Ralf Edelmeier et al.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardMay 1, 20202018006493 (P.T.A.B. May. 1, 2020) 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. 13/827,171 03/14/2013 Ralf Edelmeier 468897.224 5591 27128 7590 05/01/2020 HUSCH BLACKWELL LLP 190 Carondelet Plaza Suite 600 ST. LOUIS, MO 63105 EXAMINER ALAEDDINI, BORNA ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2844 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/01/2020 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): pto-sl@huschblackwell.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte RALF EDELMEIER and THOMAS FRANZ FARK ____________________ Appeal 2018-006493 Application 13/827,171 Technology Center 2800 ____________________ Before RAE LYNN P. GUEST, N. WHITNEY WILSON, and WESLEY B. DERRICK, Administrative Patent Judges. WILSON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s May 8, 2017 decision finally rejecting claims 1, 2, and 7–9 (“Final Act.”). We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Hella KGaA Hueck and Co. as the real party in interest (Appeal Br. 3). Appeal 2018-006493 Application 13/827,171 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Appellant’s disclosure relates to a control device for LED lights, for example passenger vehicle lights (Abstract). The control device includes an input (13a), or multiple inputs (13b, 13c, 13d, etc.), into which one of a coded resistor (20a, 20c) and/or a temperature sensor (21a, 21c) is plugged (Appeal Br. 4). Depending on whether a coded resistor or a temperature sensor (or both) is plugged into each input, the control device is able to gather information about the lighting unit or lighting units (2a, 2c) plugged into the input (id.). The control device is then able to recall from memory (14) whether a coded resistor and/or a temperature sensor is plugged into the input, and then how to operate the lighting unit including the coded resistor or temperature sensor (id.). The general structure is shown in FIG. 1 from the application: FIG. 1 shows a schematic illustration of an arrangement according to the disclosure. Appeal 2018-006493 Application 13/827,171 3 The disclosure states that the invention addresses the problem of improving a control device in such a manner that fewer components and devices are required in order to make it possible to use the control device in various different types of vehicles (Abstract). Claim 1, which is representative of the claimed invention, is reproduced below from the Claims Appendix to the Appeal Brief: 1. A control device for lights, comprising: at least one input; wherein a respective first resistor is connected to each of said at least one input at a first end of each first resistor; a ground voltage potential or a non-ground voltage potential connected to a second end of each first resistor, and thereby in electrical communication with each of said at least one input across said first resistor; a microcontroller in electrical communication with each of said at least one input, and connected to said first end of each first resistor; a storage device in communication with said microcontroller and electronically storing information regarding at least one possible configuration topology of whether one of a temperature sensor and a coded resistor is plugged into each of said at least one input; wherein one of said configuration topologies is provided to said microcontroller; and wherein said microcontroller is thereby operable to function with whichever of said temperature sensor and coded resistor is plugged into each of said at least one input. Appeal 2018-006493 Application 13/827,171 4 REJECTION Claims 1, 2, and 7–9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Dari2 in view of Eckel.3 DISCUSSION Appellant does not make separate arguments regarding any of the claims separately from claim 1 (Appeal Br. 9–12). Accordingly, we focus our analysis on the rejection of claim 1 over Dari in view of Eckel. The remaining claims stand or fall with claim 1. The Examiner’s findings underlying the rejection are set forth at pages 3–4 of the Final Action. The Examiner finds that Dari discloses each of the limitations of claim 1, except that “Dari does not specify: a microcontroller; a storage device in communication with said microcontroller and electronically storing information regarding [said topologies]” (Final Act. 4). The Examiner finds that Eckel discloses these limitations, and that it would have been obvious to incorporate them into Dari’s control circuit “in order to measure and adjust the output of LED’s” (id.). Appellant argues that Dari’s input is structurally different from the input of claim 1, because the claimed input, according to Appellant, can accept either a temperature sensor or a coded resistor, and the claimed system can determine how to perform correctly based on either input (Appeal Br. 9). Appellant contends that Dari’s system integrates a coded resistor within its circuits, as well as a temperature sensor, and that these elements are not designed to be removed or swapped out (Appeal Br. 9–10). 2 Dari et al., US 8,698,427 B2, issued April 15, 2014. 3 Eckel et al., US 2005/0043907 A1, published February 24, 2005. Appeal 2018-006493 Application 13/827,171 5 Therefore, according to Appellant, Dari’s system does not have to make a determination as to which type of sensor/resistor is plugged into any given input, because there is only one place for the temperature sensor and one place for the coded resistor (Appeal Br. 10). Therefore, according to Appellant, a person of skill in the art would have had no reason to combine Eckel’s microcontroller and storage device with Dari because Dari’s system has no need for a memory that stores circuit topologies (Appeal Br. 12). Dari’s system, as shown in FIG. 1, includes both a coded resistor (BIN) and a temperature sensor (CTN) in fixed positions, which suggests Appellant’s position is correct. However, the Examiner’s position is that because Dari only detects either a temperature sensor or a coded resistor at any one moment in time, depending on the signal produced by control 10, it determines whether a temperature sensor or coded resistor is plugged into the input (Ans. 2–3). The Examiner construes the term “plugged into” as used in the claim limitation “plugged into each of said at least one input” in claim 1 as being broad enough to mean either “inserted” or “connected,” so that Dari therefore “teaches that the temperature sensor and the coded resistor are alternatively connected, i.e. ‘plugged into’ the input” (Ans. 3). However, even if the Examiner’s construction of the phrase “plugged into” is correct, a question we need not and do not reach, the Examiner still bears the burden of establishing a reason why a person of skill in the art would have combined the cited teachings of Dari with those of Eckel. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (“rejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational Appeal 2018-006493 Application 13/827,171 6 underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” (citing In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). In this instance, the rationale proffered by the Examiner as why a person of skill in the art would have made the necessary combination of Dari and Eckel was “to measure and adjust the output of LED’s” (Final Act. 4). However, as explained by Appellant: The claimed invention must determine whether the light unit includes a coded resistor or a temperature sensor [through the use of the components taught by Eckel]. In Dari, the light unit (LED) includes both of a coded resistor and temperature sensor, which always communicate in the same way with the rest of the system. Therefore, the claimed determination would not be necessary. (Appeal Br. 12). The Examiner does not squarely address this salient point raised by Appellant. See generally Ans. Thus, on this record, we are persuaded that there would have been no reason to combine Eckel’s teachings with Dari’s system, because the functionality brought by those teachings were not needed by Dari’s system. See Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“obviousness concerns whether a skilled artisan not only could have made but would have been motivated to make the combinations or modifications of prior art to arrive at the claimed invention”). Thus, the preponderance of the evidence of record supports Appellant’s position that the Examiner has not established an adequate reason why a person of skill in the art would have combined the teachings of Dari and Eckel as set forth in the rejection. Accordingly, we reverse the rejection. Appeal 2018-006493 Application 13/827,171 7 CONCLUSION In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § References(s)/ Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 2, 7–9 103(a) Dari, Eckel 1, 2, 7–9 REVERSED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation