PHILIPS LIGHTING HOLDING B.V.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 21, 2020

2019006731 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 21, 2020)

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.
15/548,941 08/04/2017 HARALD JOSEF GÜNTHER RADERMACHER 2014P01604WOUS 6639
138325 7590 09/21/2020
Signify Holding B.V.
465 Columbus Avenue
Suite 330
Valhalla, NY 10595
EXAMINER
AMRANY, ADI
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2836
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/21/2020 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):
Gigi.Miller@signify.com
jo.cangelosi@signify.com
kim.larocca@signify.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HARALD JOSEF GÜNTHER RADERMACHER,
MATTHIAS WENDT, LENNART YSEBOODT, and
DAVE WILLEM VAN GOOR
Appeal 2019-006731
Application 15/548,941
Technology Center 2800
Before TERRY J. OWENS, JEFFREY T. SMITH, and
JEFFREY R. SNAY, Administrative Patent Judges.
OWENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 2, and 4–15. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as PHILIPS
LIGHTING HOLDING B.V. (Appeal Br. 3).
Appeal 2019-006731
Application 15/548,941
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a powered device for receiving power via
a communication link; a power sourcing equipment device for supplying
power via a communication link to one or more powered devices; a Power-
over-Ethernet network system, and methods of operating a powered device
comprising a sensor unit for receiving power via a communication link.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A powered device for receiving power via a
communication link, said powered device comprising:
a classification information providing unit that is configured
to provide a classification signal to said communication link
during a classification phase of said powered device, wherein said
classification signal denotes a power consumption level of said
powered device during the classification phase and is based on a
power consumption of the powered device;
a sensor unit for detecting an ambient condition;
a sensor information providing unit that is configured to
provide sensor information indicating the detected ambient
condition to said classification information providing unit;
wherein said classification information providing unit is
configured to provide said classification signal to said
communication link based on said sensor information during a
second phase, wherein said classification signal denotes the
detected ambient condition during the second phase.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Diab US 2009/0027033 A1 Jan 29, 2009
Karam US 2010/0117808 A1 May 13, 2010

Appeal 2019-006731
Application 15/548,941
3
REJECTIONS
The claims stand rejected as follows: claims 8–11 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(a)(1) over Karam;2 and claims 1, 2, 4–7, and 12–15 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 over Diab in view of Karam.3
OPINION
Independent claim 1 requires that during a classification phase a
classification signal is based on a power consumption of a powered device
and denotes a power consumption level of the powered device, and during a
second phase the classification signal is based on sensor information and
denotes a detected ambient condition. The other independent claims (8, 12,
and 13) have similar requirements.
Karam discloses a power-over-Ethernet system comprising power
sourcing equipment (PSE) and a powered device (PD) (¶ 20). The PD can
supply to the PSE a predetermined milliamp current to indicate that the PD
is communications capable, and the PSE “can measure the current the same
way as it measures normal detection and classification currents” (¶ 47).4

2 “Anticipation requires that every limitation of the claim in issue be
disclosed, either expressly or under principles of inherency, in a single prior
art reference.” Corning Glass Works v. Sumitomo Elec. U.S.A., Inc., 868
F.2d 1251, 1255–56 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
3 “Section 103 forbids issuance of a patent when ‘the differences between
the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the
subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention
was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject
matter pertains.’” KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007).
4 The Examiner relies upon Diab for a disclosure of communicating data
from a PD to PSE “via a Layer 1 scheme such as voltage and/or current
modulation” (¶ 32) (Final Rej. 7).
Appeal 2019-006731
Application 15/548,941
4
The Examiner concludes that the Appellant’s “second phase
classification signal is dynamic. It is a modified version of the first phase
classification signal, which means that it is expected to change during use”
(Ans. 8), and “[t]he only same-ness that appears possible is that both
classification signals use the same IEEE 802.3 protocol” (Final Rej.18). The
Examiner finds that Karam’s “PSE uses the same protocol for both receiving
classification information and ‘for additional detections’ (par 47). This
makes it the ‘same signal’” (Final Rej. 5). The Examiner finds that the
Appellant’s Specification does not explain “how the classification signals
can be at different times, yet be the same” (Ans. 5).
It is proper to use the Specification to interpret what the Appellant
means by a word or phrase in a claim. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048,
1053–56 (Fed. Cir. 1997). The Appellant’s Specification states:
As explained herein, an aspect of the present invention relates
to the transmission of a “modified” classification signature from the
PD to the PSE in order to provide an inexpensive communication
scheme. To this extent, setting up the entire system may works in the
following order: First, a PD is connected to the PSE. Next, a startup of
the PD is initiated. Next, the PD presents a classification signature
based on the PD’s nominal power level. Next, the PD is restarted.
Finally, the PD presents a classification signature that is based on the
PD’s sensor information. That way, the PSE may interpret the very
first classification signature in a conventional manner, whereas
subsequent classification signatures are interpreted to comprise sensor
information from the PD. Put differently, in the above-described
embodiment, the PSE is actively asking for the first class code and
directly thereafter restarts negotiation to get the status information.
[Spec. 11]

Thus, the Appellant’s Specification indicates that the classification
signal recited in the claims is a classification signal which denotes a power
consumption level during a classification phase and denotes sensor
Appeal 2019-006731
Application 15/548,941
5
information during a second phase. The Examiner has not established that
even if, as found by the Examiner, Karam’s PSE uses the same protocol for
receiving classification information and for additional detections (Final
Rej. 5), Karam discloses a classification signal which denotes a power
consumption level during a classification phase and denotes sensor
information during a second phase. Nor has the Examiner established that
the combined disclosures of Karam and Diab would have suggested such a
classification signal to one of ordinary skill in the art. Accordingly, we
reverse the Examiner’s rejections.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections are reversed.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
8–11 102(a)(1) Karam 8–11
1, 2, 4–7,
12–15
103 Diab, Karam 1, 2, 4–7,
12–15
Overall
Outcome
1, 2, 4–15

REVERSED