Ex Parte Shaneour

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 18, 2014

11764995 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 18, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte DWIGHT C. SHANEOUR

____________

Appeal 2011-013548
Application 11/764,995
Technology Center 2800

___________

Before CHARLES F. WARREN, JEFFREY T. SMITH, and
KAREN M. HASTINGS, Administrative Patent Judges.

HASTINGS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-013548
Application 11/764,995

2
Appellant1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1-11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combined prior art of Miki2 and Loughrey.3 We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on
appeal:
1. A multiple fixture lighting system for an activity area such as an
athletic field comprising:
at least one lighting fixture array disposed proximate the area to direct
light onto the area;
said array comprising a plurality of fixtures containing high-intensity,
electronically switchable ballasted lamps and being mounted on a support;
said array further comprising a plurality of multi-level output controls
for said array wherein each output control is connected to at least one
individual fixture and is capable of providing multiple operating output
levels in relatively small output increments;
said array further comprising a plurality of light level sensors equal in
number to the number of fixtures in the array wherein each sensor is
associated with an individual fixture and capable of producing a signal
related to the light level being produced at any given time by the lamp in
said fixture;
a command center located proximate the area for selectively
activating all of the fixtures in the array at selected nominal output levels
within an available range of relatively large intensity increments; and
a logic system associated with the array and connected to receive
individual fixture light output signals from said sensors and operative to
adjust individual output controls in relatively small output increments
between said nominal incremental levels as necessary to achieve
substantially uniform light outputs from all of the fixtures in the array.

1 The Real Party in Interest is Qualite Sports Lighting, Inc.
2 Miki, US 7,635,958 B2, issued Dec. 22, 2009.
3 Loughrey, US 6,960,892 B2, issued Nov. 1, 2005.
Appeal 2011-013548
Application 11/764,995

3
ANALYSIS
Considering all of the evidence on the record and each contention in
the Brief and Reply Brief of Appellant, we find that a preponderance of the
evidence supports the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-11 as obvious over
the combined prior art of Miki and Loughrey. Accordingly, we will sustain
the Examiner’s rejection for essentially those reasons expressed in the
Answer, including the Examiner’s Response to Argument section, and we
add the following primarily for emphasis.
The claimed invention is directed to a lighting system of high
intensity fixtures with each fixture including a photosensor (sensor) that
enables the adjustment of the light output intensity level from each fixture
(claim 1).
Appellant’s contention that Miki is nonanalogous art (App. Br. 11-12)
is not persuasive for reasons aptly pointed out by the Examiner (Ans. 19-21).
The Examiner reasonably determines that Miki is directed to lighting control
systems and would thus be considered from the same field of endeavor as
the claimed invention, as well as reasonably pertinent to the problem of
lighting control systems for desired illumination of outdoor areas (Ans. 19,
20). Notably claim 1 merely requires a system capable of lighting up an
activity area such as an athletic filed. Miki expressly encompasses
controlling illumination of a plurality of lights in an outdoor area (col. 1, ll.
36-38). A preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner’s position
that Miki is analogous prior art. See, e.g., In re Chaganti, Fed. Appx., 2014
WL 274514, *4 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (A reference “need not disclose every
limitation of the claimed invention to fall within the same field of endeavor
as the claimed invention.”).
Appeal 2011-013548
Application 11/764,995

4
Appellant further contends that Miki does not teach or suggest a
photosensor or fixture-dedicated sensors equal in number to the number of
fixtures in the array wherein each sensor or photosensor produces an
individual fixture output signal (App. Br. 12-13). Further, Appellant argues
that Miki does not disclose a command center for selecting between multiple
illumination levels (id. at 13).
These arguments lack persuasive merit, because the Examiner has
explicitly and reasonably construed the claimed features of the sensor or
photosensor (Ans. 24-25) and command center (id. at 26) to corresponding
elements shown in Figure 7 of Miki.
Fig. 7 of Miki is reproduced below.

Fig. 7 illustrates Miki’s sensors 122x, 122y, 122z, as illumination
sampling portions that sample light from respective light sources emanating
from a plurality of light devices (id. at 24) and each light source produces a
Appeal 2011-013548
Application 11/764,995

5
respective output signal that feeds back to an illumination comparing device.
Further, the Examiner’s position is that the command center of the claim
encompasses the illumination comparing device, element 12, also illustrated
in Figure 7 of Miki, which functions as a command center by accepting the
output of each illumination sampling portion and controls the adjustment of
light intensities (Ans. 26). Notably, Appellant has not directed us to credible
evidence, or persuasive technical reasons, explaining why the Examiner’s
broadest reasonable interpretation is in error (see generally App. Br.; Reply
Br.).
Appellant further argues that the Loughery prior art is irrelevant to
Miki and that no good reason exists for the combination of Miki with
Loughery (App. Br. 14). We disagree with Appellant. It is well established
that ordinary creativity is presumed on the part of one of ordinary skill in the
art. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007) (“A person
of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.”).
Appellant has not shown error in the Examiner’s position that it would have
been prima facie obvious to modify the lighting control system of Miki,
using no more than ordinary creativity, to include the known prior art
elements of ballasted arc lamps as exemplified in Loughrey (e.g., Ans. 21,
28).4 See also 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.”). The analysis need not seek out precise
teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the claim, for it is proper

4Indeed, the Background of the Specification (Spec. paras. [0002], [0005])
also describes that the use of high intensity arc-type lamps requiring the use
of ballasts is well known in the art.
Appeal 2011-013548
Application 11/764,995

6
to take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary
skill in the art would employ. Id. at 418.
Therefore, based on a preponderance of the evidence, we affirm the
rejection of claims 1-11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the
combined prior art of Miki and Loughrey.
DECISION
The rejection of claims 1-11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Miki in
view of Loughery 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

cdc