Antony van de Ven et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 28, 2021

2020000085 (P.T.A.B. May. 28, 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.
13/338,076 12/27/2011 Antony P. van de Ven 2294-281 4787
27820 7590 05/28/2021
WITHROW & TERRANOVA, P.L.L.C.
106 Pinedale Springs Way
Cary, NC 27511
EXAMINER
COOPER, JONATHAN G
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2621
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/28/2021 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 ANTONY P. VAN DE VEN and LIQIN NI
___________

Appeal 2020-000085
Application 13/338,076
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before ERIC B. CHEN, ADAM J. PYONIN, and MICHAEL J. ENGLE,
Administrative Patent Judges.

CHEN, 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 1–34. We have jurisdiction 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(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Cree, Inc.
(Appeal Br. 1.)
Appeal 2020-000085
Application 13/338,076

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claimed subject matter is directed to a lighting apparatus having a
string of light emitting diode (LED) sets. (Abstract.)
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter, with disputed limitations in italics:
1. A lighting apparatus, comprising:
a string of light emitting diode (LED) sets coupled in
series, each LED set comprising at least one LED;
a current limiting circuit directly coupled in series with
the string and being configured to conduct current responsive to
a forward biasing of all of the LED sets and to otherwise be
non-conducting of current;
a current diversion circuit coupled to the string and
configured to operate responsive to a bias state transition of a
first one of the LED sets to direct current away from a second
one of the LED sets and the current limiting circuit, the current
diversion circuit being connected in parallel to the second one
of the LED sets and the current limiting circuit, which are
connected in series; and
wherein the current limiting circuit is comprised of a
resistor without including any active electrical component.

REFERENCES
Name Reference Date
Weaver US 2010/0109570 A1 May 6, 2010
Shteynberg et al. US 2010/0308738 A1 Dec. 9, 2010
Muguruma et al. US 2011/0199003 A1 Aug. 18, 2011

REJECTIONS
Claims 1–3, 5–14, 16–25, and 27–34 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Shteynberg and Muguruma.
Appeal 2020-000085
Application 13/338,076

3
Claims 4, 15, and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Shteynberg, Muguruma, and Weaver.

OPINION
§ 103 Rejection—Shteynberg and Muguruma
We are persuaded by Appellant’s arguments (Reply Br. 3) that the
combination of Shteynberg and Muguruma would not have rendered obvious
independent claim 1, which includes the limitation “a current limiting circuit
. . . configured to conduct current responsive to a forward biasing of all of
the LED sets and to otherwise be non-conducting of current.”
The Examiner found that resistor 4D of Muguruma, as illustrated in
Figure 5, corresponds to the limitation “a current limiting circuit directly
coupled in series with the string and being configured to conduct current
responsive to a forward biasing of all of the LED sets and to otherwise be
non-conducting of current.” (Final Act. 4; see also Ans. 5.) We do not
agree with the Examiner’s findings.
Muguruma relates to “a light-emitting diode driving apparatus and a
light-emitting diode driving operation controlling method using AC power
supply.” (¶ 2.) Figure 5 of Muguruma, which illustrates light-emitting
diode driving apparatus 300, including first, second and third LED blocks
11, 12, and 13, and LED current detection resistor 4D (¶ 94), is reproduced
below:
Appeal 2020-000085
Application 13/338,076

4

Muguruma explains the following:
When a pulsating current voltage reaches a value in
proximity to the subtotal forward directional voltage VfB1 of the
first LED block 11, all of first, second and third LED current
control transistor 21B, 22B and 23B shown in the circuit
diagram of FIG. 5 will be turned ON. Thus, a current can flow
through all of the first, second and third bypass paths BP1, BP2
and BP3. Accordingly, a current flows along a path of the first
LED block 11, the first LED current control transistor 21B, the
first LED current detection resistor 4B, the second LED current
control transistor 22B, the second LED current detection
resistor 4C, the third LED current control transistor 23B, and
the third LED current detection resistor 4D in this order.
(¶ 95.)
Appeal 2020-000085
Application 13/338,076

5
Although the Examiner cited to LED current detection resistor 4D of
Muguruma, the Examiner has provided insufficient evidence to support a
finding that Muguruma teaches the limitation “a current limiting circuit . . .
being configured to conduct current responsive to a forward biasing of all of
the LED sets and to otherwise be non-conducting of current.” In particular,
Muguruma explains that “a current flows along a path of the first LED
block 11 . . . and the third LED current detection resistor 4D,” without
current flowing through second and third LED blocks 12 and 13, and
accordingly, Muguruma does not teach the limitation “current limiting
circuit . . . being configured to conduct current responsive to a forward
biasing of all of the LED sets and to otherwise be non-conducting of
current.” In addition, Shteynberg does not cure the above noted deficiencies
of Muguruma.
Accordingly, we are persuaded by Appellant’s arguments, as follows:
As highlighted above from paragraph [95] of Muguruma,
once the first LED block 11 turns on, transistors 21B, 22B, and
23B turn on so that current flows through resistors 4B, 4C, and
4D while LED blocks 12 and 13 remain off due to being
shorted by control transistors 21B and 22B, respectively. Thus,
with only one of the LED blocks 11, 12, and 13 being forward
biased, i.e., LED block 11, the resistor 4D conducts current.

Independent Claims 1, 13, and 24, however, state that the
current limiting circuit is “configured to conduct current
responsive to a forward biasing of all of the LED sets and to
otherwise be non-conducting of current.” That is, the current
limiting circuit is nonconducting unless all LED sets in the
series coupled string are forward biased, Resistor 4D in FIG. 5
of Muguruma, therefore, cannot correspond to the recited
current limiting circuit because resistor 4D conducts current
when LED block 11 is forward biased and the other LED
Appeal 2020-000085
Application 13/338,076

6
blocks 12 and 13 in the series coupled string are shorted so as
not to be forward biased.

(Reply Br. 3 (emphases omitted).)
Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Claims 2, 3, and 5–12 depend from claim 1. We do not
sustain the rejection of claims 2, 3, and 5–12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for
the same reasons discussed with respect to claim 1.
Independent claims 13 and 24 recite limitations similar to those
discussed with respect to claim 1. We do not sustain the rejection of claims
13 and 24, as well as dependent claims 14, 16–23, 25, and 27–34 for the
same reasons discussed with respect to claim 1.

§ 103 Rejection—Shteynberg, Muguruma, and Weaver
Claims 4, 15, and 26 depend from independent claims 1, 13, and 24.
Weaver was cited by the Examiner for teaching the additional features of
claims 4, 15, and 26. (Final Act. 22.) However, the Examiner’s application
of Weaver does not cure the above noted deficiencies of Shteynberg and
Muguruma.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–34 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) is reversed.

Appeal 2020-000085
Application 13/338,076

7
SUMMARY DECISION
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35
U.S.C. §
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–3, 5–14,
16–25, 27–
34
103(a) Shteynberg,
Muguruma
1–3, 5–14,
16–25,
27–34
4, 15, 26 103(a) Shteynberg,
Muguruma,
Weaver
4, 15, 26
Overall
Outcome
1–34

REVERSED