Ex Parte Grajcar

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 9, 2018

13676358 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 9, 2018)

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.
13/676,358 11/14/2012 Zdenko Grajcar 12-68 9934
107029 7590
Luke Dohmen
Once Innovations, Inc.
15255 23rd Avenue N
Plymouth, MN 55447
03/09/2018 EXAMINER
PHAM, THAI N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2844
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/09/2018 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 ZDENKO GRAJCAR
Appeal 2017-007234
Application 13/676,358
Technology Center 2800
Before JULIA HEANEY, BRIAN D. RANGE, and
JANE E. INGLESE, Administrative Patent Judges.
HEANEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL1
Appellant2 seeks our review pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1, 6—8, and 11—15 of Application
13/676,358. Final Act. 3—6. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 This Decision includes citations to the following documents:
Specification filed Nov. 14, 2012 (“Spec.”); Final Office Action dated Nov.
5, 2015 (“Final Act.”); Appeal Brief filed Sept. 1, 2016, as corrected on Oct.
25, 2016 (“Appeal Br.”); Examiner’s Answer dated Feb. 7, 2016 (“Ans.”),
and Reply Brief filed Apr. 6, 2017 (“Reply Br.”)
2 Appellant identifies Once Innovations, Inc. as the Applicant and the real
party in interest. Appeal. Br. 2.
Appeal 2017-007234
Application 13/676,358
BACKGROUND
The subject matter on appeal relates to a lighting circuit that provides
spectral shift control for dimmable AC LED lighting. Spec. 1. According to
an embodiment described in Appellant’s Specification, a circuit provides
selective current diversion to bypass a group of LEDs when AC input
excitation (e.g., dimming) is below a predetermined level. Spec. 3,11. 6—19;
44,11. 11—14. The bypass circuit reduces the effective forward turn-on
voltage of the lighting circuit. Id. at 46,11. 9—11. In a circuit that provides
different colors of LEDs in the LED groups, the color output may be capable
of shifting in response to the dimming level. Id. at 46,1. 30-47,1. 5.
Claim 1, the sole independent claim, is reproduced below with italics
indicating the limitation at issue in the Appeal Brief:
1. A light engine comprising:
a pair of input terminals adapted to receive a periodic
excitation voltage and receive a current, said current flowing in
response to the excitation voltage;
a first network wherein the first network includes a first
plurality of light emitting diodes (LEDs) arranged in series
connection to form a first current path, the first plurality of
LEDs having a first color characteristic;
a second network wherein the second network includes a
second plurality of light emitting diodes (LEDs) arranged in
series connection to form a second current path, the second
plurality of LEDs having a second color characteristic;
a transistor that selectively diverts current away from at
least one of the first and second networks of LEDs; and
wherein a color characteristic of the combined light
output of the first and second networks varies between the first
and the second color characteristics as a function of applied
electrical excitation.
App. Br. 8, Claims App.
2
Appeal 2017-007234
Application 13/676,358
DISCUSSION
Appellant argues only the rejection of claim 1 based on anticipation
by Blaut3 (Final Act. 3—4) and does not argue the rejections of dependent
claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on unpatentability over Blaut
combined with other references. Final Act. 6—9; Appeal Br. 5—6.
Accordingly, we discuss below only the rejection of claim 1; dependent
claims 6—8 and 11—15 stand or fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R.
§41.37(c)(l)(iv)(2013).
The Examiner finds that Blaut discloses a light engine comprising
each of the elements recited in claim 1. Final Act. 3—4, citing Blaut || 3—4,
30, Fig. 2. Specifically, the Examiner finds that Blaut’s disclosure of
adjusting color by “pulse width modulating each of FETs Ml, M2, and M3”
(Blaut 130) “where modulating, e.g., M3 to increase current through ‘B’
LEDs, diverts current away from ‘R’ and ‘G’ LEDs.” Final Act. 4. The
Examiner further finds that Blaut discloses the use of red, green, and blue
LEDs placed in proximity and behind a diffuser to enable a complete range
of colors by adjusting the relative intensity of the constituent LEDs, such as
by amplitude modulation or pulse width modulation. Id., citing Blaut || 3—
4.
Appellant argues that Blaut does not anticipate because it does not
teach “a transistor that selectively diverts current away from at least one of
the first and second networks of LEDs” as recited in claim 1, but rather
teaches use of the transistors Ml, M2, and M3 “for current reducing or
limiting purposes and not diverting current from a LED string 140.” Appeal
3 US 2010/0072903 Al; published Mar. 25, 2010 (“Blaut”).
3
Appeal 2017-007234
Application 13/676,358
Br. 5—6. Specifically, Appellant argues that each of Blauf s transistors Ml,
M2, and M3 is individually controlled by a pulse width modulator and that a
user toggles a controller for each specific color output, which is not
equivalent to “a transistor that selectively diverts current” as recited in claim
1. Appeal Br. 6, citing Blaut Fig. 1.
Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive of reversible error.
Appellant’s argument that Blaut does not teach utilizing a transistor to
selectively divert current is implicitly based on an interpretation that reads
the embodiment of Figure 40 of the Specification into the claims. See Reply
Br. 2. In determining an issue of claim construction, however, “the PTO
must give claims their broadest reasonable construction consistent with the
specification. . .. Therefore, we look to the specification to see if it provides
a definition for claim terms, but otherwise apply a broad interpretation.” In
re ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007). The
Examiner’s interpretation of the limitation “a transistor that selectively
diverts current away from at least one of the first and second networks of
LEDs,” as encompassing Blauf s circuit that uses a transistor (Ml, M2, or
M3) to increase current through one of the LED strings and thereby
selectively divert current from the other two, is consistent with the broadest
reasonable interpretation of the claim. Further, Appellant has not shown
error in the Examiner’s findings as to Blaut. Accordingly, we sustain the
rejection.
SUMMARY
We affirm the rejections of claims 1, 6—8, and 11—15.
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