Ademco Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 17, 2020

15014947 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jun. 17, 2020)

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.
15/014,947 02/03/2016 Pavel Vacha H0048609 6006-118679 3621
92556 7590 06/17/2020
Resideo/Husch Blackwell
Husch Blackwell LLP
120 S. Riverside Plaza
Suite 2200
Chicago, IL 60606
EXAMINER
SHABLACK, JOHNNIE A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3634
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/17/2020 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):
Raquel.Tabor@resideo.com
amy.hammer@huschblackwell.com
pto-chi@huschblackwell.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PAVEL VACHA, ZDENEK SCHINDLER, VIT LIBAL, and
KAREL MARIK
Appeal 2019-005817
Application 15/014,947
Technology Center 3600
Before JILL D. HILL, LEE L. STEPINA, and ARTHUR M. PESLAK,
Administrative Patent Judges.
PESLAK, 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 41–60. See Final Act. 1. 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 the real party in interest as the assignee of
record, Ademco Inc. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2019-005817
Application 15/014,947

2
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant’s invention relates to a camera-aided controller for
controlled lighting of spaces. Claims 41, 48, and 52 are independent. Claim
41, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
41. A lighting control system comprising:
at least one real-time video camera sensor having a field
of view covering a room, the at least one real-time video camera
sensor having outputs which reflect one of an ambient light level
within the room, a presence of occupants within the room, or
both the ambient light level within the room and a presence of
occupants within the room;
one or more sun blinds positioned over one or more
windows of the room,
wherein the one or more sun blinds include a sun blinds
input which controls positions of the one or more sun blinds;
a controller having inputs connected to the at least one
real-time video camera sensor outputs and a sun blinds output
connected to the sun blinds input,
wherein when the controller determines that the ambient
light level should be increased or decreased relative to a current
ambient light level the controller is configured and adapted to
send a sun blinds output to the sun blinds input to open or close
the one or more sun blinds, respectively.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Wen US 2015/0234369 A1 Aug. 20, 2015
Takahashi JP 2002-289377 Apr. 10, 2002

Appeal 2019-005817
Application 15/014,947

3
REJECTION
Claims 41–60 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Wen and Takashi2.
ANALYSIS
Appellant argues claims 41–60 as a group. Appeal Br. 8–16.
Although independent claims 41, 48, and 52 are argued in separate
paragraphs, the arguments for claims 48 and 52 are substantially the same as
those for claim 41. See Appeal Br. 14–16. Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.37
(c)(1)(iv), we select claim 41 as representative, and claims 42–60 stand or
fall with claim 41.
The Examiner finds that Wen discloses most of the limitations of
claim 41, including at least one sensor and a controller, but that Wen’s
sensor is not a real-time video camera sensor. Final Act. 2–3. The
Examiner finds that Takahashi discloses a real-time video camera sensor and
reasons that it would have been obvious to substitute a real-time video
camera sensor for Wen’s photo sensor 15 and occupancy sensor 16 as the
substitution of one known element (sensor) for another with predictable
results. Id. at 3 (citing Takahashi, ¶¶ 13, 17, 23). The Examiner explains
that because Takahashi’s camera sensor provides the same information of
light levels and the presence of occupants with one sensor instead of Wen’s
two sensors, the substitution would reduce the number of parts and simplify
the system. Id. at 3–4.

2 We refer to the English language (machine) translation provided by the
Examiner.
Appeal 2019-005817
Application 15/014,947

4
Appellant first contends that because the controller of Wen is fully
functional for its intended purpose of lighting and occupancy sensing, one of
ordinary skill would have no reason to modify Wen. Appeal Br. 8–10.
Appellant asserts, moreover, that the rejection is improper because
Takahashi’s TV camera is not “an art recognized equivalent” of Wen’s
photosensor. Id. at 11. According to Appellant, even if one of ordinary skill
were to overlook the expense of using a TV camera, no one camera of
Takashi has a field of view that covers the room and Takahashi does not
sample in real-time. Id. at 11–12. Specifically, Appellant contends that
although Takahashi discloses “Real Time Control,” Takahashi’s TV camera
is a motion detector and does not use real time video monitoring. Id. at 13–
14.
The Examiner responds that the rejection is proper because the reason
for the combination is to improve Wen’s two sensors that perform two
functions (determine occupancy and lighting levels) by using Takahashi’s
TV camera to perform these two functions using a single sensor and thus
reducing the number of parts in the system. Ans. 5. The Examiner states
that both systems were known in the art, would have been combined by
known methods with no change in their respective functions, and would
have yielded predictable results. Id. at 6. Specifically, the Examiner states
that the systems of Wen and Takahashi are equivalent systems that are used
for the same purpose and obtain the same information from the sensors
(occupancy and ambient light levels) and use the signals to adjust lighting
levels in a room. Id. at 6–7 (citing Wen ¶¶ 7, 39; Takahashi ¶¶ 21, 23).
As to Appellant’s assertion regarding the field of view of Takahashi’s
TV camera, the Examiner notes that Figure 1 of Takahashi depicts a single
Appeal 2019-005817
Application 15/014,947

5
camera having a field of view that covers a room as required by claim 41.
Ans. 8–9. The Examiner notes that Takahashi’s Figure 8, which has two
cameras and to which Appellant refers, is not the embodiment upon which
the Examiner relies. Id. at 10. The Examiner explains that claim 41 recites
that the camera sensor has outputs which reflect “one of” or both the
ambient light and a presence of occupants, and Takahashi’s TV camera is a
real-time video camera that performs both. Id. (citing Takahashi ¶¶ 1, 13).
The Examiner further explains that even though Takahashi may record data
for a fixed time period, the data is obtained in real-time. Id. (citing
Takahashi ¶¶ 44, 46). The Examiner concludes that the combination of Wen
and Takahashi teach each of the claimed features, not Wen or Takahashi
alone. Id. at 11–12.
Appellant replies that Takahashi’s CCD TV camera cannot be
combined with Wen’s system because Takahashi’s CCD TV camera requires
a personal computer or a PC terminal to process image data from the CCD
TV camera. Reply Br. 2. According to Appellant, because Takahashi’s
CCD TV camera itself does not have outputs that reflect the brightness of
the area or the presence of a person, the Examiner’s proposed substitution
would not provide the required information to Wen’s controller 100. Id.
Appellant asserts that the Examiner’s proposed substitution would require
Wen’s controller 100 to process the information or would require the CCD
TV camera to be coupled to controller 100 via a personal computer or PC
terminal. Id. Appellant contends that either configuration would render
Wen unsatisfactory for its intended purpose and/or change the principle of
operation of Wen, which indicates that the combination is improper. Id. at
Appeal 2019-005817
Application 15/014,947

6
2–3. We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments for the following
reasons.
Wen discloses that a plurality of “sensors (15), (16) and (17) form a
sensing infrastructure (18) of the controller 100. The photosensor (15) may
contain ceiling-mounted photosensors for measuring task illuminances
and/or vertical illuminance sensors for glare detection purposes. The
occupancy sensor (16) detects motions in the space.” Wen ¶ 42, Fig. 1; see
also Final Act. 2. Thus, the Examiner’s finding that Wen discloses that
sensor 15 is a sensor that reflects the ambient light level in a room, and that
sensor 16 is a sensor that reflects the presence (or absence) of occupants in a
room is supported by the disclosure of Wen. Final Act. 2. Takahashi
discloses “a TV camera (CCD camera or the like) as a brightness detection
sensor in a room.” Takahashi ¶ 1. Takahashi also discloses that “the
presence or absence of the user can be detected by the camera.” Id. ¶ 13; see
also Ans. 10. Thus, the Examiner correctly finds that Takahashi’s TV
camera detects the ambient light level in a room, and detects the presence (or
absence) of occupants in a room.
We now address Appellant’s argument that Wen’s sensors and
Takahashi’s TV camera are not art recognized equivalents because of price
and sensitivity. Appeal Br. 11. We begin by noting that “when a patent
claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere
substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination
must do more than yield a predictable result.” KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). Appellant’s argument about cost and relative
performance is not persuasive in the absence of persuasive argument or
technical reasoning that the result of the substitution would be unpredictable.
Appeal 2019-005817
Application 15/014,947

7
See Appeal Br. 11. To the extent that Appellant is arguing that the
references are in different fields, Wen “relates to the control of lighting,
shading and temperature” in a building, and Takahashi “relates to a lighting
control system in a building interior or the like.” Wen ¶¶ 1, 2; Takahashi ¶
1. Indeed, Appellant discusses the shortcomings of systems that use light
sensors and motion detectors (Spec., 2:30–3:5) and suggests using a TV
camera to overcome these shortcomings. Spec., 3:21–28. We agree with the
Examiner the combination would have been obvious because it is the
substitution of one known sensor arrangement for another with predictable
results.
Appellant also contends that one of ordinary skill in the art would not
seek to modify Wen because Wen is already fully functional. This
contention is not persuasive because the adequacy of an existing system does
not preclude and would not discourage a person of ordinary skill in the art
from attempting to improve on the prior art. See DyStar Textilfarben GmBH
& Co v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (the desire
to improve is universal).
We are also not persuaded by Appellant’s assertions that Takahashi’s
TV camera is not a real-time video camera and does not have a field of view
that covers a room. The Examiner correctly finds that Takahashi discloses
that the TV camera “detects the presence or absence of a person” (Takahashi
¶ 7) and that TV camera 10 captures image data with control unit 12
“analyzing continuously input image data” (Takahashi ¶ 44). Ans. 10.
Although Takahashi discloses that data is collected “for a certain period of
time” (Takahashi ¶ 8) and “at regular time intervals” (Takahashi ¶ 38) the
data that is collected for that period/interval of time is continuously collected
Appeal 2019-005817
Application 15/014,947

8
in real-time. Moreover, we agree with the Examiner that there is a single
camera 10 in Figure 1 that covers room 18. That Takahashi discloses a
second embodiment with two cameras in Figure 8 is of no import, given that
the Examiner relies on the Figure 1 embodiment. See Ans. 10.
Appellant’s argument in the Reply Brief that the Examiner’s proposed
modification would render Wen unsatisfactory for its intended purpose
and/or change the principle of operation of Wen, is also unpersuasive.
Specifically, Appellant asserts that using Wen’s controller 100 to process
images or in conjunction with a computer to process images would render
Wen unsatisfactory for its intended purpose and/or change the principle of
operation of Wen. Reply Br. 2. Takahashi discloses that arithmetic and
control unit 12 “performs detection of moving bodies by analyzing
continuously input image data from TV camera 10. Takahashi ¶ 44. The
control unit 12, which includes the PC terminal can be separate from camera
10 or be provided as an integrated unit. Id. ¶ 65. Similarly, Wen discloses
that “various processes and functions described herein may be either part of
the microinstruction code or part of the application program, or any
combination thereof, which may be executed by a CPU.” Wen ¶ 73. Thus,
Wen also discloses using a computer to perform the disclosed functions,
which includes detecting the presence of occupants. In light of this
disclosure, Appellant does not provide persuasive evidence or technical
reasoning to support its assertion that the Examiner’s proposed modification
would render Wen unsatisfactory for its intended purpose. Further, given
that both systems perform the same functions, Appellant has not shown why
the substitution of Takahashi’s TV camera having a PC to process the data
for Wen’s sensors would render Wen inoperable for performing building
Appeal 2019-005817
Application 15/014,947

9
lighting, shading and temperature control. For these reasons, we determine
that Appellant’s contentions do not apprise us of Examiner error.
We have considered all of Appellant's arguments and determine that
Appellant fails to persuasively apprise us of error in the Examiner’s factual
findings or rationale, quoted above, for the combination of Wen and
Takahashi, which we determine to be reasonable and supported by rational
underpinnings. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 416 (“[t]he combination of familiar
elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does
no more than yield predictable results.”). We thus, sustain the rejection of
claim 41 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Claims 42–60 fall with claim 41.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejection is affirmed.
More specifically,
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
41–60 103 Wen, Takahashi 41–60
Overall
Outcome:
41–60

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
Appeal 2019-005817
Application 15/014,947

10
AFFIRMED