Ex Parte Ling

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 11, 2008

09841665 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 11, 2008)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________

Ex parte WANG LING
_____________

Appeal 2007-3333
Application 09/841,665
Technology Center 2600
______________

Decided: March 11, 2008
_______________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, JOHN A. JEFFERY, and MARC S. HOFF,
Administrative Patent Judges.

NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) of the final
rejection of claims 1, 2, and 4 through 21.
We reverse the Examiner’s rejections of these claims.
INVENTION

The invention is directed to a lighting control system which includes a
master remote control unit and a plurality of slave units that control the
lights. The invention is directed to the steps of associating the individual
Appeal 2007-3333
Application 09/841,665

slave units with the controls on the master control unit. See pages 2 and 3 of
Appellant’s Specification. Claim 1 is representative of the invention and
reproduced below:
1. A method of controlling plural lighting devices with a single
remote control comprising the steps of:
associating, one by one, each of the plural lighting devices with
the remote control;
associating, one by one, each of the plural lighting devices
associated with the remote control with at least one of a particular
function and a particular key on the remote control; and
accepting a user confirmation acknowledging the association of
each of the plural lighting devices in response to a visual confirmation
performed by each of the plural lighting devices upon selection of
each of the plural lighting devices on the remote control.

REFERENCES

Meier US 5,295,154 Mar. 15, 1994
Mitchell US 5,847,955 Dec. 8, 1998
Huang US 5,962,992 Oct. 5, 1999
Colton US 5,986,574 Nov. 16, 1999
Sinha US 6,188,181 B1 Feb. 13, 2001
Grouev US 6,333,605 B1 Dec. 25, 2001
Kronz US 6,675,196 B1 Jan. 6, 2004

REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
Claims 1, 2, 4 through 7, 10, and 19 through 21 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Huang in view of Sinha. The
Examiner’s rejection is on pages 3 through 7 of the Answer.
Claims 8, 9, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Huang in view of Sinha and Mitchell. The Examiner’s
rejection is on pages 7 through 9 of the Answer.
2

Appeal 2007-3333
Application 09/841,665

Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Huang in view of Sinha, Mitchell and Grouev. The
Examiner’s rejection is on page 9 of the Answer.
Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Huang in view of Sinha, and Appellant’s admitted prior
art. The Examiner’s rejection is on pages 9 and 10 of the Answer.
Claim 13 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Huang in view of Sinha, Appellant’s admitted prior art
and Colton. The Examiner’s rejection is on pages 10 and 11 of the Answer.
Claim 14 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Huang in view of Sinha, Appellant’s admitted prior art
Colton, and Kronz. The Examiner’s rejection is on page 12 of the Answer.
Claims 15 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Huang in view of Sinha and Meier. The Examiner’s
rejection is on pages 12 and 13 of the Answer.
Claim 18 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Huang in view of Sinha, Mitchell, and Meier. The
Examiner’s rejection is on page 13 of the Answer.
Throughout the opinion, we make reference to the Brief (received
October 28, 2005), Reply Brief (received March 14, 2006), and the Answer
(mailed January 10, 2006) for the respective details thereof.
ISSUES
Independent claims 1, 5, 10, and 21.
Appellant contends, on pages 9 through 12 of the Brief, that the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 4 through 7, 10, and 19 through 21
3

Appeal 2007-3333
Application 09/841,665

under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is in error. Appellant argues that the Examiner’s
rejection of independent claim 1 is in error as the combination of Huang and
Sinha does teach or make obvious accepting a user confirmation that
acknowledges an association of each lighting device with a remote panel,
where the lighting device provides a visual confirmation in response to a
selection of the lighting device at the remote panel. Brief 9. On pages 11
and 12 of the Brief, Appellant asserts that the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claims 5, 10 and 21 is in error for the same reasons.
Thus, Appellant’s contentions, with respect to independent claims 1,
5, 10 and 21 present us with the issue of whether the combination of Huang
and Sinha teaches a lighting control system where there is a panel remote
from the lighting device, where the remote panel accepts an
acknowledgment from a user that the lighting device is associated with the
remote control based upon visual confirmation performed by the lighting
device upon selection by a remote control.

Independent claim 8.
Appellant contends, on pages 13 and 14 of the Brief, that the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 8, 9, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is in
error. Appellant argues that the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 8
is in error as the combination of Huang and Sinha does teach or make
obvious accepting a user confirmation that acknowledges an association of
each lighting device with a remote panel, where the lighting device provides
a visual confirmation in response to a selection of the lighting device at the
remote panel. App. Br. 13.
4

Appeal 2007-3333
Application 09/841,665

Thus, Appellant’s contentions, with respect to independent claim 8
presents us with the same issue discussed above with respect to claim 1.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Huang teaches a lighting control system where there are master
and zone controllers which control the actions of slave units that
control electrical appliances or lights. Abstract.
2. Huang teaches that the slave units can be installed either through a
zone controller or a master controller (both are remote from the
slave units). Col. 27, ll. 46-48.
3. A slave unit is installed by depressing a button on the slave unit
and depressing a button on either the master controller or the zone
controller. When the button on the slave unit is depressed an LED
on the slave unit is illuminated. Similarly the button on the master
or zone controller illuminates a LED on the master or zone
controller. Huang, col. 22, ll. 59-65, and col. 27, ll. 51-67.
4. The master or zone controller transmits an installation code to the
slave unit which acknowledges receipt of this code by sending an
acknowledgement signal back to the master or zone controller.
The master or zone controller then transmits an acknowledgement
of the acknowledgement signal and an installation LED on the
master controller is turned off. Huang, col. 28, ll. 5-31.
5. Sinha teaches a lighting control system where there is a lighting
control unit connected to several low voltage units that control
individual lights. Abstract.
5

Appeal 2007-3333
Application 09/841,665

6. The lighting control unit panel includes several buttons and LEDs
indicating the status of the individual low voltage units and their
program settings. See Sinha, Figure 1E and col. 7, ll. 46-60.
ANALYSIS
Independent claims 1, 5, 10, and 21, and the claims dependent
thereupon.
Appellant’s arguments have persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s
rejection of independent claims 1, 5, 10 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Independent claim 1 recites “accepting a user confirmation acknowledging
the association of each of the plural lighting devices in response to a visual
confirmation performed by each of the plural lighting devices upon selection
of each of the plural lighting devices on the remote control.” Thus, the
scope of claim 1 includes that there is a visual confirmation performed by
the lighting devices in response to a selection on the remote control.
Further, the scope of claim 1 includes that there is a step of acceptance of a
user confirmation in response to the visual confirmation. Independent
claims 5, 10, and 21 are each of different scope, but each contain a limitation
directed to a visual confirmation by the lighting device and a step of
associating or confirming the association, in response to the visual
confirmation.
The Examiner states, on page 14 of the Answer:
The reference of Huang et al. is not relied upon for teaching accepting
a user confirmation that acknowledges an association involving a
lighting device in response to visual confirmation. The reference of
Sinha et al. is relied upon for teaching accepting an user confirmation
that acknowledges an association involving each lighting device in
response to visual confirmation by using the Illuminated LED to
confirm the selection of a particular light source (col. 7 lines 46- 56).
Sinha et al. teaches LEDs 40, 41, 42, 43, and 44 are used to select a
6

Appeal 2007-3333
Application 09/841,665

particular LVM module (col. 7 lines 38-45) which is equivalent to
Huang's slave units. The lighting devices are connected to the LVM
modules (figure 1C) and the lighting device is selected by selecting
the associated LVM module to which the lighting device is attached
(col. 8 lines 1-4). Sinha therefore teaches the visual confirmation
provided by the LED upon selection of the lighting device. The use of
LEDs as evidenced by Huang and Sinha provides visual confirmation
of the selected lighting device by the remote control.

While, we concur with some of the Examiner’s findings, we disagree
with the Examiner’s finding that Sinha teaches the visual confirmation
provided by the LED upon selection of the lighting device, and thus the
conclusion that Sinha teaches the claimed confirmation or association step.
Huang teaches a lighting control system, where there is a remote panel
(master controller) and lighting devices (slave units). Fact 1. Huang teaches
that the slave units can be associated with the system by either initiating the
install at the slave unit or at the master controller. Fact 2. This installation
involves acknowledgments by the slave unit to the master controller and the
master controller to the slave unit. Fact 4. There is a visual indication at the
slave unit that it is in the install or verification process; however, this visual
indication is not provided upon selection of the slave unit at the master
controller, but rather when the install button is depressed at the slave unit.
Fact 3. Further, Huang does not teach verification based upon this visual
indication. Sinha also teaches a lighting control system, where there is a
remote unit that controls Low Voltage Modules (LVM) which function as
lighting control units. Fact 5. Sinha teaches that there are LEDs on the
remote unit indicating operation of the LVM and programming status of the
LVM. Fact 6. The Examiner’s finding that Sinha teaches visual
confirmation via LEDs is correct; however, these LEDs are on the remote
7

Appeal 2007-3333
Application 09/841,665

panel, and as such do not meet the claim limitation that the visual
confirmation is performed by the plural lighting devices (i.e., lights
controlled by the LVM). Thus, Appellant’s arguments have persuaded us of
error in the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1, 5, 10, and 21
under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Thus, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims
1, 2, 4 through 7, 10, and 19 through 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Huang in view of Sinha.
The Examiner has not found, nor do we find, that the teachings of
Mitchell, Grouev, and Appellant’s admitted prior art, Colton, Kronz, or
Meier, make up for the deficiency in the rejection of independent claims 1,
5, 10, and 21. Thus, we reverse the Examiner’s rejections of dependent
claims 11 though 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Independent claim 8 and the claims dependent thereupon.
Appellant’s arguments have persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s
rejection of independent claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Similar to claim
1 discussed above, independent claim 8 includes limitations directed to a
visual confirmation performed by the lighting devices in response to a
selection on the remote control. Further, claim 8, recites a software for
“initializing or binding” the slave unit in response to the visual confirmation.
As discussed above with respect to claim 1, we do not find that the
combination of Huang and Sinha to teach an action in response to a visual
confirmation performed by the lighting devices in response to a selection on
the remote control. The Examiner has not found, nor do we find, that
Mitchell includes such a teaching. Accordingly, Appellant’s arguments have
persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 8, 9, and 17
8

Appeal 2007-3333
Application 09/841,665

under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Huang in view of Sinha
and Mitchell.
The Examiner has not found, nor do we find, that the teachings of
Meier, make up for the deficiency in the rejection of independent claim 8.
Thus, we reverse the Examiner’s rejections of dependent claim 18 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a).
ORDER
For the foregoing reasons, we will not sustain the Examiner’s
rejections of claims 1, 2, and 4 through 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The
decision of the Examiner is reversed.

REVERSED

gvw

PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
& STANDARDS
P. O. BOX 3001
BRIARCLIFF MANOR, NY 10510

9