting an
operating point of the power converter to increase the amount of
power delivered by the power converter to the solid state lighting
load by a compensation amount, so that the increased amount of
power is equal to an amount of power delivered by the power
converter when the dimmer is not present.
17. A method of controlling a power converter to deliver
a predetermined nominal power to a light-emitting diode (LED)
light source corresponding to an input voltage from voltage
mains, regardless of whether a dimmer is present in a circuit
between the voltage mains and the power converter, the method
comprising:
detecting a phase angle based on signal waveforms of a
rectified input voltage;
comparing the detected phase angle with a predetermined
threshold;
when the detected phase angle is below the predetermined
threshold, setting a power control signal to a dimmer value and
providing the power control signal to the power converter,
causing the power converter to increase an output power to the
predetermined nominal power and to deliver the increased
output power to the LED light source; and
2
Appeal 2017-001146
Application 13/639,880
when the detected phase angle is not below the
predetermined threshold, setting the power control signal to a no
dimmer value and providing the power control signal to the
power converter, causing the power converter to deliver an
output power to the LED light source without increasing the
output power, the output power being equal to the predetermined
nominal power.
Br. 18, 20—21 (Claims App’x). Independent claim 10 is directed to a system
for controlling power delivered to a solid state lighting load and, similar to
claim 1, also recites “when the dimmer is not present.” Id. at 19.
OPINION
Obviousness of Claims 1—12, 14, and 17
The Examiner finds that claims 1—12, 14, and 17 would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention over
the combination of Shteynberg and Shteynberg ’859 for the reasons stated
on pages 7—22 of the Final Action. We address below the claims separately
argued by Appellants.
Claims 1 and 10
Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in finding that Shytenberg
discloses determining whether a dimmer is present. According to
Appellants, Shteynberg describes “determining when the dimmer — which is
apparently always present — is in the conductive part of its cycle (“Td
interval”) and when the dimmer is in the non-conducting part of its cycle (“P
interval”).” Br. 8 (citing Shteynberg H 61, 67); 13 (adopting the same
argument with respect to claim 10). With regarding to claim 10, Appellants
additionally argue that Shytenberg does not disclose that microcontroller 160
is “configured to determine whether a dimmer is connected between a
voltage mains and a power converter” are recited in claim 10. Br. 13.
3
Appeal 2017-001146
Application 13/639,880
Appellants’ argument is similarly based on the dimmer switch being
determined to be on or off in Shteynberg, arguing that it is not the same as a
first value for the control signal when the dimmer is present and a second
value when the dimmer is not present. Id. at 13—14.
The Examiner responds that Appellants’ Specification detects when
the dimmer is present or not present by RMS voltage, the same method used
in Shteynberg. Ans. 4 (citing Spec. 133). The Examiner determines that the
broadest reasonable interpretation of “determining whether a dimmer is
present” and “when the dimmer is not present” as recited in claims 1 and 10
is “when the dimmer is switched] on then it is present and when the dimmer
is switched] off then it is not present.” Id.
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument for the reasons stated
by the Examiner. In addition, we add the following. Appellants do not
dispute the Examiner’s finding that the Specification uses the same
measurement of voltage as disclosed in Shteynberg to determine whether the
dimmer is present or not. Because the Examiner’s interpretation of the claim
term is reasonable and consistent with the Specification, we are not
persuaded of reversible error in the rejection of claims 1 and 10 over the
combination of Shteynberg and Shteynberg ’869.
Claim 2
Appellants argue that the Examiner’s rejection of claim 2 is in error
because paragraph 56 of Shteynberg, whicht discloses “measuring the RMS
value of phase modulated voltage VRMS,” does not disclose “detecting a
phase angle based on signal waveforms of a rectified input voltage” as
recited by the claim. Br. 9. Appellants also assert that paragraphs 18 and
56—59 of Shteynberg do not disclose “comparing the detected phase angle
4
Appeal 2017-001146
Application 13/639,880
with a predetermined threshold” nor “determining that the dimmer is present
when the detected phase angle is less than a threshold” as also recited by the
claim. Id.
The Examiner responds that Shteynberg discloses detecting a phase
angle and sensing RMS voltage (VRMS) using a wide variety of methods.
The Examiner further finds that Shteynberg teaches the controller
determines VRMS using measurements from connection to the output of
dimmer switch 75. Id. at 7—8 (citing Shteynberg || 48, 59, 64, 67). The
Examiner additionally provides citations to the cited prior art references for
each element of claim 2. Id. at 8—9.
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments for the reasons stated
by the Examiner. In addition, we add the following. Appellants quote the
language of the claim and then provide a single sentence asserting that the
disclosure of the cited prior art does not disclose each recited claim element.
This is insufficient to state an issue for appeal. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(iv)
(requiring, for each argument, “the basis therefor, with citations of the
statutes, regulations, authorities, and parts of the Record relied on” and
further requiring that the “arguments shall explain why the examiner erred as
to each ground of rejection”); see also In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357
(Fed. Cir. 2011) (holding that the Board reasonably interpreted 37 C.F.R.
§41.37 (c) as requiring “more substantive arguments in an appeal brief than
a mere recitation of the claim elements and a naked assertion that the
corresponding elements were not found in the prior art”). To the extent
Appellants do state a separate ground for appeal, Appellants’ arguments are
not persuasive because the Examiner’s finding that Shteynberg measures a
phase angle and utilizes an RMS converter of the phased-modulated signal
5
Appeal 2017-001146
Application 13/639,880
provided by the dimmer switch 75 is supported by the record. Shteynberg
1148, 59.
Claim 3
Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 3 because
Shteynberg’s disclosure of determining the RMS value of phase modulated
voltage VRMS is not a disclosure of “sampling digital pulses corresponding
to the signal waveforms” as recited in the claim. Br. 10. Appellants also
assert that the Examiner does not “cite anything which discloses the actual
features which are recited, related to the lengths of the sampled digital
pulses.” Id.
The Examiner responds that Shteynberg’s disclosure of a controller
configured to convert analog to digital signals is a disclosure of sampling
digital pulses corresponding to signal waveforms. Ans. 9 (citing Shteynberg
1170, 82, Fig. 11). The Examiner explains that Shteynberg expresses this as
a duty cycle having a period of time for a signal to complete an on-and-off
cycle and a time the signal is active. Id. at 9—10. The Examiner additionally
provides citations to the cited prior art references for each element of
claim 3. Id. at 10.
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments for the reasons stated
by the Examiner. In addition, we add the following. Appellants do not
adequately explain why the Examiner erred as to the rejection of claim 3.
In reLovin, 652 F.3d at 1357. Specifically, Appellants do not sufficiently
explain why the recited “lengths of the sampled digital pulses” are not
disclosed by the duty cycles described in Shteynberg, which relate to periods
of time as the Examiner finds. Appellants also do not sufficiently explain
why the Examiner’s further findings relating to Shteynberg’s controller
6
Appeal 2017-001146
Application 13/639,880
determining the voltage provided by the dimmer switch is not a disclosure of
“lengths corresponding to a level of dimming of the dimmer, if present” as
recited in claim 3.
Claim 4
Appellants assert that the Examiner’s rejection of claim 4 is in error
because the cited art does not disclose or make obvious a method including
the recited feature of “comparing the detected phase angle with the threshold
comprises comparing the length of at least one digital pulse with the
threshold.” Br. 10.
The Examiner responds with a citation to the cited prior art references
for each element and refers back to the remarks concerning claim 3 and
Shteynberg’s disclosure of a duty cycle having a length of time for a signal
to complete an on-and-off cycle. Ans. 11.
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments for the reasons stated
by the Examiner. In addition, we add the following. Appellants do not
adequately explain why the Examiner erred as to the rejection of claim 4.
In reLovin, 652 F.3d at 1357. Specifically, Appellants do not sufficiently
explain why Shteynberg’s teaching of duty cycles does not suggest the use
of a digital pulse for performing the comparing step recited in claim 4.
Claim 5
Appellants assert that the Examiner’s rejection of claim 5 is in error
because the cited art does not disclose or make obvious a method including
the recited feature of “determining that the length of the at least one digital
pulse is less than the threshold.” Br. 10—11.
7
Appeal 2017-001146
Application 13/639,880
The Examiner responds that Shteynberg discloses sampling digital
pulses corresponding to signal waveforms based on the reference’s
disclosure of a controller, such as a digital signal processor configured to
convert analog to digital signals. Ans. 12 (citing Shteynberg || 70, 82,
Fig. 11). The Examiner further finds that Shteynberg discloses sensing the
phase angle of the full or non-phase-modulated signal under conditions of
dimming to control and provide variable brightness or intensity levels of the
optical output of the LEDs. Id. (citing Shteynberg || 44, 45, 48, 49, 59, 61).
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments for the reasons stated
by the Examiner. In addition, we add the following. Appellants do not
adequately explain why the Examiner erred as to the rejection of claim 5.
In re Lovin, 652 F.3d at 1357. Specifically, Appellants do not sufficiently
explain why Shteynberg’s teaching of sampling digital pulses corresponding
to signal waveforms and controlling brightness based on the phase angle
under conditions of dimming does not suggest the use of a digital pulse for
determining the length of the at least one digital pulse is less than the
threshold as recited in claim 5.
Claim 6
Appellants assert that the Examiner’s rejection of claim 6 is in error
because (1) the cited art does not disclose or make obvious the recited
features of claim 6 and (2) the Examiner does not explain where or how the
cited references supposedly teach or make obvious the recitation of claim 6.
Br. 11.
The Examiner responds with a citation to the cited prior art references
for each limitation of claim 6. Ans. 13—14. The Examiner determines it
8
Appeal 2017-001146
Application 13/639,880
would have been obvious to modify the method of Shteynberg with
increased power delivered to the LED lights when the dimmer is turned on
and when the dimmer is turned off to have the increased power equal to the
nominal power to allow for sophisticated control of the output brightness or
intensity as taught by Shteynberg ’859. Id. at 14 (citing Shteynberg ’859
1144).
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments for the reasons stated
by the Examiner. In addition, we add the following. Appellants do not
adequately explain why the Examiner erred as to the rejection of claim 6.
In reLovin, 652 F.3d at 1357. Specifically, Appellants do not sufficiently
explain why the teachings of Shteynberg and Shteynberg ’859 cited by the
Examiner, which disclose adjusting power supply in the electrical
environment of a dimmer switch, do not disclose or suggest the adjustment
step of claim 6.
Claim 7
Appellants assert that the Examiner’s rejection of claim 7 is in error
because the cited art does not disclose or make obvious a method including
the recited feature of “maintaining a nominal operating point of the power
converter when the dimmer is determined not to be present.” Br. 11.
Appellants contend that the Examiner’s finding that Shteynberg discloses
determining the nominal voltage provided by the dimmer switch without
dimmer “is not the same as maintaining a nominal operating power of the
power converter when the dimmer is determined not to be present at all!”
Id. at 12. According to Appellants, “‘zero dimming’ is not the same as no
dimmer switch being present at all.” Id.
9
Appeal 2017-001146
Application 13/639,880
The Examiner responds that Shteynberg’s disclosure of the voltage
level of capacity C5 is always maintained at or above the voltage level
required by the LEDs is a disclosure of maintaining a nominal operating
point. Ans. 14 (citing Shteynberg Fig. 11, part C, line 390, capacitor 345,
LEDs 140). The Examiner also responds that capacitor C5 (345) is charged
to a sufficiently high voltage and discharged when the dimmer switch 75 is
not providing any power. Id.
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments for the reasons stated
by the Examiner. In addition, we add the following. Appellants do not
adequately explain why the Examiner erred as to the rejection of claim 7.
In re Lovin, 652 F.3d at 1357. Specifically, Appellants do not sufficiently
explain why “when the dimmer is determined not to be present” is not the
same or obvious in view of the dimmer switch not providing any power as
taught by Shteynberg.
Claim 8
Appellants assert that the Examiner’s rejection of claim 8 is in error
because the cited art does not disclose or make obvious a method including
the recited feature of “setting the power control signal to a predetermined
nominal value corresponding to the amount of power to be delivered by the
power converter when the dimmer is not present.” Br. 12. Appellants
contend that the Examiner’s findings do not teach when the dimmer is not
present. Id.
The Examiner responds with the same citations to Shteynberg
disclosing the capacitor C5 is discharged during time intervals when the
dimmer switch is not providing any power as corresponding to the amount
10
Appeal 2017-001146
Application 13/639,880
of power to be delivered by the power converter when the dimmer is not
present. Ans. 15.
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments for the reasons stated
by the Examiner. In addition, we add the following. Appellants do not
adequately explain why the Examiner erred as to the rejection of claim 8.
In re Lovin, 652 F.3d at 1357. Specifically, Appellants do not sufficiently
explain why “when the dimmer is determined not to be present” is not the
same or obvious in view of the dimmer switch not providing any power as
taught by Shteynberg.
Claim 9
Appellants assert that the Examiner’s rejection of claim 9 is in error
because the cited art does not disclose or make obvious a method including
the recited feature of “a PWM signal having a second duty cycle.” Br. 12.
Appellants contend that the Examiner’s findings do not teach a nominal
value corresponding to the amount of power to be delivered by the power
converter when the dimmer is not present comprises a PWM signal having a
second duty cycle. Id.
The Examiner responds by further finding that paragraph 55 of
Shteynberg discloses “the microcontroller comprises a pulse width
modulation having a first duty cycle to active the switch of the power
converter when the dimmer switch is present.” Ans. 16. The Examiner also
cites paragraph 55 for disclosing a second duty cycle and Figure 8,
dimmer 75, as further explaining the details of the dimmer being present and
not present in Figure 11. Id.
11
Appeal 2017-001146
Application 13/639,880
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments for the reasons stated
by the Examiner. In addition, we add the following. Appellants do not
adequately explain why the Examiner erred as to the rejection of claim 9.
In re Lovin, 652 F.3d at 1357. Specifically, Appellants do not sufficiently
rebut the Examiner’s finding that Shteynberg discloses a PWM signal
having a second duty cycle as required by claim 9.
Claim 11
Appellants assert that the Examiner’s rejection of claim 11 is in error
because “[t]he cited text in [Shteynberg] ’859 all discusses a situation when
a dimmer is off or in a non-conductive state — not a situation where no
dimmer is present at all and wherein as a result a power control signal has a
second value and in response to this, the power converter does not increase
the output power, the output power being equal to the nominal power.”
Br. 14.
The Examiner responds with citations to the prior art references for
the recited limitations in the claim. Ans. 16—17.
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments for the reasons stated
by the Examiner. In addition, we add the following. As discussed above in
connection with claim 10 from which claim 11 depends, Appellants do not
dispute the Examiner’s finding that the Specification uses the same
measurement of voltage as disclosed in Shteynberg to determine whether the
dimmer is present or not. Because the Examiner’s interpretation of the claim
term is reasonable and consistent with the Specification, we are not
persuaded of reversible error in the rejection of claim 11 over the
combination of Shteynberg and Shteynberg ’869. To the extent that
12
Appeal 2017-001146
Application 13/639,880
Appellants assert error in the Examiner’s findings regarding claim 11 apart
from the interpretation of “a dimmer is not present” as recited in
independent claim 10, Appellants do not adequately explain why the
Examiner erred as to the rejection of claim 11. In re Lovin, 652 F.3d
at 1357.
Claim 12
Appellants assert that the Examiner’s rejection of claim 12 is in error
because the cited art does not disclose or make obvious a method including
the features recited in claim 12. Br. 14. Appellants argue that the Examiner
“does not even attempt to argue that the cited text discloses that a second
value which a power control signal has when no dimmer is present
comprises a PWM signal having a second duty cycle different from the first
duty cycle which it has when a dimmer is present.” Id. at 14—15. According
to Appellants, Shteynberg “absolutely doe[s] NOT state that ‘the
microcontroller comprises a pulse width modulation having a first duty cycle
to active (sic) the switch of the power converter when the dimmer switch is
present” because “there is no mention or suggestion of anything having to do
with ‘when the dimmer switch is present’ (because the dimmer switch is
always present).” Id. at 15.
The Examiner responds with citations to the prior art references for
the recited limitations in the claim. Ans. 17.
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments for the reasons stated
by the Examiner. In addition, we add the following. As discussed above in
connection with claim 10 from which claim 12 indirectly depends,
Appellants do not dispute the Examiner’s finding that the Specification uses
13
Appeal 2017-001146
Application 13/639,880
the same measurement of voltage as disclosed in Shteynberg to determine
whether the dimmer is present or not. Because the Examiner’s interpretation
of the claim term is reasonable and consistent with the Specification, we are
not persuaded of reversible error in the rejection of claim 12 over the
combination of Shteynberg and Shteynberg ’869. To the extent that
Appellants assert error in the Examiner’s findings regarding claim 12 apart
from the interpretation of “a dimmer is not present” as recited in
independent claim 10, Appellants do not adequately explain why the
Examiner erred as to the rejection of claim 12. In re Lovin, 652 F.3d
at 1357.
Claim 14
Appellants assert that the Examiner’s rejection of claim 14, which
depends from claim 10, is in error “[f]or similar reasons to those set forth
above with respect to claim 2.” Br. 15. We are not persuaded by
Appellants’ arguments for the reasons stated by the Examiner and for the
reasons discussed above in connection with claims 2 and 10.
Claim 17
Appellants assert that the Examiner’s rejection of claim 17 is in error
because (1) the Examiner cites an Irissou reference in a non-final rejection
that is not mentioned in the rejection, (2) the Examiner does not cite
anything in the prior art as teaching “detecting a phase angle based on signal
waveforms of a rectified input voltage” as recited in claim 17,
(3) Shteynberg does not disclose comparing a phase angle detected based on
signal waveforms of a rectified input voltage with a predetermined
14
Appeal 2017-001146
Application 13/639,880
threshold, and (4) none of the cited references discloses the claim recitation
“when the detected phase angle is below the predetermined threshold, setting
the power control signal to a dimmer value ... to deliver the increased
output power to the LED light source.” Br. 15—16.
The Examiner responds that the step of detecting a phase angle based
on signal waveforms of a rectified input voltage is disclosed by Shteynberg
in paragraphs 48, 59, 64, and 67. Ans. 19. The Examiner further responds
with citations to Figure 10 of Shteynberg disclosing the recited LED light
source (item 140), voltage mains (item 35), dimmer (75), and power
converter (items 265, 270). Id. In addition, the Examiner includes citations
to the prior art for each claim limitation recited in claim 17. Id. at 19—20.
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments for the reasons stated
by the Examiner. In addition, we add the following. The Final Action does
not rely on an “Irissou reference,” therefore, it is not part of the final
rejection of claim 17 from which Appellants raise this appeal. Appellants do
not rebut the Examiner’s findings (Ans. 19) regarding the “detecting a phase
angle” step recited in claim 17, therefore Appellants’ argument that the
Examiner does not cite anything in the prior art teaching this recited step is
not persuasive. Moreover, the Examiner made the same findings as to the
“detecting a phase angle” step in claim 17 (Ans. 19) as were made with
respect to the same step recited in claim 2 (Final Act. 10). For the reasons
discussed above in connection with claim 2, we do not find persuasive
Appellants’ assertion of reversible error by the Examiner.
Regarding Appellants assertion that the cited art does not disclose the
recited step in claim 17 of “when the detected phase angle is below the
predetermined threshold . . .,” Appellants do not adequately explain why the
15
Appeal 2017-001146
Application 13/639,880
Examiner erred as to the rejection of claim 17. In re Lovin, 652 F.3d at
1357. The Examiner’s findings that Shteynberg discloses a detected phase
angle is not below the predetermined threshold flflf 44, 61) when the dimmer
is not providing power to the LEDs, setting the power control signal to a no
dimmer value (Figs. 8, 11, dimmer present Td, dimmer 75) are sufficiently
supported by the record cited in this appeal.
In sum, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—12, 14, and 17
as obvious over the combination of Shteynberg and Shteynberg ’347.
Obviousness of Claim 13
The Examiner finds that claim 13 would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention over the combination of
Shteynberg, Shteynberg ’347, and Kuo for the reasons stated on page 23 of
the Final Action.
Appellants argue that Kuo does not remedy the deficiencies of
Shteynberg and Shteynberg ’859 discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Br. 16. According to Appellants, Kuo’s disclosure of a burst dimming mode
requires the presence of a dimmer and cannot exist when a dimmer is not
present. Id. at 17.
We are not persuaded of reversible error by the Examiner for the same
reasons discussed above in connection with claim 1.
CONCLUSION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—14 and 17 as obvious
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
16
Appeal 2017-001146
Application 13/639,880
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision is affirmed.
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)(1).
AFFIRMED
17