Ex Parte Chobot

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 23, 2016

12968789 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 23, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/968,789 12/15/2010 Joseph Paul Chobot
65106 7590 08/25/2016
MYERS BIGEL & SIBLEY, PA
P.O. BOX 37428
RALEIGH, NC 27627
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.
5308-1309 3036
EXAMINER
PHAM, THAIN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2844
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/25/2016 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):
uspto@myersbigel.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JOSEPH PAUL CHOBOT
Appeal2014-005355
Application 12/968,789
Technology Center 2800
Before TERRY J. OWENS, BEYERL YA. FRANKLIN, and
MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judges.
OWENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1-32. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
The Invention
The Appellant claims a lighting apparatus and a method for
controlling a lighting circuit. Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A lighting apparatus comprising:
a lighting circuit comprising at least one light-emitting
device;
at least one current sense diode configured to generate a
forward voltage responsive to a current passing through the at
least one light-emitting device; and
a control circuit configured to control the lighting circuit
using the forward voltage as a current sense input.
Appeal2014-005355
Application 12/968,789
Tziony
Lin
The References
US 2010/0134018 Al
US 2011/0127919 Al
The Rejections
June 3, 2010
June 2, 2011
(filed Nov. 30, 2010)
The claims stand rejected as follows: claims 1-7, 9-14, 16-20
and 25-32 under 35 U.S.C. § 102( e) over Lin, claims 8, 15 and 21 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 over Lin in view of Tziony and claims 22-24 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 over Lin.
OPINION
We affirm the rejections.
The Appellant argues the claims as a group (Br. 5-8). 1 We therefore
limit our discussion to one claim, i.e., claim 1. Claims 2-32 stand or fall
with that claim. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2012).
Lin discloses a light emitting device (2) comprising a light emitting
module (20ii,) including a light emitting unit (21) and a control unit (23)
which controls the light emitting module (20A) in response to the voltage of
a detection terminal which is a connecting portion between the light emitting
module (20A)'s outlet connection terminal (C2) and the inlet connection
terminal (C 1) of a light emitting module (20B) having a light emitting
unit (diode 21) (iTiT 25-26; Fig. 2).
1 The Appellant's bald assertion that Lin does not disclose the limitations in
dependent claims 16, 22 and 25 (Br. 7-8) is not a substantive argument as to
the separate patentability of those claims. See In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349,
1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (Rule 41.37 "require[s] 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").
2
Appeal2014-005355
Application 12/968,789
The Appellant asserts that "the light emitting device 21 of the
module 20B is not used as a current sensor and the voltage at the junction
between terminals C 1 and C2 is not used as a current sense input" (Br. 7).
The Appellant does not point out, and it as not apparent, where Lin
indicates that light emitting module 20B' s light emitting unit (diode 21) does
not sense current. Regardless, the Appellant's claim 1 requires that the
lighting circuit is controlled using voltage as a current sense input, i.e., the
control is effected using voltage, not current. There appears to be no
difference between lighting circuit control using the voltage between the
Appellant's lighting device (lighting circuit 310) and current sense
diode (320) (Spec. i-f 56; Fig. 3) or the voltage between Lin's lighting
device (20A) and diode (light emitting device 20B's diode (21)) (i-f 26;
Fig. 2).2
"[W]hen the PTO shows sound basis for believing that the products of
the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of
showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 708 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
The Appellant has not carried that burden.
Accordingly, we affirm the rejections.
DECISION/ORDER
The rejections of claims 1-7, 9-14, 16-20 and 25-32 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) over Lin, claims 8, 15 and 21under35 U.S.C. § 103 over
Lin in view of Tziony and claims 22-24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Lin are
affirmed.
2 The Appellant's Specification states that "the current sense diode 320
generally may include any of a number of different types of diodes, both
light-emitting and non-light-emitting" (Spec. i-f 56).
3
Appeal2014-005355
Application 12/968,789
It is ordered that the Examiner's decision is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
4