PHILIPS LIGHTING HOLDING B.V.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 14, 2021

2020002630 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 14, 2021)

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.
15/572,703 11/08/2017 JORIS HUBERTUS ANTONIUS HAGELAAR 2015P00569WOUS 1083
138325 7590 04/14/2021
Signify Holding B.V.
465 Columbus Avenue
Suite 330
Valhalla, NY 10595
EXAMINER
CATTANACH, COLIN J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2875
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/14/2021 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 JORIS HUBERTUS ANTONIUS HAGELAAR and
AART JAN VROEGOP
Appeal 2020-002630
Application 15/572,703
Technology Center 2800
Before KAREN M. HASTINGS, CHRISTOPHER C. KENNEDY, and
SHELDON M. McGEE, Administrative Patent Judges.
HASTINGS, 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 1–5, 8–12, and 14–23. See Final
Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm, but because our reasoning differs somewhat from that of
the Examiner, we designate our affirmance as including new grounds of

1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Signify Holding B.V.
Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2020-002630
Application 15/572,703

2
rejection to safeguard Appellant’s procedural entitlements. Cf. In re
Leithem, 661 F.3d 1316, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“Mere reliance on the same
statutory basis and the same prior art references, alone, is insufficient to
avoid making a new ground of rejection when the Board relies on new facts
and rationales not previously raised to the applicant by the examiner.”).
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a LED light strip and method for
manufacturing the same. Spec. 1. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative
of the claimed subject matter:
1. A light emitting diode (LED) light strip comprising:
a first plurality of LED strings arranged for being powered
in parallel through a first supply path and a first return path, each
LED string of the first plurality of LED strings comprising at
least one first LED having a first forward voltage and a first drive
current when the at least one first LED has a voltage drop equal
to the first forward voltage;
a second plurality of LED strings arranged for being
powered in parallel through a second supply path and a second
return path, each LED string of the second plurality of LED
strings comprising at least one second LED having a second
forward voltage and a second drive current when the at least one
second LED has a voltage drop equal to the second forward
voltage, at least one of the first and second forward voltages or
the first and second drive currents being different;
at least three electrical conductors positioned along a
length of the LED light strip, a first set of at least two electrical
conductors of the at least three electrical conductors are arranged
to provide the first supply path and the first return path, the first
set of at least two electrical conductors having a first combined
resistance, and a second set of at least two electrical conductors
of the at least three electrical conductors are arranged to provide
the second supply path and the second return path, the second set
Appeal 2020-002630
Application 15/572,703

3
of at least two electrical conductors having a second combined
resistance;
a first segment at a first position on the LED light strip, the
first segment comprising at least a first LED string from the first
plurality of LED strings and at least a first LED string from the
second plurality of LED strings; and
a second segment at a second position on the LED light
strip different from the first position, the second segment
comprising at least a second LED string from the first plurality
of LED strings, and at least a second LED string from the second
plurality of LED strings;
wherein the first and second LED strings from the first
plurality of LED strings have a first relative decrease in current
compared to each other when a voltage source is provided to the
first supply and return paths, and the first and second LED strings
from the second plurality of LED strings have a second relative
decrease in current compared to each other when the voltage
source is provided to the second supply and return paths; and
wherein the first and second combined resistances are
different such that the difference between the first and second
relative decreases in currents is less than what the difference
between the first and second relative decreases would be if the
first and second combined resistances were the same.
Independent claim 12 is directing to a method of manufacturing a
LED light strip similar to that recited in claim 1 (Appeal Br. Claims App.
21–23). Appellant relies upon the same arguments for both claims 1 and 12
(generally Appeal Br.).
REFERENCE
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Tischler US 2015/0108907 A1 Apr. 23, 2015

Appeal 2020-002630
Application 15/572,703

4
REJECTION
Claims 1–5, 8–12, and 14–23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Tischler. Final Act. 3.
OPINION
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellant and in light of the arguments and evidence produced
thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential),
(cited with approval in In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
(“[I]t has long been the Board’s practice to require an applicant to identify
the alleged error in the examiner’s rejections . . . .”)).
In assessing whether a claim to a combination of prior art elements or
steps would have been obvious, the question to be asked is whether the
improvement of the claim is more than the predictable use of prior art
elements or steps according to their established functions. KSR Int’l Co. v.
Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007). “[T]he analysis need not seek out
precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged
claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a
person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” Id. at 418.
Appellant first argues that the Examiner fails to identify with any
specificity exactly which of the LED strings in Tischler’s Figure 15 are
being associated with the claims (Appeal Br. 15). In response, the Examiner
points out that Tischler’s Figure 15 teaches the claimed first plurality of
LED strings which the Examiner identifies as being powered in parallel
through [and between] a first supply path and a first return path, 110’ and
120 (Ans. 6–7). The Examiner also points out that Tischler’s Figure 15
teaches the claimed second plurality of LED strings which the Examiner
Appeal 2020-002630
Application 15/572,703

5
identifies as being powered in parallel through [between] a first supply path
and a second return path, 120 and 110 (Ans. 7).
The Examiner further provides specificity to which LED strings are
associated with the claimed first plurality of LED strings by placing lines
over two different LED strings in the top row of LED strings of Tischler’s
Figure 15 as part of the first plurality, as shown in Examiner’s annotated
Figure 15 (Ans. 6). The Examiner also provides specificity to which LED
strings are associated with the claimed second plurality of LED strings by
placing lines over two different LED strings in the middle row of Tischler’s
Figure 15 as part of the second plurality, as shown in the Examiner’s
annotated Figure 15 (Ans. 6).
Thus, based on the Examiner’s position as described above,
Applicant’s assertion that the Examiner failed to identify with any
specificity exactly which of the LED strings in Figure 15 are being
associated with the claimed first plurality of LED strings and claimed second
plurality of LED strings, respectively, is insufficient to show reversible
error. Notably, we do not find—and Appellant has not directed our attention
to—any limiting definitions in the Specification, nor does Appellant provide
any persuasive reasoning or credible evidence to establish that the
Examiner’s interpretation of the language of claim 1 is unreasonable.
Appellant’s second argument is that the Examiner’s rejection is
premised on the claimed first segment to include only LED strings from the
first plurality of LED strings between conductors 110’ and 120 of Tischler’s
Figure 15, but does not include, as required by the claims, at least one other
LED string from the second plurality of LED strings between conductors
120 and 110 of Tischler’s Figure 15 (Appeal Br. 16–17).
Appeal 2020-002630
Application 15/572,703

6
Appellant relies on a specific interpretation of Tischler’s Figure 15, by
including an annotated version of that Figure (Appeal Br. 16). Here,
Appellant suggests, based on the Examiner’s position, that Tischler’s Figure
15 illustrates a first segment comprising only LED strings from the
uppermost sheet shown in the Figure between conductors 110’ and 120.
Even assuming that the first segment/upper sheet of Tischler’s
Figure 15 does not optimally show at least two different LED strings which
are each from a different plurality of LED strings, respectively, as required
by the claims, and that the second segment/middle sheet of Tischler’s
Figure 15 does not optimally show at least two different LED strings which
are each from a different plurality of LED strings, respectively, as required
by the claims (Reply Br. 2, 3), Appellant nonetheless has failed to show
reversible error.
The Examiner aptly points out that Tischler teaches various
arrangements of the LED strings (Ans. 4–5, citing Tischler ¶¶ 19, 24),
including one or more light sheets each containing LED strings, each or as a
whole wired together in either series or parallel (see, e.g., Tischler ¶ 18). It
is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference,
but also inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be
expected to draw therefrom.
One skilled in the art would readily infer that Tischler suggests the
following arrangement as illustrated in the annotated Figure 15 below which
more clearly illustrates two segments which each include two different LED
strings that are each from a different plurality of LED strings, respectively.
It should be noted that while it appears that Tischler uses the term “segment”
to include only LED strings that occur between the same two conductors
Appeal 2020-002630
Application 15/572,703

7
(e.g., Tischler ¶¶ 111, 113), the claimed first and second segments may
encompass any relevant two or more LED strings in the light strip of
Tischler’s various arrangements (e.g., Tischler ¶¶ 18, 19, 24).
Therefore, one of skill in the art would have readily inferred or
understood the claimed first and second segments as encompassing
Tischler’s Figure 15, with each segment containing an LED string from the
first plurality of LED strings, and another LED string from the second
plurality of LED strings, as required in the claims.
For example only, Tischler’s Figure 15 is labeled below to illustrate
possible first and second segments as recited in claim 1:

Again, Tischler’s Figure 15 is labeled above to illustrate possible first
and second segments as recited in claim 1. Therefore, while we appreciate
Appeal 2020-002630
Application 15/572,703

8
that the Examiner may not have specified an optimal designation of the first
and second segments, Appellant’s argument that the Examiner missed the
claim’s requirement that the first and second segments include LED strings
from each plurality of LED strings fails to show reversible error in light of
our new explanation and reasoning based on Tischler’s teachings as a whole
(Appeal Br. 17; Ans. 6).
Appellant also argues that the Examiner’s explanation of Tischler’s
first plurality of LED strings is somehow “fatally inconsistent” with the
claims (Reply Br. 3) because Appellant contends that Tischler’s first
plurality of LED strings as denominated by the Examiner have individual
LED strings located between different conductors (Reply Br. 2). However,
Appellant’s contention appears to be contrary to the Examiner’s position that
the LED strings in Tischler’s first plurality of LED strings are in fact
between the same two conductors 110’ and 120 (Ans. 6, 7). Again, as
shown in the annotated Figure 15 above, first and second segments as recited
in claim 1 encompass or are rendered obvious by the overall teachings of
Tischler.
In light of these circumstances, and based on the breadth of the claim
language and the inferences one of ordinary skill would have understood
from the various alternative teachings set out in Tischler, Appellant has
failed to show reversible error in the Examiner’s obviousness rejection.
Because we recognize our decision is based on further reasons that
differ from the reasons advanced by the Examiner, we denominate the
affirmed § 103 rejection as a NEW GROUND OF REJECTION pursuant to
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b).

Appeal 2020-002630
Application 15/572,703

9
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejection is AFFIRMED, but designated as a NEW
GROUND OF REJECTION pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b).

DECISION SUMMARY
Claim(s)
Rejected
35
U.S.C. §
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed New
Ground
1–5, 8–
12, 14–
23
103 Tischler 1–5, 8–12,
14–23
1–5, 8–
12, 14–
23

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
This decision contains a new ground of rejection pursuant to
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b). 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) provides “[a] new ground of
rejection pursuant to this paragraph shall not be considered final for judicial
review.” 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) also provides:
When the Board enters such a non-final decision, the appellant,
within two months from the date of the decision, must exercise
one of the following two options with respect to the new ground
of rejection to avoid termination of the appeal as to the rejected
claims:
(1) Reopen prosecution. Submit an appropriate
amendment of the claims so rejected or new Evidence relating
to the claims so rejected, or both, and have the matter
reconsidered by the examiner, in which event the prosecution
will be remanded to the examiner. The new ground of rejection
is binding upon the examiner unless an amendment or new
Evidence not previously of Record is made which, in the
opinion of the examiner, overcomes the new ground of rejection
Appeal 2020-002630
Application 15/572,703

10
designated in the decision. Should the examiner reject the
claims, appellant may again appeal to the Board pursuant to this
subpart.
(2) Request rehearing. Request that the proceeding be
reheard under § 41.52 by the Board upon the same Record. The
request for rehearing must address any new ground of rejection
and state with particularity the points believed to have been
misapprehended or overlooked in entering the new ground of
rejection and also state all other grounds upon which rehearing
is sought.
Further guidance on responding to a new ground of rejection can be
found in the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure § 1214.01.

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED; 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b)