Ex Parte Ballenger et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 1, 2009

10967746 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 1, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte MATHEW B. BALLENGER
and GEORGE B. KENDRICK
____________

Appeal 2008-004831
Application 10/967,746
Technology Center 2100
____________

Decided:1 June 2, 2009
____________

Before LEE E. BARRETT, JOSEPH L. DIXON, and JEAN R. HOMERE,
Administrative Patent Judges.

DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, begins to run from the decided date
shown on this page of the decision. The time period does not run from the
Mail Date (paper delivery) or Notification Data (electronic delivery).

Appeal 2008-004831
Application 10/967,746

2

I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection
of claims 1-4 and 6-9, which are all the claims remaining in the application.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

INVENTION
Appellants invented an incandescent lamp that includes a lamp
voltage conversion circuit within the lamp. The voltage conversion circuit
includes a phase-controlled dimming circuit, which in turn includes a
voltage controlled resistor that varies a resistance in the phase-controlled
dimming circuit as the line voltage varies so as to maintain the output phase-
controlled voltage substantially constant. (Abstract).
ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
This appeal contains claims 1-4 and 6-9. Claims 1 and 7 are
independent claims. Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A lamp comprising a lamp voltage converter in the lamp
and connected between a lamp terminal and a light emitting
element, said voltage converter converting a first line voltage at
said lamp terminal to a load voltage that operates said light
emitting element, said voltage converter including phase-
controlled dimming means for reducing an RMS load voltage at
said light emitting element, said phase-controlled dimming
means includes means for varying a resistance in said voltage
converter in reaction to variation of the first line voltage.

Appeal 2008-004831
Application 10/967,746

3

REFERENCES

Chaudhry US 6,690,040 B2 Feb. 10, 2004
Takahashi US 6,870,327 B2 Mar. 22, 2005
(filed Nov. 17, 2003)

REJECTIONS
Claims 1-4, 6-7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Takahashi.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Takahashi in view of Chaudhry.

II. ISSUE
Based upon our review of the administrative record, we have
determined that the following issue is dispositive in this appeal:
Have Appellants shown that the Examiner erred in finding that
Takahashi discloses that the phase-controlled dimming circuit is within the
structure of the lamp?

III. PRINCIPLES OF LAW
To support a rejection of a claim under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), it must be
shown that each element of the claim is found, either expressly described or
under principles of inherency, in a single prior art reference. See Kalman v.
Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 771 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
"[A]nticipation of a claim under § 102 can be found only if the prior
art reference discloses every element of the claim . . . ." In re King, 801
Appeal 2008-004831
Application 10/967,746

4
F.2d 1324, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (citing Lindemann Maschinenfabrik
GMBH v. American Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1457 (Fed. Cir.
1984)). "[A]bsence from the reference of any claimed element negates
anticipation." Kloster Speedsteel AB v. Crucible, Inc., 793 F.2d 1565, 1571
(Fed. Cir. 1986), overruled on other grounds by Knorr-Bremse Systeme Fuer
Nutzfahrzeuge GmbH v. Dana Corp., 383 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Where means-plus-function language is used to define the
characteristics of a machine or manufacture invention, such language must
be interpreted to read on only the structures or materials disclosed in the
specification and “equivalents thereof” that correspond to the recited
function. The Federal Circuit has made clear that the USPTO is to interpret
means-plus-function language according to 35 U.S.C. §112, sixth paragraph.
In re Donaldson, 16 F.3d 1189, 1193 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (en banc).

IV. FINDINGS OF FACT
The following findings of fact (FF) are supported by a preponderance
of the evidence.
Takahashi
1. Takahashi discloses that “[a]s shown in Fig. 2, the bulb-shaped
electrode-less fluorescent lamp is made up of the electrode-less fluorescent
lamp 3, the lighting circuit 4 of the circuit board 54, and the base 56 which
are formed in one piece in the shape of a bulb.” (Col. 6, ll. 10-14, Figs. 1-2).
2. Takahashi discloses that “[t]he AC voltage inputted through the
base 56 is phase-controlled by, for example, an external phase controlling
apparatus. In the present embodiment, the dimmer 2 serves as such.” (Col. 6,
ll. 25-28). Also, “phase control is performed on an output voltage of the AC
Appeal 2008-004831
Application 10/967,746

5
power 1 by the dimmer 2” (col. 10, ll. 17-18) and “by changing a resistance
value of the variable resistor 2e, the phase-controlled AC voltage is supplied
from the dimmer 2 to the lighting circuit 4.” (col. 6, ll. 54-56).
3. Takahashi also discloses that the lighting circuit 4 includes a
dimming controller 7 that functions as a synchronous duty modulating
circuit (col. 7, ll. 65-67) that “detects [a] timing of turn[ing] on . . . the
phase-controlled [AC] voltage [provided by the dimmer 2], generates an
intermittent command signal synchronized with this turn-on, and then
transmits this signal to the switching circuit 9.” (col. 10, ll. 39-43).

V. ANALYSIS
Common Feature In All Claims
Independent claim 1, recites, inter alia, “[a] lamp comprising a lamp
voltage converter in the lamp and connected between a lamp terminal and a
light emitting element . . . said voltage converter including phase-controlled
dimming means.” Independent claim 7 recites similar limitations, “[a]n
incandescent lamp comprising: a base with a lamp terminal; . . . said lamp
voltage conversion circuit being within said base . . . said voltage conversion
circuit including a phase-controlled dimming circuit.” Thus, the scope of
each of the independent claims includes that the phase-controlled dimming
circuit is within the structure of the lamp.

35 U.S.C. § 102(b) Rejection
We now consider the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-4, 6-7, and 9
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) [sic, §102 (e) or (a)] as being anticipated by
Takahashi.
Appeal 2008-004831
Application 10/967,746

6
Appellants contend that “Takahashi clearly teaches a phase
controlling apparatus in the form of a dimmer 2 external to an electroded
[sic] or electrodeless fluorescent lamp. Therefore Takahashi fails to disclose
a lamp including phase-controlled dimming means in a lamp as defined by
Claim 1.” (App. Br. 4). Appellants further contend that “Takahashi fails to
teach, for example, an incandescent lamp containing within its base a phase-
controlled dimming circuit as defined by Claim 7” (id. at 5).
The Examiner cites to Takahashi, col. 6, lines 10 et seq. and figures 1-
3 and 9 and suggests that the phase-controlled circuit with the lighting
circuit 4 of the circuit board 54 and lamp 3 are formed in one piece in the
shape of a bulb (Ans. 7). In figure 1 cited by the Examiner, the Examiner
indicates that the dimmer 2 is included in the base 56 that is formed in one
piece in the shape of a bulb (id. at 7-8). We disagree.
While Takahashi discloses that the bulb shaped lamp includes the
lighting circuit 4 in the base of the lamp (FF 1), the Examiner has not shown,
and we do not readily find where Takahashi specifically discloses a phase-
controlled dimming circuit, i.e., the dimmer 2, includes in the lamp, as set
forth in claim 1.
Contrary to the Examiner’s findings, we find that Takahashi expressly
teaches the dimmer 2 that contains a phase-controlled circuit which is
located outside of the lamp and the output phase-controlled voltage is
supplied from the dimmer 2 to the lighting circuit 4 (FF 2).
We also find that the lighting circuit 4 in Takahashi includes a
dimming controller 7 that functions as a synchronization signal generator to
turn on switching circuit 9 (FF 3). In other words, Takahashi’s dimming
controller 7 does not provide phase-controlled voltage, but is provided by
Appeal 2008-004831
Application 10/967,746

7
dimmer 2. Thus, the dimming controller 7, even though it is integrated in
the bulb/lamp, can not be viewed as a phase-controlled circuit as claimed.
As a result, the absence of phase-controlled dimming circuit within the
structure of the lamp negates anticipation of independent claim 1. Likewise,
independent claim 7 contains similar limitations with respect to the voltage
conversion circuit within the base of the lamp. Accordingly, we cannot
sustain the anticipation rejection of independent claims 1 and 7, and the
rejection of dependent claims 2-4, 6, and 9 which contain the same noted
deficiency. Therefore, we reverse the anticipation rejection of claims 1-4, 6,
7, and 9.
We have considered the other argument advanced by Appellants such
as whether or not Takahashi teaches a variable resistor in accordance with
the changes of the line voltage and whether or not Takahashi teaches an
incandescent lamp. However, we find those contentions unpersuasive of
error in the Examiner’s initial showing of proffered prima facie case.
However, since we agree with at least one of Appellants’ arguments,
we reverse the anticipation rejection of claims 1-4, 6, 7, and 9.

35 U.S.C. § 103(a) Rejection
We next consider the Examiner’s rejection of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Takahashi in view of Chaudhry.
Since the rejection of dependent claim 8 contains the same deficiency
already noted and the Examiner has not identified how Chaudhry remedies
the noted deficiency, we can not sustain the obviousness rejection of claim
8.

Appeal 2008-004831
Application 10/967,746

8
VI. CONCLUSION
For the aforementioned reasons, we conclude that Appellants have
shown that the Examiner erred in finding that Takahashi discloses that the
phase-controlled dimming circuit is within the structure of the lamp.

VII. DECISION
In view of the foregoing discussion, we reverse the Examiner’s
rejections of claims 1-4 and 6-9.

REVERSED

msc

OSRAM SYLVANIA INC.
100 ENDICOTT STREET
DANVERS, MA 01923