PHILIPS LIGHTING HOLDING B.V.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 24, 2021

2020002047 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 24, 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.
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