ROGERS, BRANDON JEREMY. et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 23, 2020

15088375 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 23, 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.
15/088,375 04/01/2016 BRANDON JEREMY ROGERS 15-CWD-1483 4577
101730 7590 03/23/2020
ECKERT SEAMANS CHERIN & MELLOTT, LLC
EATON CORPORATION
600 GRANT STREET
44TH FLOOR
PITTSBURGH, PA 15219
EXAMINER
CHAN, WEI
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2844
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/23/2020 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):
ipmail@eckertseamans.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte BRANDON JEREMY ROGERS and AHMED EL-GAYYAR

Appeal 2019-001101
Application 15/088,375
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before CATHERINE Q. TIMM, MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, and
LILAN REN, Administrative Patent Judges.

COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 7–11, and 14–22. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We pro forma REVERSE and enter a new ground of rejection
pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b).

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Eaton
Intelligent Power Limited. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-001101
Application 15/088,375

2
Appellant’s invention is directed to intelligent sensor-activated light
control devices and systems including ambient light sensors (Spec. 1:6–9;
Claim 1).
Claim 1 is representative of the subject matter on appeal:
1. A method for dynamically adjusting output light
levels, the method comprising:
determining, in response to motion being detected by at
least one motion sensor, an ambient light level within a local
environment using at least one ambient light sensor;
determining a first output light level and a second output
light level stored within memory, wherein the first and second
output light levels are associated with the ambient light level
that was determined in response to the motion being detected;
determining that the first output light level is associated
with a first time interval, and that the second output light level
is associated with a second time interval;
determining that the motion was detected at a first
occurrence within the first time interval;
selecting the first output light level in response to
determining the ambient light level and determining that the
motion was detected at the first occurrence;
causing, using a light control device, light to be output at
the selected first output light level;
determining, in response to motion being detected at a
second occurrence, the ambient light level;
determining that the second occurrence occurred within
the second time interval;
selecting the second output light level in response to
determining the first ambient light level and determining that
the motion was detected at the second occurrence; and
causing light to be output at the selected second output
light level.

Appellant appeals the following rejection:
1. Claims 1, 7–11, 14–17, 21, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
Appeal 2019-001101
Application 15/088,375

3
§ 103 as unpatentable over Chemel ’579 (US 2012/0235579 A1,
published Sept. 20, 2012) in view of Chemel ’357 (US
2012/0143357 A1, published June 7, 2012).
2. Claims 18–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Greene (US 2015/0108901 A1, published Apr. 23, 2015) in
view of Chemel ’579 and Chemel ’357.

FINDINGS OF FACT & ANALYSIS
Appellant argues that claim 1 requires that “at a given ambient light
level, light will be output at different light levels (i.e., the first output light
level or the second output light level) depending on the time (i.e., the first
time interval or the second time interval)” (Appeal Br. 7). Appellant
contends that Chemel ’357 does not teach having different light levels
associated with different times for the same ambient light level (Appeal Br.
8).
The Examiner finds that claim 1 does not require turning lights on at
different light levels at the same ambient light level (Ans. 3). The Examiner
finds that claim 1 recites “an ambient light level” and “the first ambient light
level.”(Ans. 3).
Based upon the arguments and findings presented, the primary issue
raised in this appeal is whether the claim should be construed as turning
lights on at different light levels at the same ambient light level, but at
different times of day. Claim 1 is directed to a method comprising:
determining, in response to motion being detected by at
least one motion sensor, an ambient light level within a local
environment using at least one ambient light sensor;
Appeal 2019-001101
Application 15/088,375

4
determining a first output light level and a second output
light level stored within memory, wherein the first and second
output light levels are associated with the ambient light level
that was determined in response to the motion being detected; .
. .
selecting the first output light level in response to
determining the ambient light level and determining that the
motion was detected at the first occurrence; . . .
determining, in response to the motion being detected at
a second occurrence, the ambient light level . . . .

Claim 1 requires first determining an ambient light level in response to
motion being detected. The determined ambient light level in the first step is
associated with a first and second output light level (claim 1). The first
output light level is selected if it is determined that the ambient light level
and detected motion happened during the first occurrence (claim 1).
Claim 1 further recites “determining, in response to motion being
detected at a second occurrence, the ambient light level.” However, it is not
clear whether the ambient light level referred to in this step is the same as
the ambient light level measured in the first step of the process. In
particular, the determining the ambient light level step requires as a
prerequisite that motion is detected at a second occurrence. This
requirement would appear to require a second triggering of the motion
detector at a second occurrence (i.e., time) so that an ambient light level is
measured a second time. It is unclear whether “the ambient light level”
recited in the determining step at a second occurrence motion is the same as
“an ambient light level” recited in the first determining step where motion
triggers an ambient light level reading. Based upon antecedent basis, it
would appear that “the ambient light level” refers back to “an ambient light
Appeal 2019-001101
Application 15/088,375

5
level” from the first step. That interpretation does not make sense in that the
first step determines an ambient light level such that the ambient light level
in the determining step at the second occurrence must be a different, discrete
ambient light level measurement. Claim 1 as drafted is indefinite.
Claims 11 and 18 suffer from the same issue as claim 1. Claim 11
recites a device comprising, inter alia, an ambient light level sensor
structured to determine an ambient light level and a processor structured to
select the first output light level in response to determining the ambient light
level and determining the motion was detected at the first occurrence. Claim
11 further recites that the processor is structured to “determine, in response
to motion being detected at a second occurrence, the ambient light level.”
Claim 18 is directed to a system comprising, inter alia, a “processor
structured to: receive, . . . an ambient light level determined by the at least
one ambient light sensor for the local environment in response to motion
being detected.” Claim 18 further recites to “determine, in response to
motion being detected at a second occurrence, the ambient light level.” As
with claim 1, it is unclear whether the ambient light level determined in
response to the motion detected at a second occurrence in claims 11 and 18
is different from the ambient light level determined by the ambient light
sensor that is used at the first occurrence.
We find that claims 1, 7–11, and 14–22 are indefinite and enter a new
ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) for the reasons discussed
above. Because the Examiner’s rejections are based upon a speculative
meaning as to the claims, we pro forma reverse the Examiner’s § 103
rejections over Chemel ’579, Chemel ’357, and Greene. In re Steele, 305
F.2d 859, 863 (CCPA 1962).
Appeal 2019-001101
Application 15/088,375

6
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35
U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed New
Ground
1, 7–11,
14–17,
21, 22
103 Chemel ’579,
Chemel ’357
1, 7–11,
14–17,
21, 22

18–20 103 Greene, Chemel
’579, Chemel ’357
18–20
1, 7–11,
14–22
112(b) Indefiniteness 1, 7–11,
14–22
Overall
Outcome
1, 7–11,
14–22

REVERSED; 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b)