Ex Parte Fang et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 26, 2017

13513654 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 26, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
13/513,654 06/14/2012 Yuhong Fang 2009P01626 WOUS 4853
138325 7590 04/28/2017
PHILIPS LIGHTING HOLDING B.V.
465 Columbus Avenue
Suite 330
Valhalla, NY 10595
EXAMINER
KIM, JAE K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2845
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/28/2017 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
j o. c angelosi @ 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 YUHONG FANG, ARUN GANESH, and GUANGYI LUO
Appeal 2016-005300
Application 13/513,6541
Technology Center 2800
Before ROMULO H. DELMENDO, KAREN M. HASTINGS, and
JAMES C. HOUSEL, Administrative Patent Judges.
PER CURIAM.
DECISION ON APPEAL
The Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Primary
Examiner’s final decision to reject claims 1, 4, 8—14, and 21.2 We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 The Applicants (hereinafter “Appellants”) state that the real party in
interest is “Koninklijke Philips N.V.” (Appeal Brief filed on July 13, 2015,
hereinafter “Appeal Br.,” 2).
2 Appeal Br. 4—19; Reply Brief filed on April 25, 2016, hereinafter “Reply
Br.,” 3—11; Final Office Action (notice emailed on January 20, 2015),
hereinafter “Final Act.,” 2—10; Examiner’s Answer (notice emailed on
February 25, 2016), hereinafter “Ans.,” 2—9.
Appeal 2016-005300
Application 13/513,654
BACKGROUND
The subject matter on appeal relates to an electronic ballast to provide
power to a lamp, wherein the ballast decreases its output power when its
temperature exceeds a threshold, thus protecting the ballast from high
temperature while keeping the lamp on but at a reduced light output
(Specification, hereinafter “Spec.,” 1,11. 5—9; 5,11. 6—11). Representative
claim 1 is reproduced from page 2 of the Appeal Brief (Claims Appendix)
(emphasis added), as follows:
1. An electronic ballast operably connected to provide power
to a lamp, the electronic ballast comprising:
a PFC converter operable to receive a PFC input voltage
and operable to provide a DC bus voltage on a DC bus;
a DC/AC converter operable to receive the DC bus voltage
from the DC bus and to provide AC power to the lamp at an AC
output frequency; and
a compensator responsive to an electronic ballast
condition parameter, the compensator being operable to provide
a compensator signal to at least one of the PFC converter and the
DC/AC converter;
wherein the at least one of the PFC converter and the
DC/AC converter is responsive to the compensator signal to
reduce the power to the lamp when the electronic ballast
condition parameter passes an electronic ballast condition
parameter threshold,
wherein the electronic ballast condition parameter is the
electronic ballast temperature, the compensator signal is a DC
bus adjust signal, and the PFC converter is responsive to the DC
bus adjust signal to reduce the DC bus voltage when the
electronic ballast temperature is greater than a threshold
electronic ballast temperature.
2
Appeal 2016-005300
Application 13/513,654
REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
The Examiner rejected the claims as follows:3
I. Claim 234 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second
paragraph, as being indefinite;
II. Claims 1, 10, and 11 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as anticipated by Zhai et al.5 (hereinafter “Zhai”);
III. Claim 4 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Zhai in view of Ribarich6 (hereinafter
“Ribarich”);
IV. Claims 8 and 9 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
Zhai in view of Nerone7 (hereinafter “Nerone”);
V. Claims 12—14 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
Zhai in view of Ribarich and further in view of Nerone;
and
VI. Claim 21 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Zhai in
view of Alexandrov8 (hereafter “Alexandrov”).
(Final Act. 2—14; Ans. 2—9.)
3 Claims 3, 5, 22, 23 were indicated as including allowable subject matter
(Final Act. 8).
4 The Examiner withdrew the rejection of claim 13 under pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph (Ans. 2).
5 WO 2008/014632 Al, published on February 7, 2008.
6 US 2008/0054824 Al, published on March 6, 2008.
7 US 2009/0058302 Al, published on March 5, 2009.
8 US 2006/0006816 Al, published on January 12, 2006.
3
Appeal 2016-005300
Application 13/513,654
DISCUSSION
Rejection I
Claim 23 is rejected as indefinite because it depends from a canceled
claim (Final Act. 3).9 However, no arguments regarding the impropriety of
the rejection have been submitted by the Appellants. We therefore
summarily affirm the Examiner’s § 112 rejection of claim 23.
Rejection II
Claims 1,10, and 11 are rejected under § 102(b) over Zhai. We
address claims individually below only to the extent that they have been
argued separately within the meaning of 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). The
Appellants submit arguments traversing the § 102 rejection of claim 1 over
Zhai (Appeal Br. 8—13). For dependent claims 10 and 11, the Appellants
reiterate the arguments for claim 1 and merely cite the additional recitations
of claims 10 and 11 (id. at 13). Skeletal arguments or arguments merely
amounting to assertions that the references do not disclose or suggest certain
claim limitations are not arguments for separate patentability within the
meaning of 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). See In reLovin, 652 F.3d 1349,
1356—57 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Thus, the Appellants have not set forth
arguments for the separate patentability of claims 10 and 11, and we select
claim 1 as representative of the issues discussed below.
The dispositive issue on appeal is whether Appellants have identified
reversible error in the Examiner’s finding that Zhai discloses a ballast
including a PFC converter that “is responsive to the DC bus adjust signal to
9 The Appellants attempted to amend claim 23 via an after-Final claim
amendment submitted on April 1, 2015 so that claim 23 would instead
depend from claim 1. However, an Advisory Action issued on May 1,2015
stated the claim amendment was not entered.
4
Appeal 2016-005300
Application 13/513,654
reduce the DC bus voltage when the electronic ballast temperature is greater
than a threshold electronic ballast temperature,” as recited in claim 1. For
the reasons discussed below, we find the Appellants have not identified such
an error.
The Examiner finds Zhai discloses a power factor correction circuit 36
that functions as the PFC converter of claim 1, an inverter 38 that functions
as the DC/AC converter of claim 1, and a sensing and control circuit 40 that,
in combination with a compensator 62 disclosed by Zhai, functions as the
compensator of claim 1 (Final Act. 4).
The Appellants do not dispute the functions of the individual
components of Zhai’s ballast that have been cited by the Examiner. Rather,
the Appellants state that Zhai discloses an arc detection and prevention
circuit in which a sensing and control circuit 40 “senses and monitors an
input to inverter 38 and can cause a change in the input to the inverter by
adjusting, changing, or shutting down either the power factor control circuit
or the inverter circuit when the power (not temperature) going into the
inverter circuit is above a threshold” (Appeal Br. 9—10) (emphasis omitted).
The Appellants further state the temperature compensator 62 of Zhai, which
may include a negative temperature coefficient resistor, “adjusts the sensing
and control circuit 40 as a function of the temperature in the ballast” so “the
sensing and control circuit 40 is able to remain relatively immune to
temperature fluctuations” (id. at 10) (emphasis omitted).
The Appellants contend:
Although the disclosure of Zhai et al. describes using a negative
temperature coefficient resistor, nowhere does Zhai et al.
disclose that, as a result of that sensed temperature, the PFC
converter is responsive to the DC bus adjust signal to reduce the
DC bus voltage when the electronic ballast temperature is greater
5
Appeal 2016-005300
Application 13/513,654
than a threshold electronic ballast temperature,” as recited in
claim 1.
(Id. ) (emphasis omitted).
In response to the Appellants’ arguments, the Examiner explains the
Appellants argue a stricter (i.e., narrower) claim scope than what is present
in claim 1 because claim 1 recites the PFC converter is responsive to a DC
bus adjust signal “when” the ballast temperature is greater than a threshold
temperature, not “as a result of’ the ballast temperature being greater than
the threshold (Ans. 4). The Examiner finds the temperature compensator of
Zhai functions to allow the sensing and control circuit to be relatively
immune to fluctuations in ballast temperature when the ballast temperature
is greater than a threshold set by a circuit section in Figure 3 of Zhai (id.).
The Examiner finds the function of the temperature compensator 62 “is in
conjunction with and occurs at the same time (or ‘when’) Zhai’s
compensator signal. . . adjusts the DC bus voltage from its PFC converter
(el. 36) to the DC/AC converter (el. 38)... to reduce power to the lamp or
reduce the DC bus voltage” (id.).
The Appellants respond to the Examiner’s findings and reasoning by
asserting the Examiner’s interpretation of “when” is overly broad, not in
view of the Appellants’ Specification, and without regard to the context of
claim 1 (Reply Br. 6—7). In particular, the Appellants contend the functions
of the temperature compensator 62 and the sensing and control circuit 40 are
two independent events that do not correspond to the cause and effect
relationship required by the language “the PFC converter is responsive to the
DC bus adjust signal to reduce the DC bus voltage when the electronic
6
Appeal 2016-005300
Application 13/513,654
ballast temperature is greater than a threshold electronic ballast temperature”
of claim 1 {id. at 7).
The Appellants’ arguments do not demonstrate that the Examiner’s
interpretation of claim 1 is unreasonable or that the ballast of Zhai would not
inherently function to issue a signal to the power factor correction circuit 36
to shutdown at the same time the temperature of Zhai’s ballast is high, which
results in the compensator 62 functioning to regulate the operation of the
sensing and control circuit 40. We agree with the Examiner that the
language of claim 1 does not require a cause and effect relationship between
a ballast temperature and a PFC converter being responsive to a DC bus
adjust signal to reduce a DC bus voltage. Rather, the language of claim 1,
particularly the term “when,” merely requires these conditions to occur at
the same time. For example, claim 1 encompasses the situation in which a
PFC converter is responsive to the DC bus adjust signal when a temperature
compensator (i.e., compensator 62 of Zhai) is already compensating for a
ballast temperature that is above a threshold electronic ballast temperature
(e.g., a temperature at which compensator 62 operates to regulate the
functioning of the sensing and control circuit 40).
Zhai describes such a situation. Zhai discloses that the sensing and
control circuit 40 monitors the input to the inverter 38 and causes a change
in input to the inverter 38 via an input to the power factor correction circuit
36 (Zhai 9,11. 18—23). Specifically, Zhai discloses that when the magnitude
of the input current is too high, the sensing and control circuit 40 issues a
signal to the power factor correction circuit 36 to turn off, which results in
the voltage available at the output of inverter 38 being reduced {id. at 10,11.
13—23). Zhai further discloses the compensator 62 adjusts the sensing and
7
Appeal 2016-005300
Application 13/513,654
control circuit 40 to compensate for environmental variations, such as
variations in temperature (Id. at 11,11. 15—19). Thus, when the ballast is at a
high temperature (i.e., above a threshold temperature), compensator 62
functions to adjust the functions of the sensing and control circuit 40. One
of ordinary skill in the art would understand from Zhai’s disclosure that the
sensing and control circuit 40 detects that an input current is too high and
issues a signal to the power factor correction circuit 36 while the
compensator 62 functions in this manner at a high ballast temperature.
Therefore, Zhai inherently discloses the limitations of claim 1. Moreover,
the Examiner finds Zhai discloses a ballast having the structure recited in
claim 1 and, for the reasons discussed above, these structures are capable of
performing the functions recited in claim 1.
For these reasons including those set forth by the Examiner, we
uphold the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1,10, and 11.
Rejection III
Regarding claim 4, the Examiner finds Zhai does not disclose, among
other things, that a PFC converter is further responsive to a DC bus adjust
signal when a PFC input voltage is less than a threshold PFC input voltage
(Final Act. 6). However, the Examiner finds Ribarich discloses such a
threshold and concludes it would have been obvious to include the threshold
in the ballast of Zhai “to prevent damage to components or unintended
extinguish of the lamp” (id.).
The Appellants contend Ribarich does not remedy the deficiencies of
Zhai because Ribarich discloses thresholds for “an under-voltage reset
threshold included by the VBUS pin and an IC start-up threshold (UVFO+)”
8
Appeal 2016-005300
Application 13/513,654
but not a threshold PFC input voltage, a DC bus adjust signal, or a PFC
converter responsive to a DC bus adjust signal (Appeal Br. 15).
The Examiner responds by finding Ribarich discloses a condition for
an input voltage, which would be the voltage from the input circuit 68 to the
power factor correction circuit 72 in Figure 3 of Zhai,10 decreasing to a value
that is too low and causing a near or below resonance shift, which Ribarich’s
method avoids (Ans. 8—9). In other words, the Examiner considers what the
combination of the disclosures of Zhai and Ribarich, taken as a whole,
would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re McLaughlin,
443 F.2d 1392, 1395 (CCPA 1971). Moreover, Ribarich supports the
Examiner’s findings and conclusion by disclosing an under-voltage reset
threshold for a VBUS pin to prevent hard switching that can damage half­
bridge switches or cause a lamp to extinguish (Ribarich 175).
The Appellants do not respond to the Examiner’s findings or
reasoning in the Examiner’s Answer, other than to respond to a comment
about the clarity of claim 4 and whether it is permissible to claim more than
one electronic ballast condition parameter (Reply Br. 9—10). Therefore, the
Appellants have not directed us to reversible error in the Examiner’s
rejection.
For these reasons, we uphold the Examiner’s rejection of claim 4.
Rejections IV VI
For claims 8, 9, and 21, the Appellants rely on the same arguments
offered for claim 1 and assert the additional subject matter recited in these
claims (Appeal Br. 16, 19). Because we did not find the arguments offered
10 Zhai 11,1. 28 to 12,1. 10.
9
Appeal 2016-005300
Application 13/513,654
for claim 1 persuasive, we also uphold the Examiner’s rejections of claims 8,
9, and 21 for the same reasons.
For independent claim 12, the Appellants reiterate the arguments
presented for claim 1 and contend Nerone does not cure the deficiencies of
Zhai (id. at 16—19). For the reasons set forth above, there are no deficiencies
in the rejection of claim 1 that require curing by Nerone. The Appellants
assert claims 13 and 14 are patentable for the same reasons as claim 12 and
for their additional recitations (id. at 19). We therefore uphold the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 12—14 for the same reasons as for the
rejection of claim 1.
SUMMARY
Rejections I—IV are affirmed. Therefore, the Examiner’s final
decision to reject claims 1, 4, 8—14, and 21 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)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
10