Ex Parte Wendt et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 14, 2017

12864520 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 14, 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.
12/864,520 07/26/2010 Matthias Wendt 2008P00067WOUS 5497
138325 7590 11/16/2017
PHILIPS LIGHTING HOLDING B.V.
465 Columbus Avenue
Suite 330
Valhalla, NY 10595
EXAMINER
RUSHING, MARK S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2682
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/16/2017 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 MATTHIAS WENDT, WOLFGANG OTTO
BUDDE, and AWEKE NEGASH LEMMA
Appeal 2015-003998
Application 12/864,520
Technology Center 2600
Before JOHN P. PINKERTON, MONICA S. ULLAGADDI, and
STACY B. MARGOLIES, Administrative Patent Judges.
ULLAGADDI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of
claims 1—8 and 15—18. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.
Appeal 2015-003998
Application 12/864,520
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A lighting system, comprising
at least one controllable lighting unit for providing an output
beam of light and a controller for supplying control commands
to the at least one lighting unit, the controller
operable to receive lighting design data including lighting
definitions for obtaining specific lighting scenes and data
corresponding to an identification tag dependent upon the
lighting design data being implemented and
configured to generate said control commands from said
received lighting design data,
wherein said control commands are generated so that said output
beam comprises a detectable signal corresponding to said
identification tag.
REJECTION
Claims 1—8 and 15—18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Frumau (WO 2006/111934 Al;
Oct. 26, 2006) and Cortenraad (US 2008/0284348 Al; Nov. 20, 2008). Final
Act. 2—9. No other claims are pending.
ANALYSIS
Appellants contend neither Frumau nor Cortenraad nor the
combination thereof, teaches or suggests the limitations recited in
independent claims 1, 15, 17, and 18. Appellants do not specifically set forth
the correspondence between their arguments and the individual claim or
claim limitation applicable to each argument. See generally App. Br.
Appellants, in several instances, do not quote from the claims and instead,
2
Appeal 2015-003998
Application 12/864,520
paraphrase the language of the claims. Id. Nevertheless, based on the
arguments presented by Appellants, we determine that claim 1 is
representative of the subject matter of claims 1,15, and 17. Each of claims
1,15, and 17 has a limitation directed to the disputed issues of “lighting
design data,” “control commands,” and an “output beam” including “a
detectable signal corresponding to [an] identification tag.” Having reviewed
the record, we concur with and adopt the Examiner’s findings and
conclusions with respect to independent claims 1,15, and 17. See Final Act.
2—7. With respect to independent claim 18, we are persuaded by Appellants’
arguments, and thus, we address this claim separately.
Independent Claims 1, 15, and 17
First, Appellants contend that Frumau teaches identifying hardware
using a user control device instead of “lighting design data including lighting
definitions for obtaining specific lighting scenes as is claimed.” App. Br. 7—
8. In support of its first contention, Appellants argue that “light emitted in a
particular area will have many various hardware identifiers, not an
individual author identifier.” Id. at 8 (emphasis omitted). Appellants do not
point out, nor are we able to ascertain, where the claim term “identification
tag” is defined in the specification with the requisite deliberateness, clarity,
and precision. See In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994); see,
e.g., Spec, at 2:5—9 (broadly describing “identification tag”), 3:28—30
(stating that “[t]he identification tag may comprise any information relating
to the lighting design data”). Appellants’ first contention is not persuasive
with respect to any of independent claims 1,15, and 17 because the claimed
“identification tag” recited therein encompasses hardware identifiers and is
not limited to an individual author identifier. Appellants could have used a
3
Appeal 2015-003998
Application 12/864,520
narrower term in the claims—such as “author identifier”—rather than the
broader “identification tag” term. Accordingly, we are not persuaded of
error in the Examiner’s construction of this term. For the reasons discussed
in further detail below with respect to Appellants’ second and third
contentions, we are not persuaded that Frumau fails to teach or suggest
“lighting design data including lighting definitions for obtaining specific
lighting scenes,” as Appellants contend. App. Br. 7—8.
Second, Appellants contend “Cortenraad simply utilizes hardware
transponders, such as RFID [Radio Frequency Identification] hardware
devices 6, to modify the light output once read by a reader 4” and “[n]o
codes are emitted nor is there any mechanism by which Cortenraad defines
abstract lighting design data, through to the controller and emitted within the
light.” App. Br. 8. Appellants further argue that “Frumau specifically ties
output light to hardware identifiers and has no ability to receive input of high
level abstract lighting design data as claimed.” Id. at 9. The Examiner cites
Frumau as teaching the claimed lighting design data including an
identification code dependent upon the lighting design data being
implemented. Final Act. 2—3 (citing Frumau, 3:15—18, 3:33—4:3); see id. at
5, 6 (citing Frumau, 3:15—33, 4:4—17, 7:11—15). The Examiner finds
Frumau “doesn’t specify using a tag with the identification code” and cites
Cortenraad as teaching “coupling ID numbers of transponders to change the
light intensity proportionally with the already adjusted color ([0016]), and
data based on parameters ([0037]), suggesting an identification tag data
depending on given design data.” Id. at 3.
4
Appeal 2015-003998
Application 12/864,520
Appellants’ arguments with respect to Cortenraad are not persuasive
because, as discussed above, the Examiner cites Frumau as teaching the
claimed “lighting design data.” See Final Act. 2—3, 5, 6. Frumau discloses
The main control device 10 contains a processor, which
runs a control program in concordance with a scheme for lighting
locations covered by the lighting units 4 of the lighting
arrangements 2, such as for light intensity, light color range and
light direction. The program uses data, which is obtained about
such locations a priori while using the user control device 12 by
a user.
At the time of feeding the main control device 10 with data
about lighting conditions at locations covered by the lighting
arrangements 2 the user uses the user control device 12 to receive
light at each of said locations from any lighting arrangement 2
covering the location, deriving an identification code, of a single
lighting arrangement 2 or, in case of receiving composite direct
or indirect light from several lighting arrangements 2, several
identification codes originating from respective lighting
arrangements 2. The user control device measures some property
of the received light of interest, apart from representing data,
such as average light intensity during some interval. Then, the
user control device 12 transmits data, which represents a value
of a measured light property together with one or more derived
identification codes, to the main control device 10.
Frumau, 3:24-4:13 (emphases added). The cited portions in paragraphs 14
and 15 of Cortenraad disclose “transponders [that] are RFID tags, each
comprising an identification number” in which the identification number
“can be coupled in a unique way to a change in color or intensity, for
instance by means of a look-up table.” Cortenraad further discloses sending
information to “processing unit 9, in which it is converted into an input
signal for the lighting unit 2” by “translating] this response signal into the
appropriate parameters to drive a lighting device 2.” Cortenraad 137.
5
Appeal 2015-003998
Application 12/864,520
As reproduced above, Frumau’s control program that directs a scheme
for lighting locations covered by lighting units 4 of lighting arrangements
teaches the “lighting design data” recited in claim 1. We concur in the
Examiner’s finding that the combination of Frumau’s derived identification
codes and Cortenraad’s RFID tags as set forth in the Final Office Action
teaches the “data corresponding to an identification tag dependent upon the
lighting design data being implemented,” as recited in claim 1.
Third, Appellants contend “Frumau has no method or implementation
of maintaining unique identification tags within lighting commands that
have been translated from the lighting design data (i.e. the abstract
definitions).” App. Br. 8. Appellants also argue that neither “Cortenraad
nor Frumau disclose the ability to translate high level abstract atmosphere
information which itself contains a unique identification code to control
commands which contains a unique code.” Id. at 9. Although none of
claims 1,15, and 17 recite a “translating” limitation, we consider
Appellants’ third contention with respect to “generat[ing] said control
commands from said received lighting design data, wherein said control
commands are generated so that said output beam comprises a detectable
signal corresponding to said identification tag,” as recited in claim 1 and
similarly recited in claims 15 and 17.
Frumau discloses an iterative process of obtaining lighting conditions
at a location of one or more lighting arrangements 2, deriving one or more
identification codes originating from lighting arrangement 2, measuring
some property of the received light of interest, and transmitting the property
of interest and the derived identification code(s) to main control device 10.
See Frumau, 4:4—13. Frumau further discloses that “[hjaving gained data on
6
Appeal 2015-003998
Application 12/864,520
several locations, the main control device 10 can control the lighting
arrangements 2 in several ways to obtain wanted light effects in some or all
of said locations.” Id. at 4:13—17. Framau further discloses
[a] lighting arrangement 2 comprises means, for storing an
identification code, which is unique for the lighting arrangement
2, control means for supplying the lighting unit 4, and means for
modulating the supply of a lighting unit 4 and therewith
modulating the light output of the lighting unit 4, dependent on
data, which at least comprises said identification code.
Id. at 3:16—20 (emphasis added). In light of these disclosures, Framau
teaches that the derived identification code(s) are necessary to responsively
control the lighting arrangements and constituent lighting units. Moreover,
Appellants fail to show error in the Examiner’s reliance on the combination
of Framau and Cortenraad for teaching the generation of control commands
for an output beam as claimed. Final Act. 2—3. As such, we are not
persuaded by Appellants’ third contention.
For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in
finding the combination of Framau and Cortenraad teaches or suggests the
limitations as recited in independent claims 1,15, and 17, and claims 2—8
and 16, not separately argued. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims
1—8 and 15—17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness over Framau and
Cortenraad.
Independent Claim 18
Fourth, Appellants contend Cortenraad does not disclose “translating
including compiling, rendering and mapping wherein the identification tag is
embedded within the control values after translating.” App. Br. 9. The
disputed claim limitation is recited only in claim 18. The Examiner finds
that Framau “doesn’t specify the identification code is embedded within the
7
Appeal 2015-003998
Application 12/864,520
control values after the translating step,” but finds “it would have been
obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was
made to modify Frumau [to] embed[] the control values after translating.”
Final Act. 8 (citing Frumau, 4:24—5:6). The Examiner reasons that doing so
would
[OJbtain data about a lighting effect at a specific location caused
by the operation of different lighting units and to control said
operation dependent on said data and on location data, such that
the light effect can be controlled for properties of the light effect
dependent on location and the light effect can be dragged while
maintaining properties of the light effect and to ensure the correct
identification code is used with the proper light setting for the
respective lighting unit, as suggested by Frumau (Page 2 Lines
8-12).
Id. at 8—9. The cited portion of Frumau discloses using additional data, such
as color dependent light intensities and light directional information, when
controlling the operation of lighting arrangement 2. See Frumau, 4:24—5:6.
However, the cited passage in Frumau does not teach or suggest a temporal
requirement for embedding an identification code within control values, and
more specifically, does not teach or suggest doing so after a translating step.
See App. Br. 9. The Examiner fails to provide sufficient evidence or
reasoning for modifying Fmmau.
For the foregoing reasons, we are persuaded the Examiner erred in
finding that the combination of Frumau and Cortenraad teaches or suggests
the limitations as recited in independent claim 18. Therefore, we do not
sustain the rejection of claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness
over Frumau and Cortenraad.
8
Appeal 2015-003998
Application 12/864,520
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1—8 and 15—17 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness over Frumau and Cortenraad is affirmed.
The decision of the Examiner to reject claim 18 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness over Frumau and Cortenraad is reversed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
9