IDEAL Industries Lighting LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 26, 2021

2020001802 (P.T.A.B. May. 26, 2021)

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.
14/464,760 08/21/2014 John K. Roberts 2294-486C 2850
27820 7590 05/26/2021
WITHROW & TERRANOVA, P.L.L.C.
106 Pinedale Springs Way
Cary, NC 27511
EXAMINER
CRAWLEY, KEITH L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2626
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/26/2021 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 JOHN K. ROBERTS and KEITH J. VADAS
Appeal 2020-001802
Application 14/464,760
Technology Center 2600
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., and
MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges.
ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 11–15 and 18–31, which are all of the claims pending in
the application. Appeal Br. 1. Claims 1–10, 16, and 17 are cancelled.
Claims App. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies IDEAL INDUSTRIES LIGHTING
LLC as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2020-001802
Application 14/464,760

2
TECHNOLOGY
According to Appellant, the claimed subject matter relates to
“providing a stabilized color management system in a solid state lighting
panel.” Spec. Abstract.
ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 11 is illustrative and reproduced below with the limitations at
issue emphasized:
11. A lighting panel system, comprising:
a lighting panel including a plurality of solid state lighting
devices; and
a multi-mode color management system that is configured
to control the lighting panel and that is further configured to
selectively operate in a closed loop control mode or an open loop
control mode,
wherein the multi-mode color management system
comprises a mode selection module that is configured to estimate
a color management change value, compare the color
management change value to a threshold value, and to set a
microcontroller to operate in the closed loop control mode for a
color management change value that is greater than the threshold
value and then to set the microcontroller in the open loop control
mode after the color management change value that is larger than
the threshold value is performed in the closed loop control mode,
wherein the mode selection module is configured to
periodically set the microcontroller to the closed loop control
mode from the open loop control mode to correct for color
characteristic drift that occurs while the microcontroller is
operating in the open loop control mode, and
wherein periodically setting the microcontroller to the
closed loop mode comprises repeatedly setting the
microcontroller to the closed loop control mode at a given time
interval.
Appeal 2020-001802
Application 14/464,760

3
REJECTION
Claims 11–15 and 18–31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Johnson (US 6,608,614 B1; Aug. 19, 2003) in view of
Diefenbaugh (US 2006/0146003 A1; July 6, 2006). Final Act. 2.
ANALYSIS
Independent claim 11 recites “the mode selection module is
configured to periodically set the microcontroller to the closed loop control
mode from the open loop control mode to correct for color characteristic
drift that occurs while the microcontroller is operating in the open loop
control mode.” Independent claim 21 recites commensurate limitations.
Appellant argues that “Johnson appears to describe entering and
ceasing closed loop control” but “does not disclose or suggest going from an
open loop control mode to a closed loop control mode.” Appeal Br. 6.
However, we agree with the Examiner that “Appellant’s piecemeal
analysis of the references is not persuasive, as it is the combination of
Johnson in view of Diefenbaugh that is relied upon in rejecting the claims.”
Ans. 5. “Diefenbaugh clearly teaches both a closed loop control mode and
an open loop control mode, as well as choosing between the two modes
based on the size of adjustment required.” Id. at 6 (summarizing
Diefenbaugh Fig. 2, ¶¶ 25–35). Johnson, on the other hand, teaches that
“because the chromaticity of individual LEDs may change as a function of
time or temperature variation, a closed loop control mode may be
periodically entered to re-adjust the backlight assembly.” Id. (citing Johnson
Fig. 5, 4:51–5:43). “Thus, the combination of Johnson in view of
Diefenbaugh teaches that while awaiting an image adjustment (in the open
loop control mode of Diefenbaugh), a closed loop control mode (the
Appeal 2020-001802
Application 14/464,760

4
adjustment mode of fig. 5 of Johnson) may be periodically entered.” Id. at
7. Therefore, the combination of Diefenbaugh and Johnson teaches or
suggests the disputed limitation.
Independent claim 23 recites “the mode selection module is
configured to change from the open loop mode to the closed mode after a
given time interval has elapsed.” Appellant argues that “Johnson does not
disclose or suggest changing the control mode in any context, much less
periodically being in the closed loop control mode.” Appeal Br. 7.
However, we agree with the Examiner that this is not persuasive for the
same reasons as claim 11, as Appellant attacks Johnson individually and
does not address the Examiner’s proposed combination. Ans. 7–8.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claims 11, 21, and 23, and their dependent claims 12–15, 18–20, 22, and 24–
31, which Appellant argues are patentable for similar reasons. See Appeal
Br. 8; 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
OUTCOME
The following table summarizes the outcome of the rejection:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35
U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
11–15, 18–31 103(a) Johnson, Diefenbaugh 11–15, 18–31
TIME TO RESPOND
No time for taking subsequent action in connection with this appeal
may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.36(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED