Ex Parte Ashdown

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 11, 2016

13255118 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 11, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/255,118 09/07/2011
138325 7590
PHILIPS LIGHTING BY
465 Columbus A venue
Suite 330
Valhalla, NY 10595
10/13/2016
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Ian Edward Ashdown
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
2009P00015WOUS 3937
EXAMINER
OWENS, DOUGLAS W
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2844
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/13/2016 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):
kim.larocca@philips.com
jo.cangelosi@philips.com
Gigi.Miller@philips.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte IAN EDWARD ASHDOWN
Appeal2015-004788
Application 13/255, 118
Technology Center 2800
Before: KAREN M. HASTINGS, CHRISTOPHER C. KENNEDY,
and LILAN REN, Administrative Patent Judges.
REN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection2 of
claims 1and3-16. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 The real party in interest is identified as KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS
ELECTRONICS NV. (Appeal Brief, dated August 8, 2014 ("App. Br."), 4.)
2 Final Rejection dated February 21, 2014 ("Final Act.").
Appeal2015-004788
Application 13/255, 118
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a system and apparatus for controlling light
intensity output of light emitting diode arrays. 3 Claim 1, reproduced below,
is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A system for controlling a drive current of an LED,
compnsmg:
a controller configured to estimate a junction temperature
of the LED at a location of a heat sink; and
a driver configured to change a drive current to the LED
in response to a command from the controller, wherein the
estimated junction temperature is based on a future output
intensity of the LED.
(Claim Appendix, App. Br. 14 (emphasis added).)
REFERENCES
The prior art references relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the
claims on appeal are:
Deurenberg
Lloyd
Leung
Perduijn
US 2008/0007182 A 1
US 2008/0033897 Al
US 2008/0238340 Al
Light Output Feedback Solution for
RGB LED Backlight Applications
REJECTIONS
Jan. 10,2008
Feb. 7,2008
Oct. 2, 2008
2003
Claims 1and3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Deurenberg. (Final Act. 2-3.)
3 Application 13/255, 118, A System and Apparatus for Controlling Light
Intensity Output of Light Emitting Diode Arrays, filed September 7, 2011.
We refer to the '" 118 Specification," which we cite as "Spec."
2
Appeal2015-004788
Application 13/255, 118
Claims 6, 8, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Deurenberg in view of Perduijn. (Final Act. 4-7.)
Claim 7, 9, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Deurenberg in view of Leung. (Final Act. 7-9.)
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Deurenberg in view of Lloyd. (Final Act. 9-19.)
Claims 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Deurenberg in view of Leung in further view of Perduijn.
(Final Act. 10-16.)
OPINION
Findings of fact throughout this Opinion are supported by a
preponderance of the evidence of record.
Claim 14
The dispositive dispute on appeal is whether Deurenberg discloses an
"estimated junction temperature [that] is based on a future output intensity of
the LED" as recited in claim 1. (See App. Br. 6-9; see also Ans. 2-3.)5
Deurenberg discloses a lighting system "for controlling junction
temperature, output colour and output brightness of ... an LED luminary."
(iJ 1.) Deurenberg discloses that it is known that "[t]he output brightness of
the LED light sources varies exponentially ... with the variation in the
junction temperature." (Id. iJ 3.) Deurenberg discloses that it is known that
4 Appellants do not present separate arguments for claims 3-5. These claims
therefore stand or fall with claim 1. (See App. Br. 6.)
5 Examiner's Answer dated January 23, 2015 ("Ans.").
3
Appeal2015-004788
Application 13/255, 118
"LED light outputs tend to decrease with increasing junction temperature
thus requiring an increased driving power to maintain desired colour and
brightness of the mixed light output[.]" (Id. ii 37.)
Deurenberg's prior art lighting system includes a "calibration matrix"
which "may compensate for spectrum variations caused by changes in the
junction temperature in the plurality of light sources by adjusting the
set-point appropriately." (Id. ii 18.) When an initial "set-point is selected
... and causes ... a driving signal for the light mixing circuit," and "as the
junction temperature changes potentially causing the brightness and color of
the output light to change," the prior art system "revises the set-point[.]"
(Id. ii 18.) More specifically, when the prior art lighting system "determines
that the junction temperature ... is above a temperature threshold," the
system would "reduce the desired brightness of the mixed light output." (Id.
ii 53.)
The Examiner accordingly finds an "estimated junction temperature
[that] is based on a future output intensity of the LED" as recited in claim 1
anticipated because Deurenberg discloses using the known relationship "that
LED light outputs tend to decrease with increasing junction temperature" to
estimate junction temperature. (Ans. 3.)
Appellant does not dispute the disclosure of Deurenberg and further
acknowledges that Deurenberg "permits one to determine a given intensity
using a known junction temperature and vice versa." (App. Br. 9.)
Appellant, however, argues that Deurenberg "does not provide a means of
predicting either a future intensity or a junction temperature at a given time,
4
Appeal2015-004788
Application 13/255, 118
or a means for estimating a junction temperature based on a future output
intensity." (Id.)
Claim 1 does not recite any particular algorithm or mechanism for
estimating junction temperature. To the extent that Appellant argues
"Deurenberg' s description of the relationship [between output intensity and
junction temperature] is insufficient to enable one of ordinary skill in the art
to estimate junction temperature based on a future intensity of an LED"
(Reply 4),6 "a prior art publication cited by an Examiner is presumptively
enabling barring any showing to the contrary by a patent applicant." In re
Antor Media Corp., 689 F.3d 1282, 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2012). In any case,
whether Deurenberg is enabling was not an issue raised in the opening brief
and "[a ]ny bases for asserting error, whether factual or legal, that are not
raised in the principal brief are waived." Ex parte Borden, 2010 WL 191083
at *2 (BPAI 2010) (informative); compare Advisory Action dated May 9,
2014 with App. Br.
Furthermore, Appellant does not identify reversible error in the
Examiner's finding that "a future output density" may include an output
density which will occur in the future and is known in advance - for
example, when the output density is to be adjusted to a particular value at a
particular future time. (See Ans. 3; see also App. Br. 8-9; see also Reply 4.)
On this record, Appellants has not presented sufficient evidence to
identify error in the Examiner's findings of the prior art disclosure.
6 Reply Brief dated March 23, 2015 ("Reply").
5
Appeal2015-004788
Application 13/255, 118
Remaining Claims
Appellant argues that the obviousness rejection of claims 6, 8, and 11,
the obviousness rejection of claims 7, 9, and 12, the obviousness rejection of
claim 10, the obviousness rejection of claims 13-16 are in error because the
various proposed combined teachings would not render obvious "an
estimated junction temperature that is based on a future output intensity of
an LED." (App. Br. 10, 11, 12.) Appellant does not present arguments
separate from those raised for claim 1 and the obviousness rejections of
claims 6-16 are affirmed based on the reasons provided supra with regard to
claim 1. See In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("[T]he
Board [has] reasonably interpreted Rule 41. 3 7 to require more substantive
arguments in an appeal brief than a mere recitation of the claim elements and
a naked assertion that the corresponding elements were not found in the
prior art.")
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections of claims 1 and 3-16 are affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § l.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ l.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
6