Ex Parte Motley et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJul 6, 201613782096 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 6, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 131782,096 03/01/2013 27820 7590 07/08/2016 WITHROW & TERRANOVA, PLLC 106 Pinedale Springs Way Cary, NC 27511 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Arnold Motley 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. 1194-138 5626 EXAMINER TRAN,THUYV ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2844 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 07/08/2016 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): patents@wt-ip.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ARNOLD MOTLEY, JOSEPH P. CHOBOT, DANIEL J. POPE, JOHN J. TRAINOR, and MICHAEL JAMES HARRIS Appeal2015-000083 Application 13/782,096 Technology Center 2800 Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, SCOTT B. HOWARD, and MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges. HOW ARD, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of claims 1-28, which constitute all of the claims pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm-in-part and institute a new ground of rejection under the provisions of 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b). 1 Appellants identify Cree, Inc. as the real party in interest. Br. 1. Appeal2015-000083 Application 13/782,096 THE INVENTION The claimed invention is directed to a master/slave arrangement for lighting fixture modules. Abstract; Spec. iii! 7-12. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A lighting fixture comprising: • a driver module adapted to drive an associated light source and to facilitate communications over a communication bus as a slave communication device; and • a communications module adapted to facilitate wireless communications with other elements in a lighting network and communications as a master communication device with the driver module over the communication bus. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Wang US 2006/0044152 Al Mar. 2, 2006 Sibert US 8,035,320 B2 Oct. 11, 2011 REJECTIONS Claims 1-6, 10, 14, 15, and 17-25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Wang. Final Act. 2-6. Claims 7, 8, and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Sibert. Final Act. 7-9. Claims 9, 11-13, 16, 27, and 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wang. Final Act. 9-10. 2 Appeal2015-000083 Application 13/782,096 ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner's rejection in light of Appellants' arguments that the Examiner erred. In reaching this decision, we consider all evidence presented and all arguments made by Appellants. Claim 1 The Examiner finds Wang discloses a lighting fixture with a ballast 15 (the driver module) that acts as a slave communication device and is adapted to drive an associated light source 20. Final Act. 2 (citing Wang Fig. IA, ,-i,-i 24, 30-31); Ans. 11. The Examiner further finds Wang discloses a communication module 5 that acts as a master communication device and communicates with the driver module via a communications bus. Final Act. 2-3 (citing Wang Fig. IA, ,-i 24). Appellants argue Wang does not disclose a lighting fixture with both a driver module and a communication module as recited in claim 1. Br. 7-8. Instead, Appellants argue the two elements relied on by the examiner "are separate lighting fixtures." Br. 8. We observe that the Examiner's rejection is premised on the modules being located as part of two different lighting fixtures shown in Figure IA, the driver module associated with ballast 15 and the communication module associated with master ballast 5. Claim 1 recites a lighting fixture with both a driver module and a communications module communicating over a communication bus. Appellants have persuaded us that the Examiner's findings are not sufficient to support the anticipation rejection of claim 1. However, we find Wang Figure 2 "is an exemplary depiction of a ballast of the lighting control system," such as ballast 15. Wang ,-i,-i 17, 27. 3 Appeal2015-000083 Application 13/782,096 The ballast includes a lamp driver module "for driving lighting unit 10." Wang ,-i 27. The driver module of ballast 15 is adapted to act as a slave communication device, following the commands it receives. See Wang ,-i,-i 24 (ballast 15 is a slave to the ballast 5, the "lead control master for the lighting control network."), 43 ("Destination ballast 15 receives the packet via RF signal, demodulates, and decodes the signal. Lighting unit 20 is operated in accordance to the issued command. In this example, lighting unit 20 is commanded to tum on."). Ballast 15 further includes an RF transceiver that receives and transmits wireless communications with the rest of the lighting network and "passes the demodulated signals to the [microcontroller] MCU." Wang ,-i 27; see also Wang Figs. IA, lB, 5, ,-i,-i 24, 42, 52. In tum, the MCU is programmed for network communication and addressing lighting control issues. Id. The RF transceiver and MCU form a communications module. Although not specifically identified, there is a communication system (the communication bus) that transmits commands received by communication module to the driver module to operate the lighting unit. See Wang ,-i,-i 24, 43. As a result, the communication module acts as the master communication device with regard to the driver module and orders the driver module based on the commands it receives. Based on these findings, we find Wang discloses a lamp driver that is "a driver module adapted to drive an associated light source and to facilitate communications over a communication bus as a slave communication device," as recited in claim 1. We further find Wang discloses "a communications module adapted to facilitate wireless communications with other elements in a lighting network and communications as a master 4 Appeal2015-000083 Application 13/782,096 communication device with the driver module over the communication bus," as recited in claim 1. In other words, we find Wang discloses all of the limitations recited in claim 1. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1. We are mindful that, in rejecting claim 1, the Examiner did not rely solely on ballast 15. Accordingly, although we affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claim 1, we designate the affirmance as a new ground of rejection under 3 7 C.F.R. § 41.50(b). Claim 2 The Examiner finds Wang discloses sensor 35 which is an auxiliary module that is "adapted to provide a lighting fixture function." Ans. 3 (citing Wang Figs. IA, 3). Similar to claim 1, discussed above, Appellants argue Wang does not anticipate claim 2 because sensor 3 5 is not part of the lighting fixture. Br. 9. Appellants further argue there is no disclosure that sensor 35 acts as a master communication device with the driver module over a communications bus. Id. We disagree with the Examiner as the Examiner has not identified sufficient evidence or provided sufficient explanation as to how Wang discloses a lighting fixture with an auxiliary module. Instead, based on the record before us, Appellants have persuaded us that the cited portion of Wang does not disclose a lighting fixture with both a driver module and an auxiliary module. Accordingly, based on the record before us, we will not sustain the Examiner's anticipation rejection of claim 2. However, we find Wang teaches an auxiliary module (sensor 35), such as a light, motion or occupancy detector, that can automatically trigger 5 Appeal2015-000083 Application 13/782,096 a lighting function, such as turning a light on or otT Wang Fig. 3, iii! 5, 23, 33. Although Wang discloses sensor 35 and the lighting fixture that contains ballast 15 as separate devices, combining sensor 35 with the lighting fixture and using a preexisting communication bus for the modules to communicate with each other is no more than a routine design choice. As a result of this combination, both sensor 35 (the auxiliary module) and the communications module identified above for claim 1 can initiate communications with the driver module and act as the master communication device relative to the driver module. Because the combination is a mere obvious variation consistent with the principles known in the art that would work as expected and there is no evidence that the combination would provide unexpected results, that combination would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Rice, 341F.2d309, 314 (CCPA 1965) (Absent "factual evidence of any critical relationship in position or size, or of any difference in effect or result ... [ s ]uch [routine] changes in design of the various features are no more than obvious variations consistent with the principles known in that art."); In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968 (CCPA 1965) ("[T]he use of a one piece construction instead of the structure ... would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice."). In addition to the combination being a matter of routine design choice, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been further motivated to make such a combination to reduce the number of components, reduce the number of communication nodes, allow direct control of the ballast 15 by the sensor 35 without the need to go through master ballast 5, or to allow for easier communication in the event master ballast 5 malfunctions and ballast 15 becomes the primary local control master (see Wang iJ 45). In KSR 6 Appeal2015-000083 Application 13/782,096 International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007), the Supreme Court held that "if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill." 550 U.S. at 417. "The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results." Id. at 416; see also id. at 417 ("If a person of ordinary skill in the art can implement a predictable variation, and would see the benefit of doing so, § 103 likely bars its patentability."). The skilled artisan is "[a] person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." Id. at 421. Therefore, we conclude that it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the sensor 35 with ballast 15 and use the existing communication bus of ballast 15 to control the driver module. Accordingly, although we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 2 as anticipated by Wang, claim 2 is rejected under (pre-AIA) 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Wang. We designate the rejection as a new ground of rejection under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b). Claim 3 Appellants raise the same arguments regarding claim 3 as they raised for claim 2. Compare Br. 9 (claim 2 arguments), with Br. 9-10 (claim 3 arguments). For the same reasons discussed above for claim 2, although we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 3 as anticipated by Wang, claim 3 is rejected under (pre-AIA) 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over 7 Appeal2015-000083 Application 13/782,096 Wang. We designate the rejection as a new ground of rejection under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b). Claim 17 With regard to claim 1 7, Appellants rely on the same argument discussed above for claim 1. Compare Br. 10-11 (claim 17 arguments), with Br. 7-9 (claim 1 arguments). As discussed above for claim 1, we disagree with the Examiner as the Examiner has not identified sufficient evidence or provided sufficient explanation as to how Wang discloses a lighting fixture with all of the required elements. However, as discussed above with regard to claim 1, we find Wang discloses a driver module that is adapted to ( 1) drive a light source and (2) communicate over a communication bus as a slave communication device with a communication module (RF transceiver and MCU) that acts as a master communication device to the driver and is adapted to perform a lighting fixture function. 2 Although Wang does not explicitly disclose the driver module having a wired communication interface or control circuitry, such features are implicit and necessary for the disclosed driver module to communicate with the communication module and/or control the light source 20. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's anticipation rejection of claim 17. We are mindful that, in rejecting claim 17, the Examiner did not rely solely on ballast 15. Accordingly, although we affirm the Examiner's 2 According to the Specification, examples of lighting fixture functions include "a sensor function, lighting network communication function, gateway function, and the like." Spec. ,-i 7. 8 Appeal2015-000083 Application 13/782,096 decision rejecting claim 17, we designate the atlirmance as a new ground of rejection under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b). Claims 15 and 24 The Examiner finds Wang discloses the driver module is adapted to communicate with a remote switch 40 and 42 as recited in claims 15 and 24. Final Act. 4, 6. The Examiner further finds the remote switch is configured as a master communication device which is adapted to initiate switch information to the driver module and, in response to that information, the driver module controls the light source. Id. Appellants argue that the remote switch is a slave device, not a master communication device, as recited in claims 15 and 24. Br. 10-11. More specifically, Appellants argue that remote control units 40 and 42 are slaves to ballast 5. Id. During prosecution, claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation while reading claim language in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). An applicant may, however, act as his or her own lexicographer and specifically define a claim term in the Specification. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Appellants have not identified any special definition for master communication device and slave communication device. Accordingly, we apply the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim terms. Wang discloses the remote control units sends instructions to the destination ballast 15 via master ballast 5: 9 Appeal2015-000083 Application 13/782,096 In one aspect of the operation oflight control network 100, the slave devices communicate with the local control master using RF signals generated therein. The RF signals include the network ID and the slave's ID. When the user issues a command by, for example, pressing a key on remote control unit 40 a specific data packet related to the pressed key (e.g., a command to tum on lighting unit 20) in the form of a RF signal is transmitted to the local control master, ballast 5. Upon receipt of the RF signal from remote control unit 40, local control master, ballast 5 retrieves the pairing data for remote control unit 40 and ballast 15 associated with the pressed key from its look-up table and routes the data packet via RF signal to destination ballast 15. Destination ballast 15 receives the packet via RF signal, demodulates, and decodes the signal. Lighting unit 20 is operated in accordance to the issued command. In this example, lighting unit 20 is commanded to tum on. Wang ,-i,-i 42-43. Although remote control unit 40 might be a slave device in relation to master ballast 5, remote control unit 40 controls the operation of ballast 15. Because remote control unit 40 controls the operation of ballast 15, we agree with the Examiner's finding that remote control unit 40 is a master communication device with respect to the driver module of ballast 15. Appellants have not persuaded us that the Examiner erred. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 15 and 24. We are mindful that, in rejecting independent claims 1 and 1 7, from which the claims depend from, we entered a new ground of rejection. Accordingly, although we affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 15 and 24, we designate the affirmance as a new ground of rejection under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b). 10 Appeal2015-000083 Application 13/782,096 Claims 4-14, 16, 18-23, and 25-28 Unlike claims 2, 3, 15, and 24, discussed supra, Appellants have not raised separate arguments regarding the patentability of dependent claims 4- 14, 16, 18-23, and 25-28. See Br. 7-12. We have entered a new grounds of rejection for independent claims 1and17, from which claims 4-14, 16, 18- 23, and 25-28 depend. We leave to the Examiner to consider the patentability of dependent claims 4-14, 16, 18-23, and 25-28 in light of our findings and conclusions supra, regarding independent claims 1 and 17. The fact that we have exercised our discretion and did not enter new grounds of rejection for the dependent claims should not be construed to mean that we consider the dependent claims to be patentable over the prior art of record. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b); MPEP 1213.02. Because we are exercising our discretion not to enter a new ground of rejection, for the reasons discussed above for claims 1 and 1 7, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 4-14, 16, 18-23, and 25-28. DECISION For the above reasons, we affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 15, 17, and 24. 3 For the above reasons, we reverse the Examiner's decisions rejecting claims 2-14, 16, 18-23 and 25-28. 3 As noted above, we recognize that our affirmance of the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1, 15, 17, and 24 rests on content of Wang not relied on by the Examiner and/or reasoning not advanced by the Examiner. Accordingly, we designate our affirmance as a new ground of rejection under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b). 11 Appeal2015-000083 Application 13/782,096 We enter a new ground of rejection for claims 2 and 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). This decision contains a new ground of rejection pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b). Section 41.50(b) provides "[a] new ground of rejection pursuant to this paragraph shall not be considered final for judicial review." Section 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 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. 12 Appeal2015-000083 Application 13/782,096 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § l .136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED-IN-PART 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 13 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation