Ex Parte Fetterly et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 29, 2018

13939385 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 29, 2018)

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.
13/939,385 07/11/2013 RICHARD H. FETTERLY DIAL/050 5246
85174 7590 01/29/2018
Ton a Rea Rentlev & Kim T T C EXAMINER
12 Christopher Way
Suite 105
KIM, JUNG H
Eatontown, NJ 07724 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2842
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/29/2018 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 RICHARD H. FETTERLY, KEVIN A. HEBBORN,
ANTHONY VERDES, KENNETH JENKINS, and VIRGINIA MERRIAM
Appeal 2017-007303
Application 13/939,385
Technology Center 2800
Before KAREN M. HASTINGS, JULIA HEANEY, and
JENNIFER R. GUPTA, Administrative Patent Judges.
HASTINGS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1 and 5—9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
over the combined prior art of Takanashi (US 8,829,798 B2, iss. Sept. 9,
2014), Wu (US 6,111,739, iss. Aug. 29, 2000), andNakanishi
(WO 2011/148507 Al, pub. Dec. 1, 2011; as translated).
We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellant is the Applicant, Dialight Corporation, which, according to the
Appeal Brief, is the real party in interest (Appeal Br. 3).
Appeal 2017-007303
Application 13/939,385
Independent claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal
(emphasis added to highlight key limitation in dispute):
1. A method for powering a light fixture to provide a constant light
output, comprising:
providing one or more light emitting diodes (LEDs) having a
maximum light output that is higher than a required light output for a
particular application;
providing a current to the one or more LEDs, wherein the
current to the one or more LEDs is less than a maximum current, such
that the current powers the one or more LEDs at a light output less
than the maximum light output;
monitoring an external ambient temperature, wherein the
monitoring is performed by a temperature sensor that is located
external to a housing of the light fixture, and on an exterior side of the
housing;
calculating, by a processor, an amount of makeup current based
upon a relationship between the current and the external ambient
temperature that is stored in a computer readable storage medium; and
increasing, by the processor, the current to the one or more
LEDs by the amount of makeup current that is calculated as the
external ambient temperature rises to maintain the constant light
output.
ANALYSIS
Upon consideration of the evidence on this record and each of
Appellant’s contentions, we find that the preponderance of evidence
supports the Examiner’s conclusion that the subject matter of Appellant’s
claims is unpatentable over the applied prior art. We sustain the Examiner’s
§103 rejection essentially for the reasons set out by the Examiner in the
Answer. We add the following primarily for emphasis.
2
Appeal 2017-007303
Application 13/939,385
Appellant’s arguments focus on claim 1, and Appellant does not
present any additional arguments for dependent claims 5—9 (e.g., Appeal
Br. 12). Accordingly, all the claims stand and fall together.
It has been established that “the [obviousness] analysis need not seek
out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged
claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a
person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex
Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). Likewise, it is also well settled that a
reference stands for all of the specific teachings thereof as well as the
inferences one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably been
expected to draw therefrom. See In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264—65 (Fed.
Cir. 1992).
Appellant does not dispute the Examiner’s findings with respect to
Takanishi and Wu; rather, Appellant’s main argument is that there is no
reason to place the temperature sensor of Takanishi external to a housing as
recited in claim 1 based on Nakanishi (Appeal Br. 11, 12; Reply Br. 3, 4).
Specifically, Appellant argues that since Nakanishi teaches a method
wherein current is reduced when the temperature rises, its teaching that a
temperature sensor may be located either inside or outside the housing of an
LCD display cannot be applied to Takanishi’s method wherein temperature
is increased when the temperature rises (as is claimed in instant claim 1)
(Id.).
Even assuming arguendo that Appellant is correct that the Examiner’s
interpretation of claim 1 ’s external location is unreasonable (Ans. 4; Reply
Br. 3), Appellant’s argument is not persuasive of reversible error. As the
Examiner pointed out, Nakanishi is only relied upon for exemplifying that a
3
Appeal 2017-007303
Application 13/939,385
temperature sensor indicative of ambient temperature of an LED element
may be located either inside or outside a display device (Ans. 5). Nakanishi
states there is a strong correlation between the inside and the outside air
temperature surrounding the display device (Nakanishi p. 5). One of
ordinary skill would have readily inferred from this correlation that the
temperature sensor of Takanishi may be located either inside the display or
external to the display housing thereof, and still function in its performance
of the method of Takanishi/Wu. KSR Inti Co., 550 U.S. at 417 (“the
predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions”
is normally prima facie obvious). Furthermore, Takanishi is not limited to
the use of its method to an LED element in a display/liquid crystal monitor;
its method may be applied to any LED element (Takanishi col. 3,11. 38).
One or ordinary skill in the art would have also readily inferred that a
temperature sensor for detecting ambient temperature of an LED element as
taught in Takanishi may have been located external to a housing of a lighting
fixture element (e.g., one that is not in a display monitor) based on Takanishi
alone, and also in light of Nakanishi’s teaching discussed supra.
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s prior art rejection of the
claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for the reasons given above and presented
by the Examiner.
DECISION
The Examiner’s § 103 rejection is affirmed.
4
Appeal 2017-007303
Application 13/939,385
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
5