Ex Parte Boswinkel et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 27, 2018

14722972 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 27, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
141722,972 05/27/2015
65913 7590 03/29/2018
Intellectual Property and Licensing
NXPB.V.
411 East Plumeria Drive, MS41
SAN JOSE, CA 95134
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Hendrik Boswinkel
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.
81641512US03 6263
EXAMINER
LUONG, HENRY T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2844
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/29/2018 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):
ip.department.us@nxp.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HENDRIK BOSWINKEL and
LEENDERT VAN DEN BROEKE
Appeal2017-006718
Application 14/722,972
Technology Center 2800
Before DONNA M. PRAISS, MONTE T. SQUIRE, and
BRIAND. RANGE, Administrative Patent Judges.
PRAISS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL 1
Appellant2 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
final decision to reject claims 1-1 7.
1 In this decision, we refer to the Specification filed May 27, 2015 ("Spec."),
the Final Office Action dated Aug. 9, 2016 ("Final Act."), the Appeal Brief
filed Dec. 8, 2016 ("App. Br."), the Examiner's Answer dated Mar. 10, 2017
("Ans."), and the Reply Brief filed Mar. 21, 2017 ("Reply Br.").
2 Appellant is the Applicant, NXP B.V. Appellant does not state the real
party in interest in the Appeal Brief, accordingly, the real party in interest
may be assumed to be the named inventors. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(i).
Appeal2017-006718
Application 14/722,972
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
The subject matter on appeal relates to circuits and lighting units for
dimmable lighting applications. Spec. 1: 6-7. According to the
Specification, LED light sources are available to mimic the color
characteristics of an incandescent light by using a mixture of LED light
sources that emit a different spectral content of light. Id. at 1:22-29. The
Specification describes the desirability of providing a single driver circuit to
independently control the brightness (or dimming level) and color
temperature by changing the total current through the LED strings while
keeping the ratio of the currents constant for brightness and by changing the
ratio of the average currents between the two LED strings while keeping the
total current constant for tuning the color temperature (2700 K for warm
white and 6500 K for cool white). Id. at 2:1-26. Claim 1, the sole
independent claim pending, is illustrative (disputed matter italicized):
1. A circuit for dimmable lighting applications, the circuit
compnsmg:
a controllable current supply having a positive output and a
negative output and configured to supply current to at
most one of a first path and a second path, the first and
second path each comprising, in use, a series
arrangement of a switch and an LED string;
the first path switch and second path switch each having a
respective input, a respective output, and a respective
control terminal, the respective inputs being connected in
common to a one of the positive output and the negative
output of the controllable current supply, and an open/
closed switching status of each switch being selectable
by a respective switching signal at its respective control
terminal, wherein the second path switch control terminal
is electrically coupled to the first path switch output such
2
Appeal2017-006718
Application 14/722,972
that the second switching signal is inverted relative to the
first switching signal.
App. Br. 20 (Claims Appendix).
The Examiner maintains and Appellant appeals the following
rejections:
1. Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(l) as anticipated
by Grajcar; 3
2. Claims 3, 4, 9, 10, 12, 15, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Grajcar in view of Kunst; 4
3. Claims 7 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Grajcar
in view of Jheng; 5
4. Claims 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Grajcar and
Kunst in further view of Jheng;
5. Claims 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Grajcar and
Kunst in further view of Harris; 6 and
6. Claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Grajcar and
Kunst in further view ofWibben. 7
Ans. 2; App. Br. 4--18.
We address below each claim separately argued by Appellant.
3 Grajcar, US 2013/0187572 Al, pub. July 25, 2013.
4 Kunst et al., US 2012/0200229 Al, pub. Aug. 9, 2012 ("Kunst").
5 Jheng et al., US 2011/0101876 Al, pub. May 5, 2011 ("Jheng").
6 Harris et al, US 2014/0001972 Al, pub. Jan. 2, 2014 ("Harris").
7 Wibben et al., US 2011/0115407 Al, pub. May 19, 2011 ("Wibben").
3
Appeal2017-006718
Application 14/722,972
OPINION
Rejection 1: Anticipation by Grajcar
The Examiner finds that claims 1, 2, 5, 6, and 14 are anticipated by
Grajcar for the reasons stated on pages 4--5 of the Final Action and 2--4 of
the Answer.
Claim 1
Appellant does not separately argue the patentability of dependent
claims 2, 6, and 14, but relies upon their dependency from claim 1. App. Br.
8. In accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv), claims 2, 6, and 14 will
stand or fall together with independent claim 1 from which they depend.
Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 because
the Examiner's interpretation of "a controllable current supply" to be power
supply 101 disclosed by Grajcar is not reasonable or consistent with the
ordinary and customary meaning of the term. App. Br. 5. Appellant also
contends that Grajcar lacks positive and negative outputs of a controllable
current supply because Grajcar discloses an AC voltage source instead of the
claimed current supply. Id. Appellant additionally contends that Grajcar
fails to disclose a second switching signal that is inverted relative to the first
switching signal because Grajcar's Figure 5B illustrates currents having
different amplitudes. Id. at 6.
The Examiner responds that Appellant's Specification describes the
controllable current supply as comprising a power supply and that a
controllable current supply may be an AC/DC converter supplied from an
AC mains input. Ans. 2; Spec. 7:5-8, 10:30-31. The Examiner also finds
that Grajcar teaches an alternating current source (AC) 101 being a power
supply, AC line voltage, or the like, which is controllable since you can
control it on/off, and the AC voltage provides positive and negative half
4
Appeal2017-006718
Application 14/722,972
cycles as indicated by the symbol of the AC source 101. Ans. 2; Grajcar
i-f 25, Fig. 5A. The Examiner additionally finds that Grajcar discloses a
second switching signal is inverted relative to the first switching signal as
Grajcar's LED 509 and 511 alternately provided with a driving current and
one is turned off during a period when the other conducts current. Ans. 3;
Grajcar i-fi-1 61, 64, Fig. 5B. The Examiner additionally points out that claim
1 does not claim the structure of an inverter. Ans. 3.
In the Reply Brief, Appellant maintains that because Grajcar discloses
an AC voltage source, it does not anticipate the recited "controllable current
supply." Reply Br. 1. Appellant contends that the Examiner's interpretation
of "controllable current supply" is unreasonably broad because it redefines
current as a voltage. Id. at 2. Appellant asserts that a voltage supply will
control the current to a load, but it will fix the voltage to a specific value and
the output current will change, which is contrary to a controllable current
supply that will supply a desired current to a load even as the load varies.
Id. Appellant also contends that because Figure 5B of Grajcar shows
currents having different amplitudes, the reference fails to disclose a second
switching signal that is inverted relative to the first switching signal. Id.
We are not persuaded by Appellant's argument that the Examiner
reversibly erred in rejecting claim 1.
Appellant does not dispute the Examiner's finding (Ans. 2) that the
Specification describes a controllable current supply as comprising a power
supply and that a controllable current supply may be an AC/DC converter
supplied from an AC main input. Appellant concedes (Reply Br. 2) that a
voltage supply will control the current to a load. Appellant provides no
support in the Specification limiting the controllable current supply in terms
of changes to the output current as Appellant argues. Therefore, we find no
5
Appeal2017-006718
Application 14/722,972
error in the Examiner's interpretation of "controllable current supply" as the
Examiner's claim construction is consistent with the Specification.
We also find no error in the Examiner's finding that Grajcar discloses
the elements of claim 1. In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102, "[a]
single prior art reference that discloses, either expressly or inherently, each
limitation of a claim invalidates that claim by anticipation." Perricone v.
Medicis Pharm. Corp., 432 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citation
omitted). However, this is not an ipsissimis verbis test, i.e., identity of
terminology is not required. In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Appellant does not dispute that Grajcar discloses a controllable current
supply as that term is construed by the Examiner. Appellant also does not
dispute the Examiner's finding (Ans. 3) that Grajcar discloses LEDs 509 and
511 are alternately provided with a driving current. Appellant does not
adequately explain why the second switching signal of Grajcar is not in
essence inverted relative to the first switching signal in view of claim 1
omitting any structure of the inverter required by the claim. Appellant does
not direct us to any support for its argument (Reply Br. 3) that the current
amplitudes must match in order to meet the requirements of claim 1.
In sum, for the reasons stated above and in the Examiner's Answer,
we affirm the Examiner's rejection of claim 1 as anticipated by Grajcar.
Claim 5
Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 5 because
the diode recited in claim 5 cannot be seen as part of the LED string in claim
1 under the doctrine of claim differentiation.
The Examiner responds that although claim 1 recites an LED string, it
does not recite any structure of the string. Ans. 3. Therefore, claim 5, which
depends from claim 1 and further recites "wherein at least one of the first
6
Appeal2017-006718
Application 14/722,972
and second path further comprises: a diode in the series arrangement,"
further limits the circuit of claim 1. Id. at 4.
In the Reply Brief, Appellant further argues that "both the plain
meaning of this diode and its particular description in the specification
defines this diode separately from the LED string." Reply Br. 5. Appellant
also contends that "[a] person having ordinary skill in the art would not view
the claimed diode in the series arrangement as part of the LED string." Id.
We are not persuaded by Appellant's argument that the Examiner
reversibly erred in rejecting claim 5 because Appellant essentially seeks to
read in further limitations from the Specification into the claims. Neither
claim 1 nor claim 5 indicates that the diode recited in claim 5 is located
somewhere other than the LED string and Appellant does not provide any
support from the Specification further limiting the terms recited in the
claims. Limitations not appearing in the claims cannot be relied upon for
patentability. In re Self, 671F.2d1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982).
In sum, for the reasons stated above and in the Examiner's Answer,
we affirm the Examiner's rejection of claim 5 as anticipated by Grajcar.
Rejection 2: Obviousness over Grajcar and Kunst
The Examiner finds that claims 3, 4, 9, 10, 12, 15, and 16 would have
been obvious over the combination of Grajcar and Kunst for the reasons
stated on pages 6-9 of the Final Action and 4--5 of the Answer.
Claim 3
Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 3, which
depends from claim 1 and further recites "a voltage divider between the
positive output and the negative output of the controllable current source,"
because Kunst's resistors 38/40 are not equivalent to the claimed voltage
divider "because they are not located between the positive output and the
7
Appeal2017-006718
Application 14/722,972
negative output of a controllable current source." App. Br. 10 (emphasis
in original). Appellant asserts that Kunst's resistors 38/40 are located across
flyback transformer 22 and that the Examiner's application of Kunst's
teachings to Grajcar's AC voltage source are not supported by articulated
reasoning. Id.
The Examiner responds that Kunst's voltage divider circuit 38/40 is
connected across the positive (V's of transformer 22) output and negative
(ground f transformer 22) output of the controllable current source (which is
the flyback converter comprising the transformer) as shown in Figure 1 of
Kunst. Ans. 4. The Examiner provides a side by side comparison of
Kunst's Figure 1 with Appellant's Figure 5 to show similar structure with
Appellants controllable current source 505 with a flyback converter having a
transformer with its positive/negative output connected to a voltage divider
Rla/Rlb. Id. Regarding the combination of Kunst with Grajcar, the
Examiner responds that Grajcar discloses a controllable current source in the
form of a power supply and Kunst further teaches a voltage divider between
the positive/negative output of the controllable current source (A). Id. at 5.
In the Reply Brief, Appellant reiterates the arguments in its Appeal
Brief and further asserts that "the Examiner has erroneously used Kunst's
voltage source and fails to acknowledge that a voltage divider cannot be
used with a voltage source in the way claimed between two outputs of a
current source. Reply Br. 4.
We are not persuaded by Appellant's argument that the Examiner
reversibly erred in rejecting claim 3 because the Examiner provided a
sufficient basis for modifying Grajcar with Kunst's voltage divider, namely
that the divider provides a voltage signal syncing the LED switching to the
source. Final Act. 6 (citing Kunst i-f 44). To the extent that Appellant's
8
Appeal2017-006718
Application 14/722,972
argument is based on its assertion that Grajcar does not disclose a
controllable current source, we are not persuaded by those arguments as
discussed above in connection with claim 1. To the extent that Appellant
argues that Grajcar and Kunst cannot be physically combined, we find that
argument unpersuasive of error as well because "[ 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. . . . Rather, the test
is what the combined teachings of those references would have suggested to
those of ordinary skill in the art." In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA
1981 ).
In sum, for the reasons stated above and in the Examiner's Answer,
we affirm the Examiner's rejection of claim 3 as unpatentable over Grajcar
and Kunst.
Claim 16
Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 16, which
depends from claim 1 and further recites "wherein the controllable current
supply further comprises a recitifier, a filter, a power supply, and a LED
driver configured for flyback operation," because the cited elements in
Kunst's LED lighting system "cannot reasonably be regarded as components
of a controllable current supply as claimed." App. Br. 11 (emphasis in
original). Appellant asserts that claim 16 is allowable due to its dependency
from an allowable claim and that the Examiner has not articulated reasoning
to establish a prima facie case of obvious by applying Kunst's teachings to
Grajcar's AC voltage source. Id.
The Examiner responds that Grajcar teaches that the controllable
current supply can be a power supply or the like and Kunst's Figure 1 shows
9
Appeal2017-006718
Application 14/722,972
controllable current source (A) includes a filter, rectifier and flyback
operation, i.e. components of a controllable current supply. Ans. 5.
In the Reply Brief, Appellant reiterates its Appeal Brief arguments
and further asserts that "[t]he Examiner has unreasonably broadened the
scope of claim 16 by failing to address the plain meaning of 'controllable
current supply."' Reply Br. 6.
We are not persuaded by Appellant's argument that the Examiner
reversibly erred in rejecting claim 16 because the Examiner provided a
sufficient basis for modifying Grajcar with Kunst's controllable current
supply, namely that Kunst's setup allows controller 16 to sense secondary
side output voltage and reset transformer time. Final Act. 9 (citing Kunst
i-f 35). To the extent that Appellant's argument is based on its assertion that
Grajcar does not disclose a controllable current source, we are not persuaded
by those arguments as discussed above in connection with claim 1. To the
extent that Appellant argues that Grajcar and Kunst cannot be physically
combined, we find that argument unpersuasive of error as well because that
is not the test for obviousness. Keller, 642 F.2d at 425.
In sum, for the reasons stated above and in the Examiner's Answer,
we affirm the Examiner's rejection of claim 16 as unpatentable over Grajcar
and Kunst.
Claims 4, 9, 10, 12, and 15
Appellant relies upon the dependency of claims 4, 9, 10, 12, and 15 on
independent claim 1 asserting that the subsidiary reference does not cure the
deficiencies of Grajcar identified in connection with claim 1. App. Br. 12.
Because we do not find Appellant's arguments over claim 1 persuasive of
reversible error by the Examiner, we affirm the rejections of claims 11, 13,
and 17 for the same reasons discussed above in connection with claim 1.
10
Appeal2017-006718
Application 14/722,972
Rejection 3: Obviousness over Grajcar and Jheng
The Examiner finds that claims 7 and 8 would have been obvious over
the combination of Grajcar and Jheng for the reasons stated on pages 9--10
of the Final Action and 5---6 of the Answer.
Claim 8
Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in rejecting dependent claim
8, which further recites "wherein the blocking diode is a Schottky diode,"
because "Schottky diodes and Zener diodes are two different types of
diodes." App. Br. 14. According to Appellant, "Schottky diodes [have] a
small voltage drop compared to normal diodes, promoting their use for
voltage clamping, while Zener diodes undergo breakdown at a smaller
reverse voltage compared to normal diodes, promoting their use as voltage
regulators." Id.
The Examiner responds that Schottky and Zener diodes are both
semiconductor diodes operable in forward and reverse voltage bias and have
similar VI characteristic curves. Ans. 6 (including diagrams of Schottky and
Zener curves).
In the Reply Brief, Appellant reiterates its arguments from the Appeal
Brief and further argues that "these diodes are well known to have different
characteristics." Reply Br. 5.
We are not persuaded by Appellant's arguments because Appellant
does not dispute the common function of Schottky and Zener diodes found
by the Examiner and supported with similar VI characteristic curves. As
stated in KSR, "if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a
person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve
similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its
actual application is beyond his or her skill." KSR Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
11
Appeal2017-006718
Application 14/722,972
550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007). Thus, the preponderance of the evidence cited in
this appeal record supports the Examiner's rejection of claim 8.
Accordingly, for the above reasons and those stated in the Examiner's
Answer, we affirm the Examiner's rejection of claim 8 as unpatentable over
the combination of Grajcar and Jheng.
Claim 7
Appellant relies upon the dependency of claim 7 on independent claim
1 asserting that the subsidiary reference does not cure the deficiencies of
Grajcar identified in connection with claim 1. App. Br. 15. Because we do
not find Appellant's arguments over claim 1 persuasive of reversible error
by the Examiner, we affirm the rejection of claim 7 for the same reasons
discussed above in connection with claim 1.
Rejections 4-6: Claims 11, 13, and 17
The Examiner finds that claims 11, 13, and 17 would have been
obvious over the combination of Grajcar and Kunst in further view of the
cited secondary references for the reasons stated on pages 10-11 of the Final
Action.
Appellant relies upon the dependency of claims 11, 13, and 17 on
independent claim 1 in asserting that the subsidiary references do not cure
the deficiencies of Grajcar identified in connection with claim 1. App. Br.
16-18. Because we do find Appellant's arguments over claim 1 persuasive
of reversible error by the Examiner, we affirm the rejections of claims 11,
13, and 17 for the same reasons discussed above in connection with claim 1.
CONCLUSION
We affirm all of the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-17.
12
Appeal2017-006718
Application 14/722,972
DECISION
The Examiner's decision is affirmed.
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)(l ).
AFFIRMED
13