Cree, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 20, 2020

15192308 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 20, 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.
15/192,308 06/24/2016 John Barile 2294-115 5553
166620 7590 05/20/2020
IDEAL and Withrow + Terranova
106 Pinedale Springs Way
Cary, NC 27511
EXAMINER
CHAI, RAYMOND REI-YANG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2844
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/20/2020 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):
patents@wt-ip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte JOHN BARILE, KEITH BRYAN, and MATTHEW DEESE
____________

Appeal 2019-003558
Application 15/192,308
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before LINDA M. GAUDETTE, JEFFREY B. ROBERTSON, and
MERRELL C. CASHION, JR., Administrative Patent Judges.

CASHION, 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 and 3–10. 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 Cree, Inc.
Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2019-003558
Application 15/192,308

2
The invention is generally directed to lighting fixtures with enhanced
security. Spec. ¶ 2. Claim 1 illustrates the invention (formatting added):
1. A lighting fixture comprising:
a solid-state light source;
communications circuitry;
a memory storing common security credentials, wherein
the common security credentials are pre-installed during a
factory calibration process; and
processing circuitry coupled to the solid-state light
source, the communications circuitry, and the memory and
configured to:
cause the solid-state light source to provide a
desired light output;
join a common network using the common
security credentials, wherein only devices with the common
security credentials are permitted to join the common network;
communicate with a device in the common
network via the communications circuitry; and
receive updated security credentials from the device via
the communications circuitry and store the updated security
credentials in the memory after joining the common network.

Appellant requests review of the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and
3–10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Pathuri (US 2016/0112870
Al, published April 21, 2016), Keith (US 2016/0192458 Al, published June
30, 2016), and Yu (US 2017/0366970 Al, published December 21, 2017).
Appeal Br. 4; Final Act. 3.
Appellant relies on the same line of arguments to address the rejection
of claims 1 and 3–10. Appeal Br. 7. Accordingly, we decide the appeal
based on the arguments presented for claim 1.
Appeal 2019-003558
Application 15/192,308

3
OPINION
After review of the respective positions the Appellant provides in the
Appeal and Reply Briefs and the Examiner provides in the Final Action and
the Answer, we affirm the Examiner’s prior art rejection of claims 1 and 3–
10 based on the fact-finding and the reasons the Examiner provides. We add
the following for emphasis.
Independent claim 1
Claim 1 is directed to a lighting fixture comprising processing
circuitry coupled to a solid-state light source, communications circuitry, and
a memory where the processing circuitry is configured to perform a number
of tasks, including receiving updated security credentials from the device via
the communications circuitry and store the updated security credentials in
the memory after joining the common network.
Appellant does not dispute the Examiner’s findings and conclusions
that the combined teachings of Pathuri and Keith disclose a lighting fixture
comprising a memory storing common security credentials. Final Act. 3–5;
see generally Appeal Br. The Examiner finds that the light fixture from the
combined teachings differs from the claimed invention in that the combined
teachings do not suggest a light fixture that receives updated security
credentials from a device via a communications circuitry and stores the
updated security credentials in the memory after joining a common network.
Final Act. 5. The Examiner relies on Yu for the missing feature and
determines that it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the
art to modify the light fixture from the combined teachings of Pathuri and
Keith to include Yu’s method and system of updating network credentials to
allow a user to change preset or default credentials to enhance network
Appeal 2019-003558
Application 15/192,308

4
security. Id. at 5–6.
Appellant argues Yu generally relates to updating wireless credentials
at an access point, where the access point may use the updated wireless
credentials to establish wireless connections with other stations. Appeal Br.
5. According to Appellant, Yu discloses that stations 110 in a local network
130 communicate with an upstream wireless network 140 via an access point
120 to update the wireless credentials at the access point 120. Appeal Br. 5–
6; see Yu, Figure 1. Appellant further asserts that Yu describes setting up a
wireless connection between an access point 120 and a station 110 where the
access point 120, after set-up using default credentials, requests updated
wireless credentials from the station 110 for storage. Appeal Br. 6.
Appellant contends that the subject matter of claim 1 recites that a lighting
fixture receives updated security credentials after joining a common network
and then stores the updated security credentials. Appeal Br. 6. Appellant
argues that Yu is different because the updated wireless credentials are
stored at the access point 120 before the access point 120 joins a network.
Id. Appellant also contends that there is no reason for the access point 120
to join a network because the access point does not join a network but,
instead, functions as a gateway to facilitate access to the upstream wireless
network 140. Id. at 6, 10.
Appellant’s arguments do not identify error in the Examiner’s
determination of obviousness for the reasons the Examiner presents.
It is well established that the obviousness inquiry does not ask
“whether the references could be physically combined but whether the
claimed inventions are rendered obvious by the teachings of the prior art as a
whole.” In re Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 859 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc); see also
Appeal 2019-003558
Application 15/192,308

5
In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981) (stating “[t]he test for
obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be
bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference”). “[T]he test
[for obviousness] is what the combined teachings of the references would
have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.” Keller, 642 F.2d at
425–26.
As the Examiner explains, and Appellant does not dispute, the
combined teachings of Pathuri and Keith teach a light fixture comprising a
memory to store common security credentials. Final Act. 3–5. The
Examiner then relies on Yu to establish that it is known to use a technique
for updating security credentials associated with devices having memories
that store security credentials for network security purposes. Final Act. 5–6;
see also Yu ¶¶ 39–40. While Appellant argues that Yu’s updating of the
credentials is associated with an access point (Appeal Br. 5–6), the rejection
the Examiner presents is not based on substituting an access point from the
combined teachings of Pathuri and Keith with Yu’s access point having a
memory for storage of credentials. Instead, the premise of the Examiner’s
rejection is to incorporate Yu’s credential updating technique into the light
fixture of the combined teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. Final
Act. 6. Appellant has not explained adequately why one skilled in the art,
using no more than ordinary creativity, would not have been capable of
adapting Yu’s technique for updating security credentials to the light fixture
from the combined teachings of Pathuri and Keith to ensure that credentials
can be updated for network security purposes. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex
Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007) (“A person of ordinary skill is also a person
of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.”); see also In re Sovish, 769 F.2d
Appeal 2019-003558
Application 15/192,308

6
738, 743 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (presuming skill on the part of one of ordinary
skill in the art).
We also find Appellant’s argument that Yu updates the wireless
credentials stored at the access point 120 before the access point 120 joins a
network unpersuasive. Appeal Br. 6. As the Examiner notes, Yu describes
that an access point may communicate with one or more stations over a local
network. Ans. 3; Yu ¶ 23. In fact, Yu discloses that the “network
environment 100 [is] operable to facilitate an overwrite of wireless
credentials with user-input credentials.” Yu, Fig. 1, ¶ 23. Thus, we agree
with the Examiner’s finding that Yu describes the access point (that is, the
device comprising a memory for storage of credentials) and the station are
communicating via a network. Ans. 3. Appellant has not refuted this
finding adequately in the Appeal or Reply Briefs.
Appellant’s assertion that Yu exemplifies updating of credentials
while setting up a wireless connection also lacks persuasive merit because
claim 1 is drafted using the open transitional term “comprising” and, thus,
does not exclude receiving updated credentials during a set-up as taught by
Yu.
Arguments not specifically addressed are deemed not persuasive for
the reasons the Examiner presents.
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s prior art rejection of claims 1
and 3–10 for the reasons the Examiner presents and we give above.

Appeal 2019-003558
Application 15/192,308

7
DECISION SUMMARY

In summary:

Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 3–10 103 Pathuri, Keith, Yu 1, 3–10

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