Ex Parte Dixon

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 4, 2019

14102037 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 4, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/102,037 12/10/2013 Mark Edward Dixon
24112 7590 04/04/2019
COATS & BENNETT, PLLC
1400 Crescent Green, Suite 300
Cary, NC 27518
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.
7500-008/P2109US1 2201
EXAMINER
ALAEDDINI, BORNA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2844
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/04/2019 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MARK EDWARD DIXON
Appeal 2018-007 678
Application 14/102,037
Technology Center 2800
Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, KAREN M. HASTINGS, and
JANEE. INGLESE, Administrative Patent Judges.
INGLESE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 requests our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's decision to finally reject claims 1, 3-7, 10-16, 18, 19, and 24--
29. We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant claims a lighting apparatus (independent claim 1 ), a method
of operating a lighting device including a light source (independent claim
1 Appellant is the applicant, Cree, Inc., which, according to the Appeal Brief,
is the real party in interest. Appeal Brief filed April 19, 2018 ("App. Br."),
2.
Appeal 2018-007678
Application 14/102,037
12), and a solid state lighting apparatus (independent claim 19). App. Br. 2-
5. Independent claims 1 and 12 illustrate the subject matter on appeal and
are reproduced below with emphasis added to highlight contested subject
matter:
1. A lighting apparatus, comprising:
a light source;
an AC power input; and
an AC-DC converter having an input connected to the
AC power input and an output configured to
provide a DC voltage;
an AC detector having an input directly connected to an
input of the AC-DC converter and an output
configured to provide an indication whether AC
power at the AC power input is switched on or off;
a dimming control module connected to the output of the
AC detector and configured to generate a dimming
control signal operative to change a brightness
level of the light source from a first brightness
level to a second brightness level in response to
toggling of the AC power input within a
predetermined time after the power signal is
switched on;
a current supply module coupled to the dimming control
module and the light source and configured to
supply a level of current to the light source in
response the dimming control signal output by the
dimming control module; and
an energy storage element coupled to the current supply
module and configured to maintain a supply of
power to the current supply module while the
power signal is toggled.
12. A method of operating a lighting device including a light
source, compnsmg:
receiving a power signal at the lighting device;
2
Appeal 2018-007678
Application 14/102,037
changing a brightness level of the light source from a
first brightness level to a second brightness level in
response to toggling of the power signal;
controlling the brightness level of the light source in
response to toggling of the power signal and in
response to an external dimming control signal
provided to the lighting device, wherein the
external dimming control signal sets a baseline
maximum brightness level and the brightness level
of the light source is cycled through different
brightness levels up to the baseline maximum
brightness level set by the external dimming
control signal in response to toggling of the power
signal; and
maintaining a supply of power to the light source while
the power signal is toggled.
App. Br. 21, 23-24 (Claims Appendix) (emphasis added).
The Examiner sets forth the following rejections in the Final Office
Action entered January 23, 2018 ("Final Act."), and maintains the rejections
in the Examiner's Answer entered May 30, 2018 ("Ans."):
I. Claims 1, 3-5, 10, 11, 19, 24, 26, 28, and 29 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Liu2 in view of Zhou3;
II. Claims 6, 7, and 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Liu in view of Zhou and Hartmann4; and
III. Claims 12-16, 18, and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Liu in view of Hartmann.
2 Liu et al., US 2011/0109249 Al, published May 12, 2011 ("Liu").
3 Zhou et al., US 2013/0334980 Al, published December 19, 2013 ("Zhou").
4 Hartmann et al., US 2012/0242247 Al, published September 27, 2012
("Hartmann").
3
Appeal 2018-007678
Application 14/102,037
DISCUSSION
Upon consideration of the evidence relied upon in this appeal and
each of Appellant's contentions, we reverse the Examiner's rejections of
claims 1, 3-7, 10-16, 18, 19, and 24--29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, for the
reasons set forth in the Appeal Brief and below.
Rejections I and II
Claims 1 and 19 require the recited lighting apparatus to include a
dimming control module or circuit configured to generate a dimming or
brightness control signal in response to toggling of an AC power input
within a predetermined time after the power signal (AC input) is switched
on.
The Examiner finds that Liu discloses a lighting apparatus comprising
a dimming control module configured to generate a dimming control signal
operative to change a brightness level of LED lamp 110 from a first
brightness level to a second brightness level in response to toggling of
switch 98 (AC power input) in a set time span between two toggles, which
the Examiner asserts corresponds to toggling the switch 98 within a
predetermined time after the power signal is switched on, as recited in
claims 1 and 19. Final Act. 3--4 (citing Liu ,r,r 41, 47, 53, 57, Figs. 7, 8, and
9).
As Appellant correctly argues (App. Br. 8-10), however, the
Examiner does not identify any disclosure in Liu of generating a dimming or
brightness control signal in response to toggling of an AC power input
within a predetermined time after the power signal is switched on.
Liu discloses LED lamp 110 having a wall-switch controlled dimming
function. ,r 41. Liu discloses that LED lamp 110 includes toggle detector 74
4
Appeal 2018-007678
Application 14/102,037
that monitors the toggle action of wall switch 98, counter 96 that stores and
provides a counting value that changes when toggle detector 7 4 detects the
toggle action of wall switch 98, and LED lighting driver 80 that provides
multi-level dimming to LED light source 99 according to the counting value
provided by counter 96. ,r 41; Fig. 7. Liu discloses that a user can adjust the
dimming level of LED lamp 110 by turning off wall switch 98, and then
turning it back on and off consecutively (toggling the switch) within a
certain time period after switch 98 was initially turned off. ,r 4 7. Liu
discloses that if the user turns wall switch 98 back on after this initial time
period has passed, counter 96 loses its counting value, and the dimming
level of LED lamp 110 is reset to its initial level. Id. Thus, as Appellant
correctly argues (App. Br. 8-10), Liu discloses adjusting the dimming level
of LED lamp 110 by toggling switch 98 within a predetermined time after
switch 98 is turned off, rather than disclosing toggling of an AC power input
within a predetermined time after the power signal is switched on, as
required by claims 1 and 19.
In response to Appellant's arguments, the Examiner asserts in the
Answer that Appellant's arguments "are moot" because Appellant's
Specification does not indicate that toggling with a predetermined number of
seconds refers to toggling "after initially turning the switch on." Ans. 3--4
( emphasis omitted). The Examiner asserts that paragraph 51 of Appellant's
Specification defines "toggle" as "switch[ing] off and back on in close
succession within a predetermined number of seconds." Id. at 3 (emphasis
omitted). According to the Examiner, the Specification thus indicates that
"the toggling starts after a switch is 'switched off and then 'switched on'
again." Id. at 4 ( emphasis omitted).
5
Appeal 2018-007678
Application 14/102,037
Although paragraph 51 of Appellant's Specification does define
"toggle" as switching a line voltage off and back on in close succession
within a predetermined number of seconds, the plain language of claims 1
and 19 requires "toggling of the AC power input within a predetermined
time after the power signal is switched on." Thus, claims 1 and 19, when
read in view of the definition of "toggle" provided in the Specification,
require toggling the AC power input-switching it off and back on in close
succession within a predetermined number of seconds-within a
predetermined time after the power signal is switched on. Contrary to the
Examiner's assertion, claims 1 and 19 therefore require first switching a
power signal on, and then, within a predetermined time, switching the power
signal off and back on in close succession (toggling).
Because the Examiner does not identify any disclosure in Liu of
toggling an AC power input within a predetermined time after the power
signal is switched on as required by claims 1 and 19, and instead relies on
Liu' s disclosure of adjusting the dimming level of LED lamp 110 by
toggling switch 98 within a predetermined time after switch 98 is turned off,
we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1 and 19, and also
claims 3-7, 10, 11, 24, and 26-29, which each depend from either claim 1 or
claim 19, under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Rejection III
Independent claim 12 recites a method of operating a lighting device
including a light source that comprises, in part, controlling the brightness
level of the light source in response to an external dimming control signal
provided to the lighting device that sets a baseline maximum brightness
level.
6
Appeal 2018-007678
Application 14/102,037
The Examiner finds that Liu discloses a method of operating a
lighting device that includes a light source, but does not disclose controlling
the brightness level of the light source in response to an external dimming
control signal provided to the lighting device that sets a baseline maximum
brightness level, and the Examiner relies on Hartmann to address this
feature. Final Act. 11-12. The Examiner finds that Hartmann discloses an
LED lighting device that controls brightness in response to an external
dimming control signal provided to the lighting device. Final Act. 12 (citing
Hartmann ,r 30; Figs. 1 and 5). The Examiner finds that "it is well known in
the art of lighting to use multiple inputs such as a wall switch and a DALI
signal to define an operational range, e.g., a base line maximum or
minimum." Final Act. 12. The Examiner concludes that it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art "to incorporate the teachings of
Hartmann in the lighting apparatus of Liu" to remotely control Liu's lighting
apparatus, and "to set minimum or maximum intensity levels in order to save
energy and usage cost." Id.
On this appeal record, however, the Examiner does not provide a
sufficient factual basis to support the Examiner's conclusion of obviousness,
for reasons expressed by Appellant and discussed below.
Hartmann discloses a two-step method for controlling the operation of
an LED luminaire having a plurality of LED light sources. ,r 12. In the first
step, a control unit evaluates an electrical signal produced by a switch,
pushbutton, or dimming switch, which results from a user operating the
switch, pushbutton, or dimming switch. Id. In the second step, the control
unit varies the color spectrum of the LED luminaire as a function of the
evaluated signal. ,r,r 12, 22-26. Hartmann discloses that "[i]t is also feasible
7
Appeal 2018-007678
Application 14/102,037
for the control unit to also evaluate the signal for brightness control of the
LED lmninaire." ,r,r 17, 26. Hartmann discloses that the switch, pushbutton,
or dimming switch is connected to the control unit via an interface, and the
control unit can receive or transmit digital commands "in accordance with
the DALI Standard" via the interface. ,r,r 12, 19, 30.
Although the Examiner asserts----citing paragraph 30 and Figures 1
and 5 of Hartmann-that Hartmann discloses controlling the brightness of
Hartmann's LED luminaire in response to an external dimming control
signal (Final Act. 12), we find no such disclosure in the portions of
Hartmann cited by the Examiner. As Appellant points out (App. Br. 15-16),
and as discussed above, paragraph 30 of Hartmann discloses that the control
unit of Hartmann's luminaire can receive or transmit digital commands "in
accordance with the DALI Standard." The Examiner does not identify any
disclosure in Hartmann that indicates or would have suggested that such
digital commands constitute an external dimming control signal that sets a
baseline maximum brightness level, as recited in claim 12. And neither
Figure 1 nor Figure 5 of Hartmann discloses controlling the brightness of
Hartmann's LED luminaire in response to an external dimming control.
Rather, Figure 1 illustrates a method of adjusting the color temperature of
the light from Hartmann's LED luminaire, and Figure 5 illustrates an
exemplary LED luminaire. Therefore, the Examiner's assertion that
Hartmann discloses controlling the brightness of Hartmann's LED luminaire
in response to an external dimming control signal provided to the lighting
device is contrary to the actual disclosures in the portions of Hartmann relied
upon by the Examiner to support this finding.
8
Appeal 2018-007678
Application 14/102,037
In addition, although the Examiner asserts that "it is well known in the
art of lighting to use multiple inputs such as a wall switch and a DALI signal
to define an operational range, e.g., a base line maximum or minimum"
(Final Act. 12), Appellant challenges this apparent official notice, arguing
that the Examiner does "not provide any citation to prior art" to support this
assertion. App. Br. 16. 5 In response to this argument, the Examiner asserts
in the Answer that "DALI is a technical standard (specified by standards
IEC 62386 and IEC 60929) for controlling lighting in building automation
and dates back to early 1990s," and is commonly used by lighting
manufacturers in designing and manufacturing lighting devices. Ans. 6
(citing
https:// en. wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Addressable_Lighting_Interface ).
Although an Examiner may take official notice of technical facts
outside of the record to fill gaps that might exist in the evidentiary showing
necessary to satisfy the Examiner's burden of establishing prima facie
obviousness, such asserted technical facts must be "capable of such instant
and unquestionable demonstration as to defy dispute." In re Ahlert, 424
F.2d 1088, 1091 (CCPA 1970). "Assertions of technical facts in areas of
esoteric technology must always be supported by citation to some reference
work recognized as standard in the pertinent art ... [ a ]llegations concerning
5 Appellant indicates in the Appeal Brief that Appellant requested the
Examiner to provide evidence to support the Examiner's apparent official
notice in a Response filed September 19, 2017, but the "Examiner did not
address the assertion of Official Notice, did not provide any citation to prior
art, and simply repeated the bald assertion in the Final Office Action." App.
Br. 16.
9
Appeal 2018-007678
Application 14/102,037
specific 'knowledge' of the prior art, which might be peculiar to a particular
art should also be supported." Ahlert, 424 F.2d at 1091.
The Examiner's official notice in the Final Action that "it is well
known in the art of lighting to use multiple inputs such as a wall switch and
a DALI signal to define an operational range, e.g., a base line maximum or
minimum," although not denominated as such, is improper because methods
of operating a lighting device that involve controlling the brightness level of
a light source in the device concern facts in an esoteric technology, and
concern knowledge peculiar to that technology. Although the Examiner
provides a citation to a Wikipedia entry in the Answer to apparently support
the Examiner's official notice, this Wikipedia entry is not of record in the
present application, and the Examiner does not apply this Wikipedia entry as
a prior art reference in the present rejection. Ans. 6.
Consequently, the Examiner does not provide a sufficient factual basis
grounded in evidence of record to support the Examiner's conclusion that
the combined disclosures of Liu and Hartmann would have suggested a
method of operating a lighting device that comprises controlling the
brightness level of a light source in response to an external dimming control
signal that sets a baseline maximum brightness level, as recited in claim 12.
We accordingly do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 12, and
claims 13-16, 18, and 25, which each depend from claim 12, under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's rejections of claims 1, 3-7, 10-16, 18, 19,
and 24--29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
REVERSED
10