Electronic Theatre Controls, Inc.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardMar 8, 20222021003633 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 8, 2022) Copy Citation 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. 16/419,265 05/22/2019 Michael Wood 025630-9206-US01 3972 23510 7590 03/08/2022 MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP (Mad) 790 N WATER ST SUITE 2500 Milwaukee, WI 53202 EXAMINER CRAWFORD, JASON ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2844 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/08/2022 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): madipdocket@michaelbest.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte MICHAEL WOOD and DAVID J. CAHALANE ____________ Appeal 2021-003633 Application 16/419,265 Technology Center 2800 ____________ Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, JENNIFER R. GUPTA, and JANE E. INGLESE, Administrative Patent Judges. INGLESE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL The Appellant1 requests review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1-20.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 “Appellant” refers to the “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. The Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Electronic Theatre Controls, Inc. Appeal Brief filed March 19, 2021 (“Appeal Br.”), 1. 2 Final Office Action entered October 30, 2020 (“Final Act.”), 1. Appeal 2021-003633 Application 16/419,265 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The Appellant claims a light fixture (independent claim 1), a lighting system (independent claim 7), and method for driving light-emitting diodes in a light fixture (independent claim 14). Appeal Br. 1-4. Claim 1 illustrates the subject matter on appeal, and reads as follows: 1. A light fixture comprising: a housing; a first light-emitting diode disposed in the housing; a first phosphor layer associated with the first light- emitting diode (“LED”), forming a first phosphor-converted light-emitting diode (“PCLED”), the first PCLED configured to emit light in a first PCLED wavelength range including a first PCLED upper bound and a first PCLED lower bound; a second LED disposed in the housing; a second phosphor layer associated with the second LED, forming a second PCLED, the second PCLED configured to emit light in a second PCLED wavelength range including a second PCLED upper bound and a second PCLED lower bound; a third LED disposed in the housing, the third LED configured to emit light in a third LED wavelength range including a third LED upper bound and a third LED lower bound; a fourth LED disposed in the housing, the fourth LED configured to emit light in a fourth LED wavelength range including a fourth LED upper bound and a fourth LED lower bound; wherein the first PCLED upper bound of the first PCLED wavelength range has a higher wavelength value than the third LED upper bound of the third LED wavelength range; wherein the first PCLED lower bound of the first PCLED wavelength range has a lower wavelength value than the third LED lower bound of the third LED wavelength range; wherein the second PCLED upper bound of the second PCLED wavelength range has a higher wavelength value than the fourth LED upper bound of the fourth LED wavelength range; and Appeal 2021-003633 Application 16/419,265 3 wherein the second PCLED lower bound of the second PCLED wavelength range has a lower wavelength value than the fourth LED lower bound of the fourth LED wavelength range. Appeal Br. 18-19 (Claims Appendix) (emphasis added). Similar to claim 1, independent claim 7 recites, in part, a lighting system including a first DLED configured to emit light in a first DLED wavelength range, a first PCLED configured to emit light in a first PCLED wavelength range, a second DLED configured to emit light in a second DLED wavelength range, and a second PCLED configured to emit light in a second PCLED wavelength range, where the first DLED wavelength range falls completely within the first PCLED wavelength range and the second DLED wavelength range falls completely within the second PCLED wavelength range. Similar to claims 1 and 7, independent claim 14 recites, in part, a light fixture including a first PCLED that emits light in a first PCLED wavelength range, a second PCLED that emits light in a second PCLED wavelength range, a first direct light-emitting diode DLED that emits light in a first DLED wavelength range, and a second DLED that emits light in a second DLED wavelength range, where the first DLED wavelength range is within the first PCLED wavelength range and the second DLED wavelength range is within the second PCLED wavelength range. Claims 1, 7, and 14 thus each recite a light fixture having first and second DLEDs and first and second PCLEDs that each emit light (or are configured to emit light) in a wavelength range in which the wavelength range of light emitted from the first DLED falls within the wavelength range of light emitted from the first PCLED, and the wavelength range of light Appeal 2021-003633 Application 16/419,265 4 emitted from the second DLED falls within the wavelength range of light emitted from the second PCLED. The recited wavelength ranges result in the first and second DLED wavelength ranges being encompassed completely within, or nested within, the first and second PCLED wavelength ranges, as illustrated by the exemplary embodiment shown in the Appellant’s Figure 3B, reproduced below: Appeal 2021-003633 Application 16/419,265 5 Figure 3B illustrates a graph of light emitted by a light fixture as depicted in the Appellant’s Figure 1B. Figure 3B shows that the wavelength range R2a of light emitted from a first DLED falls completely with the wavelength range R1a of light emitted from a first PCLED, and the wavelength range R2b of light emitted from a second DLED falls completely with the wavelength range R1b of light emitted from a second PCLED. Spec. ¶¶ 19, 72-73. REJECTION The Examiner maintains the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Ouderkirck, US 2015/0228868 Al, published August 13, 2015, in the Examiner’s Answer entered April 16, 2021 (“Ans.”). Compare Final Act. 2-13, with Ans. 3. FACTUAL FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS Upon consideration of the evidence relied upon in this appeal and each of the Appellant’s contentions, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for reasons set forth in the Appeal and Reply Briefs, and below. The Examiner finds that Ouderkirck discloses a light fixture comprising first PCLED 411a configured to emit light in a first PCLED wavelength range, second PCLED 411b configured to emit light in a second PCLED wavelength range, third DLED 430a configured to emit light in a third LED wavelength range, and fourth DLED 430b configured to emit light in a fourth LED wavelength range. Final Act. 2-3 (relying on Ouderkirck Fig. 4). The Examiner finds that Ouderkirck does not disclose that the wavelength range of light emitted from Ouderkirck’s third DLED falls within the wavelength range of light emitted from Ouderkirck’s first Appeal 2021-003633 Application 16/419,265 6 PCLED, and the wavelength range of light emitted from Ouderkirck’s fourth DLED falls within the wavelength range of light emitted from Ouderkirck’s second PCLED. Final Act. 3. The Examiner finds, however, that Ouderkirck discloses that the DLEDs and PCLEDs in Ouderkirck’s light fixture “may be chosen to have different characteristics and configurations to achieve the desired light output.” Final Act. 3, 7, 10 (citing Ouderkirck ¶¶ 62-68; Fig. 4). In view of this disclosure in Ouderkirck, the Examiner concludes that the wavelength range relationships recited in the independent claims would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art “since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed within the prior art, that discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art.” Final Act. 3, 7, 10 (citing In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955)). On the record before us, however, for reasons expressed by the Appellant (Appeal Br. 10-12) and discussed below, the Examiner does not provide a sufficient factual basis to establish that when optimizing the light output from Ouderkirck’s light fixture through selection of DLEDs and PCLEDs for inclusion in the fixture, one of ordinary skill reasonably would have arrived at combinations of DLEDs and PCLEDs that would produce emitted light having the wavelength relationships required by independent claim 1, 7, and 14. Ouderkirck discloses a light source that includes one or more remote phosphor LEDs (PCLEDs), one or more short-wavelength direct emitting LEDs (DLEDs), and one or more long-wavelength direct emitting LEDs (DLEDs). Ouderkirck ¶ 4. Ouderkirck discloses that the spectral Appeal 2021-003633 Application 16/419,265 7 distribution (wavelength range) of light emitted from each of the LEDs in Ouderkirck’s light source differs from that of the spectral distribution (wavelength range) of light emitted from the remaining LEDs in the light source. Ouderkirck ¶¶ 4, 9, 41, 42, 46. Ouderkirck discloses that the combined light emitted from each of the LEDs in Ouderkirck’s light source produces broadband white output light from the light source. Ouderkirck ¶ 46. Ouderkirck discloses utilizing a combination of PCLEDs and DLEDs in Ouderkirck’s light source that are each “the most efficient producers of the constituent components (colors) of the broadband (e.g. white) output light,” which, Ouderkirck explains, maximizes or optimizes the overall efficiency of the light source. Id. As discussed above, the Examiner finds that Ouderkirck discloses that DLEDs and PCLEDs having different characteristics and configurations may be chosen for inclusion in Ouderkirck’s light source “to achieve the desired light output,” which, the Examiner determines, renders the wavelength range relationships recited in the independent claims prima facie obvious. Final Act. 3. The Examiner, however, does not provide an explanation supported by objective evidence as to why such selection-based optimization reasonably would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to combinations of DLEDs and PCLEDs that produce fully overlapping (nested) wavelength ranges of emitted light, as recited in the independent claims, rather than non-overlapping wavelength ranges of emitted light, as Ouderkirck discloses. The Examiner does not, for example, identify any disclosure in Ouderkirck, or provide any other objective evidence, that indicates or would have suggested that including combinations of DLEDs and PCLEDs in Ouderkirck’s light source that each emit light in a Appeal 2021-003633 Application 16/419,265 8 wavelength range in which the wavelength ranges of light emitted from first and second DLED are fully included (nested) within wavelength ranges of light emitted from first and second PCLEDs, would provide any benefit to Ouderkirck’s light source, or render the light source useful for any particular application or purpose. Nor does the Examiner identify any disclosure in Ouderkirck indicating that the advantageous result achieved through inclusion of a combination of DLEDs and PCLEDs in Ouderkirck’s light source that each emit light having a different spectral distribution (wavelength range)- maximized overall efficiency of producing broadband light with the light source-would be maintained if a combination of DLEDs and PCLEDs that produce fully overlapping (nested) wavelengths were included in the light source. As the Appellant argues (Appeal Br. 12-13), one of ordinary skill in the art reasonably would have understood that inclusion of such DLEDs and PCLEDs in Ouderkirck’s light source would likely undermine this purpose and primary design feature of Ouderkirck’s light source by narrowing the overall width of the spectral distribution (wavelength range) of light output from the light source. Furthermore, although the Examiner also relies on Aller for the proposition that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed within the prior art, . . . discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art,” Aller does not establish a per se rule that any and all results achieved through optimization prior art conditions are obvious. Aller, 220 F.2d at 456. And the factual situation involved in Aller differs significantly from that of the present case, as the Appellant points out. Aller, 220 F.2d at 455-456 (explaining that “[t]he process of appellants Appeal 2021-003633 Application 16/419,265 9 is identical with that of the prior art, except that appellants’ claims specify lower temperatures and higher sulphuric acid concentrations than are shown in the reference”); Appeal Br. 5-8. The Examiner, consequently, does not establish a reasonable basis for relying on the rationale used by the court in Aller to establish the obviousness of the presently claimed wavelength range relationships. MPEP § 2144.04 (“[I]f the facts in a prior legal decision are sufficiently similar to those in an application under examination, the examiner may use the rationale used by the court.”). The Examiner, therefore, does not meet the Examiner’s burden of establishing the prima facie obviousness of the wavelength range relationships recited in independent claims 1, 7, and 14. We, accordingly, do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. DECISION SUMMARY Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/ Basis Affirmed Reversed 1-20 103 Ouderkirck 1-20 REVERSED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation