Ex Parte Motley et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 6, 2016

13782096 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 6, 2016)

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