Ex Parte LYS

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 29, 2016

12473739 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/473,739 05/28/2009 IhorLYS
24737 7590 04/19/2016
PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS
P.O. BOX 3001
BRIARCLIFF MANOR, NY 10510
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.
2006P02696US03 1182
EXAMINER
VU,JIMMYT
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2844
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/19/2016 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):
debbie.henn@philips.com
marianne.fox@philips.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte IHOR L YS
Appeal2014-004117
Application 12/473,739
Technology Center 2800
Before TERRY J. OWENS, ROMULO H. DELMENDO, and
N. WHITNEY WILSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
DELMENDO, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
The Appellant1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of a
decision of the Primary Examiner to reject claims 1---6. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
BACKGROUND
The subject matter on appeal relates to an apparatus and method for
controlling series-connected light emitting diodes (LEDs) by comparing a
1 The Appellant states that "Koninklijke Philips Electronics, N.V." is the
Real Party in Interest (Appeal Brief filed May 22, 2013, hereinafter "App.
Br.," 3).
Appeal2014--004117
Application 12/463,739
supply voltage with a series voltage drop over at least some of a plurality of
LEDs, determining the number of LEDs that can be energized based on the
comparison, and thereafter energizing the determined number of LEDs
(Specification, hereinafter "Spec.," i-fi-10001 and 0011---0012). Details of the
appeal subject matter are recited in illustrative independent claims 1 and 6,
which are reproduced below from page 18-19 of the Appeal Brief (Claims
App.):
1. An apparatus for controlling an LED system, the apparatus
compnsmg:
a comparison circuit configured to compare at least one
signal representative of a supply voltage with at least one other
signal representative of a series voltage drop over at least some
of a plurality of LEDs connected electrically in series;
a controller, connected to the comparison circuit and
configured to determine a number of the plurality of LEDs that
can be energized based on an input from the comparison circuit,
wherein the input is based on the comparison of the
representative signal of the supply voltage with the at least one
other signal representative of the series voltage drop over at
least some of the plurality of LEDs; and
a power section connected to the controller, the power
section being configured to operate at least one switch so that
the number of LEDs determined by the controller is energized.
6. A method of controlling an LED system comprising a
plurality of LEDs, the method comprising:
comparing at least one signal representative of a supply
voltage with at least one other signal representative of a series
voltage drop over at least some of a plurality of LEDs
connected electrically in series;
determining a number of the plurality of LEDs that can
be energized based on the comparing; and
operating at least one switch so that the number of the
plurality of LEDs is energized.
2
Appeal2014--004117
Application 12/463,739
THE REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claims 1---6 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Kinbara. 2 (Examiner's Answer, entered October 11, 2013,
hereafter "Ans.," 2; Final Office Action entered January 3, 2013, hereinafter
"Final Act.," 4---6.)3
DISCUSSION
Upon consideration of the evidence on this appeal record in light of
the arguments advanced by the Appellant, we find that the Appellant has
identified reversible error in the Examiner's determination that the applied
prior art anticipates claims 1---6 within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
Therefore, we reverse the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of the
above claims for the reasons set forth by the Appellant in Appeal Brief at
10-13. We add the following primarily for emphasis.
The Examiner found, inter alia, that Kinbara discloses a comparison
circuit "configured to compare at least one signal( ... e.g., a first input
terminal of the comparator 10 ... ) representative of a supply voltage ... with
at least one other signal( ... e.g., a second input terminal of the comparator
10) representative of a series voltage drop . . . over at least some of a
plurality of LEDs (LDl-LDn) connected electrically in series" (Final Act. 4--
5). The Examiner further found that Kinbara discloses a controller
"configured to determine a number of the plurality of LEDs ... energized
based on an input from the comparison circuit" (id. at 5). The Examiner
2 US Patent 6,137,816, issued October 24, 2000.
3 In the Answer at page 2, the Examiner withdrew an objection of claims 1
and 6.
3
Appeal2014--004117
Application 12/463,739
maintained that "a number of the plurality of LEDs could be all of the LEDs
in the lighting apparatus" (id. at 2).
As persuasively explained by Appellant (App. Br. 9-11), while
Kinbara does disclose a comparison circuit, a controller and a power section
for operating a plurality of LEDs, Kinbara discloses the current of the
system is detected and then is compared with "a command value ITH of a
commander" to ensure a constant current is supplied to the plurality of LEDs
connected electrically in series (Abst.; Fig. 1; col. 1, 11. 36-52; col. 5, 11. 8-
61 ). Kinbara discloses the controller operates a switching element to
energize the plurality of LEDs when the current detected by the detector
reaches the command value (col. 8, 11. 20-25). Besides mere assertions, the
Examiner has failed to direct us to a teaching, nor can we independently
locate such a teaching, that Kinbara utilizes a signal that is representative of
a series voltage drop over the plurality of LEDs to compare to the supply
voltage as required by the claims. In view of this lack of teaching, we find
that Kinbara does not disclose nor is capable of performing the comparison
as claimed, specifically "comparing at least one signal representative of a
supply voltage with at least one other signal representative of a series
voltage drop over at least some of a plurality of LEDs connected electrically
in series." (Emphasis added).
Notwithstanding the above deficiency, the Examiner has additionally
failed to direct us to a teaching that Kinbara "determine[s] a number of the
plurality of LEDs that can be energized based on an input from the
comparison circuit" or that Kinbara "operate[ s] at least one switch so that
the number of LEDs determined by the controller is energized" as
specifically required by the claim. We find the claim requirements are
4
Appeal2014--004117
Application 12/463,739
interrelated and the Examiner's analysis fails to take into consideration each
and every element of the claim as drafted and how those elements relate to
each other.
The Examiner, citing Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary,
maintained that "the term 'determine' is defined as 'to bring about as a
result"' and thus concluded that, giving the terms in the claims their broadest
reasonable interpretation, "the diodes in the lighting apparatus [of Kinbara]
has to be determined with a number" (Ans. 3). While the claims are to be
given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
Specification, the Examiner's analysis is flawed because it fails to take into
consideration each and every element of the claim as drafted. The claims do
not merely require "determining a number of the plurality of LEDs that can
be energized," but require such a determination is "based on the
comparison." Even in the Examiner's all or nothing approach to energizing
the LEDs, we agree with the Appellant (App. Br. 10-12), the Examiner has
failed to demonstrate how Kinbara determines or is even capable of
determining a number of the plurality of LEDs that can be energized based
on the comparison.
Based on the totality of the claim requirements defining the claimed
subject matter, we find the Examiner's analysis fails to take into
consideration each and every element of the claim as drafted because the
claims require a determining a number of the plurality of LEDs that can be
energized based on the comparison of a signal representing the supply
voltage and a signal representing a series voltage drop over some of the
LEDs.
5
Appeal2014--004117
Application 12/463,739
Accordingly, we concur with the Appellant that the Examiner has not
supplied sufficient evidence that Kinbara teaches each and every element of
claims 1---6 within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
SUMMARY
For these reasons and those set forth in the Appeal Brief, the
Examiner's final decision to reject claims 1---6 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is
reversed.
REVERSED
6