Ex Parte Cuppen et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 4, 2018

14357950 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 4, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/357,950 05/13/2014
138325 7590 06/06/2018
PHILIPS LIGHTING HOLDING B.V.
465 Columbus A venue
Suite 330
Valhalla, NY 10595
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Roel Peter Geert Cuppen
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
2011P00927WOUS 9706
EXAMINER
CHAN, WEI
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2844
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/06/2018 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@signify.com
jo.cangelosi@signify.com
Gigi.Miller@ signify. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ROEL PETER GEERT CUPPEN, 1
Winfried Antonius Henricus Berkvens, and
Angelique Carin Johanna Maria Brosens-Kessels
Appeal2017-003259
Application 14/357,950
Technology Center 2800
Before MARK NAGUMO, N. WHITNEY WILSON, and
JENNIFER R. GUPTA, Administrative Patent Judges.
NAGUMO, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Philips ("Cuppen") timely appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Final Rejection2 of all pending claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction.
35 U.S.C. § 6. We reverse for reasons well-stated by Cuppen.
1 The applicant under 3 7 C.F .R. § 1.46, and hence the appellant under
35 U.S.C. § 134, is the real party in interest, identified as Koninklijke Philips
Electronics NV ("Philips"). (Appeal Brief, filed 20 June 2016 ("Br."), 4.)
2 Office Action mailed 17 December 2015 ("Final Rejection"; cited as
"FR").
Appeal2017-003259
Application 14/357,950
A. Introduction 3
OPINION
The subject matter on appeal relates to a light source for a coded
lighting system (independent claim 1 ), a coded lighting system (independent
claim 13), and a method for determining a distance from the emission point
to a detection point of a received light in the coded lighting system
(independent claim 12).
The '950 Specification explains that light sources are often comprised
of a large number of light sources (Spec. 1, 11. 6-7), and that particular
spatial and temporal light effect patterns-also referred to as "dynamic
flows," f(t}-are often desired (id. at 4, 11. 11. 10-17). Light sources and light
systems are disclosed that allow, in the words of the Specification, the
generation of "a spatially patterned dynamic flow on multiple light sources
by using coded light to automatically retrieve the relative locations of the
light sources and therefore automatically position them correctly in the
pattern of the dynamic flow." (Id. at 2, 11. 21-24.)
A simple two-source lighting system is illustrated schematically in
Figure 1, which is reproduced on the following page. An individual light
source within the lighting system is illustrated in Figure 2, also reproduced
on the following page.
3 Application 14/357,950, Coded light transmission and reception,
filed 13 May 2014 as the national stage under 35 U.S.C. § 371 of
PCT/IB2012/056291, filed 9 November 2012, which claims the benefit of a
provisional application filed in the United States on 15 November 2011. We
refer to the "'950 Specification," which we cite as "Spec."
2
Appeal2017-003259
Application 14/357,950
{Figure 1 is shown below, left}
r---~ __,,,/ 1
12~ R.emnte I f
/ t.....~1~:___1 .............
~ I I ' .o..
ti;' "'i/
"'1 / -r@ry:
,79~ (
2
"' FIG. 1
{Figure 1: coded lighting system 1}
{Figure 2 is shown below, right}
2'--- t:=~ ~ I ····1_..._.+, -~
'\ \ E: rnr.:-:~· j ._............ 0
I
9
FIG.2
{Figure 2: light source 2}
As shown in Figure 1, coded lighting system 14 comprises at least two
light sources 2a and 2b. As shown in Figure 2, each light source 2
comprises a detector 3 that measures the received intensity level Im, a coded
signal in the light from another light source in coded lighting system 1, and
other properties as desired. The coded signal includes a timestamp that is
"associated with the point in time to at which the coded light message is (to
be) emitted from the light source 2." (Spec. 6, 11. 18-20.) Light source 2
comprises appropriate processing, memory, and driver units to calculate the
distance of the emitting light source corresponding to the timestamp to
decoded from the signal. The Specification reveals that "[t]he determined
intensity level, timestamp, and the information pertaining to the light effect
pattern is then used in combination to determine a distance value to the
emission point of the received light." (Id. at 8, 11. 27-29.) This distance can
then be used "to determine its position in the dynamic flow (light effect
4 Throughout this Opinion, for clarity, labels to elements are presented in
bold font, regardless of their presentation in the original document.
3
Appeal2017-003259
Application 14/357,950
pattern) relative to the position of the sending light source." (Id. at 10,
11. 20-22.)
Claim 12 is representative of the dispositive issues and reads:
A method for determining a distance value in a light source
for a coded lighting system, comprising:
receiving light and
determining a received intensity level of said received light;
accessing information pertaining to a light effect pattern;
decoding, from said received light, a coded light message
embedded in said received light;
identifj;ing a timestamp in said decoded coded light message;
and
determining, from said determined intensity level, said
timestamp, and said information pertaining to said light effect
pattern, said distance value, which is a distance to an
emission point of said received light.
(Claims App., Br. 20.)
The Examiner maintains the following ground of rejection5' 6 :
Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of the
combined teachings of Sibert 7 and Wendt. 8
5 Examiner's Answer mailed 24 October 2016 ("Ans.").
6 Because this application claims the benefit of an application filed before
the 16 March 2013, effective date of the America Invents Act, we refer to
the pre-AIA version of the statute.
7 W. Olin Sibert, Illumination control network, U.S. Patent Application
Publication 2008/0265799 Al (2008) (issued as U.S. Patent No. 8,035,320
on 11 October 2011 ).
8 Matthias Wendt et al., System and method for controlling a lighting system
with a plurality of light sources, U.S. Patent Application Publication
4
Appeal2017-003259
Application 14/357,950
B. Discussion
The Board's findings of fact throughout this Opinion are supported by
a preponderance of the evidence of record.
Cuppen urges the Examiner erred harmfully in finding that Wendt
discloses a timestamp encoded in a light message. (Br. 9.) Rather, Wendt,
in paragraph [0091 ], cited by the Examiner, "simply teaches that the
device [hand held, light-intensity measuring device 3] 9 itself measures and
records a time slot at which a signal is received to decode information."
(Id. at last para.)
The weight of the evidence supports Cuppen's arguments. The
handheld scanning device is said to "decode attributes of the light sources
decoded in the captured light pattern, .... for example to decode barcode-
like spatial light patterns." (Wendt 5 [0071].) In an example, the
"commissioning person makes a waving movement with the light pattern
capturing device or commissioning tool sliding e.g. from the left edge of the
spatial light pattern generated from the most left wallwash luminaire to the
right edge of the most right wallwasher." (Id. at 4 [0063].)
The Examiner states, correctly, that claims are "interpreted under
broadest reasonable interpretation." (FR 2, 5th para.) However, the
"timestamp" identified by Wendt arises from identifying the time slots in
which signal peaks occur as a spatially changing signal is monitored by a
detector moving across the signal. Thus, the "timing information" in the
2011/0169413 Al (2011) (issued as U.S. Patent No. 8,552,666
on 8 October 2013).
9 The device is described by Wendt in paragraph [0071] and illustrated in
Figures 7 A and 7B (not reproduced here).
5
Appeal2017-003259
Application 14/357,950
signal analyzed by Wendt is not "associated with the point in time t0 at
which the coded light message is (to be) emitted from the light source 2"
(Spec. 6, 11. 18-20), as defined in the '950 Specification. It follows that the
broad interpretation proposed by the Examiner is not reasonable in light of
the Specification and the claims in which the limitation is used. While we
have no doubt that the routineer could build such capabilities into detector 3,
disclosed by Wendt, the Examiner has not directed our attention to credible
evidence in the record that either Wendt or Sibert would have suggested the
incorporation of timestamps as that term is defined and used in
the '950 Specification.
The Examiner makes no findings regarding the additional limitations
recited in the dependent claims that cure this fundamental defect.
We therefore reverse the appealed rejection.
C. Order
It is ORDERED that the rejection of claims 1-20 is reversed.
REVERSED
6