PHILIPS LIGHTING HOLDING B.V.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardMar 24, 20212020002047 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 24, 2021) 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. 15/354,616 11/17/2016 OSCAR GARCIA MORCHON 2010P01166US 6453 138325 7590 03/24/2021 Signify Holding B.V. 465 Columbus Avenue Suite 330 Valhalla, NY 10595 EXAMINER LUONG, HENRY T ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2844 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/24/2021 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): Gigi.Miller@signify.com jo.cangelosi@signify.com kim.larocca@signify.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte OSCAR GARCIA MORCHON and THEODORUS JACOBUS JOHANNES DENTENEER ____________ Appeal 2020-002047 Application 15/354,616 Technology Center 2800 ____________ Before BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, JEFFREY R. SNAY, and LILAN REN, Administrative Patent Judges. SNAY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 15 and 19–28. 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. Appellant identifies Signify Holding B.V. as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 4. Appeal 2020-002047 Application 15/354,616 2 BACKGROUND The invention relates to control of networked lighting systems. Spec. 1. According to the Specification, conventional systems groupcast or broadcast individual light settings of each luminaire. Id. Multicasting compressed light settings using one or more functions, which functions are received and evaluated by luminaires, is said to require less transmission bandwidth in the network. Id. at 2. Independent claims 15 and 26 read as follows: 15. A luminary for a networked lighting system comprising: a receiver for receiving a multicast message from a lighting controller of the networked lighting system, wherein the multicast message comprises a luminary related information field identifying several selected luminaries and a features field identifying a predetermined function, wherein the predetermined function has, as input values, location information for a plurality of selected luminaries and, as output values, individual, differentiated control information for each one of the selected luminaries, a controller being configured to combine the features field of the multicast message and the luminary related information field of the multicast message to calculate the individual, differentiated control information for the luminary based at least in part on the predetermined function, the controller being further configured to set a lighting configuration created for the luminary in accordance to the luminary control information. 26. A method for determining lighting control information at a luminary of a networked lighting system, the method comprising: receiving, at the luminary, a multicast message comprising a features field identifying a predetermined lighting function; determining the lighting control information for the luminary by combining the predetermined lighting function Appeal 2020-002047 Application 15/354,616 3 with location information of the luminary in the networked lighting system, wherein the lighting control information is individual and differentiated relative to other luminaires in the networked lighting system; and executing the lighting control information for the luminary to generate the lighting effect for the luminary. Appeal Br. 13, 15 (Claims Appendix). Each remaining claim on appeal depends from claim 1 or 26. REJECTION Claims 15 and 19–28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Julio.2 OPINION Appellant separately argues claims 15 and 21. Appeal Br. 5–11. Appellant identifies claims 26–28 under a separate heading, but solely relies on the same arguments made with regard to claim 15. Id. at 15. We address Appellant’s arguments concerning claim 15 below. Each of claims 19, 20, and 22–28 stands or falls with claim 15. Claim 21 is separately addressed. Claim 15 With regard to claim 15, and relevant to Appellant’s arguments on appeal, the Examiner finds Julio discloses a luminary for use in a networked lighting system, which luminary includes a receiver and a controller. Non- Final Act. 4–5. The Examiner further finds Julio’s luminary, in use, receives a multicast message in the form of a data packet, which data packet includes 2 US 2010/0277340 A1, published November 4, 2010. Appeal 2020-002047 Application 15/354,616 4 luminary address information and information identifying a predetermined function to be executed by the luminary controller. Id. Appellant argues “claim 15 explicitly states that the function has a plurality of inputs and a plurality of outputs, clearly referring to a function in a mathematical sense.” Appeal Br. 9. Appellant contends Julio, in contrast, “employs no such function whatsoever.” Id. On that basis, Appellant states, “claim 15 is patentable over Julio at least because Julio does not disclose or render obvious a multicast message that identifies a predetermined function having, as input values, location information for a plurality of selected luminaries and, as output values, individual, differentiated control information for each one of the selected luminaries, as claimed.” Id. at 10. Appellant’s argument is not persuasive of reversible error. First, we note claim 15 is directed to a device. Appellant does not dispute the Examiner’s findings that Julio discloses a luminary having a receiver and a controller, and does not argue any structural distinction between those elements and the receiver and controller recited in claim 15, apart from the manner in which they are intended to be used. In any event, Julio discloses delivering a data packet to each luminary receiver, which data packet includes location information for identifying luminaries located in a designated group, and control information for directing designated luminaries to alter illumination status. See, e.g., Julio ¶ 148 (“Remote lighting controller receiver 3401 receives packet data and command decoder 3403 determines if the address sent via the packet is its respective address stored in unit address memory 3402. . . . If the address is valid, command decoder 3403 then interprets the command within the packet.”). Julio discloses a number of commands included in the transmitted data packet, Appeal 2020-002047 Application 15/354,616 5 including fields specifying color and fade time values. Id. ¶¶ 135–141. Julio further teaches command data including information flags, such as scaled flags, which specify that a command’s value is used “to scale the current light fixture’s Value,” such as intensity. Id. ¶ 93. Because such scaling in Julio would have constituted a functional command received and executed by an individual light fixture controller, the Examiner’s finding that Julio discloses receiving a multicast data packet including information identifying a predetermined function to be executed by the luminary controller is supported by a preponderance of the evidence. Appellant’s contention that Julio employs no such function is unsupported by evidence of record and is not persuasive of reversible error. The Examiner’s rejection of claims 15, 19, 20, and 22–28 is sustained. Claim 21 Claim 21 depends from claim 15 and recites “the controller is further configured to process the features field to determine the predetermined function.” With regard to that claim, Appellant argues Julio “merely disclose[s] applying an explicit command to luminaires addressed by the packet.” Appeal Br. 11. According to Appellant, “[t]here is no active determination of a function having the claimed inputs and outputs to calculate control information, as claimed.” Id. Appellant’s argument is not persuasive. Appellant does not identify with particularity any distinction between the claimed controller functionality and Julio’s disclosure that each light fixture controller “interprets the command within the packet.” Julio ¶ 148. Moreover, Julio specifies that each light fixture controller “manages all incoming commands Appeal 2020-002047 Application 15/354,616 6 in an appropriate fashion to its own requirements.” Id. ¶ 113. In light of the foregoing teachings in Julio, and those identified in the Final Office Action and Answer, the Examiner’s finding that Julio discloses controllers configured to determine the predetermined function is supported by a preponderance of the evidence presented. The Examiner’s rejection of claim 21 also is sustained. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 15 and 19–28 is affirmed. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 15, 19–28 103(a) Julio 15, 19–28 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation