Ex Parte Maldonado

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 24, 2013

11745606 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 24, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte DAVID MALDONADO
____________________

Appeal 2011-0009021
Application 11/745,606
Technology Center 2800
____________________

Before JEAN R. HOMERE, ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, and JOHN A.
EVANS, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 The real party in interest is Appellant. (App Br. 2.)
Appeal 2011-000902
Application 11/745,606

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1, 2, 21, and 22.2 Claims 3-16 have been canceled.
Claims 17-20 and 23-31 have been withdrawn from consideration. (App. Br.
2.) We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appellant’s Invention
Appellant invented a solar powered lighting system removably and
lockably attached to a post or sign to enhance visibility of the sign at all
times. (Fig. 2, Abstr.) In particular, the lighting system includes a self-
calibrating control system that, inter alia, establishes a diurnal clock to
automatically turn the light on/off both after sunset and before sunrise.
(Spec. 3, ll. 5-19, Spec. 8, ll. 20-25.)
Illustrative Claim
Independent claim 1 further illustrates the invention. It reads as
follows:
1. A lighting system comprising:
a. a light source which may be focused upon multiple
targeted areas,
b. a clamp to removably and lockably attach the lighting
system to a support,
c. a photovoltaic energy collector,
d. a rechargeable battery having a state of charge, and

2 The Examiner withdrew the prior art rejection previously entered against
claim 21. (Ans. 3.) See infra notes 3 and 4.
Appeal 2011-000902
Application 11/745,606

3
e. a control system that 1) controls an electrical current
supplied to the light source through pulse width modulation and
2) establishes a diurnal clock that controls turning the light
source on and off and 3) controls the charging of the battery.

Prior Art Relied Upon
Foster US 5,539,627 Jul. 23, 1996
Arcadia US 5,564,816 Oct. 15, 1996
Chliwnyj US 5,924,784 Jul. 20, 1999
Stewart US 6,951,408 B2 Oct. 4, 2005

Rejections on Appeal
The Examiner rejects the claims on appeal as follows:
1. Claims 1, 2, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Chliwnyj and
Arcadia/Stewart.3
2. Claim 22 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Chliwnyj, Arcadia/Stewart,
and Foster.4

ANALYSIS
We consider Appellant’s arguments seriatim as they are presented in
the Appeal Brief, pages 2-10, and the Reply Brief, pages 1-2.

3 Because the Examiner withdrew the obviousness rejection previously
entered against claims 21, we will not reach the merit of the rejection of
claim 21 as well as that of claim 22 depending therefrom. (Ans. 3.)
4 Id.
Appeal 2011-000902
Application 11/745,606

4
Dispositive Issue: Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, did the Examiner err in
finding that the combination of Chliwnyj and Arcadia/Stewart teaches or
suggests a clamp to removably and lockably attach a lighting system to a
support, and a control system that establishes a diurnal clock for turning the
light source on and off, as recited in claim 1?

Appellant argues that the proffered combination does not teach or
suggest the disputed limitations emphasized above. (App. Br. 11-15; Reply
Br. 5-9.) In particular, Appellant argues Chliwnyj discloses keeping a
memorial illuminated day and night, establishing a diurnal clock for
controlling “on/off” periods of illumination. (App. Br. 4.) Similarly,
Appellant argues because both Arcadia and Stewart depend on the intensity
of the prevailing sunlight to switch the units between mutually exclusive
states, they do not cure the noted deficiencies of Chliwnyj. (Id. at 6.)
Further, Appellant argues because the Specification defines the term lock
and its derivatives as locked with a padlock or to fasten as with a lock, the
Examiner’s finding that Arcadia’s disclosure of bolts teaches a clamp to
removably and lockably attach the lighting system is in error. (App. Br. 5-6;
Reply Br. 1-2.) Therefore, Appellant submits that none of the suggested
combinations renders claim 1 unpatentable. (Id.)
In response, the Examiner finds that while Chliwnyj discloses a
microprocessor that establishes a diurnal clock by measuring the length of
days, it does not turn the light source on/off. However, Stewart and Arcadia
disclose a control system that establishes a diurnal clock to turn a light
source on/off depending on daylight conditions. (Ans. 7-8.) Further, the
Appeal 2011-000902
Application 11/745,606

5
Examiner finds Arcadia’s disclosure of using bolts to fasten an illuminated
cross over a tomb, and Stewart’s disclosure of using clamps to fasten a light
source to a tomb teach clamps to removably and lockably attach the light
source a support. (Ans. 9-10.)
Based upon our review of the record before us, we find no error with
the Examiner’s obviousness rejection regarding claim 1. We begin our
analysis by first considering the scope and meaning of the claim limitations
“diurnal clock” and “lockably” which must be given the broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with Appellant’s disclosure, as explained in In re
Morris:
[T]he PTO applies to the verbiage of the proposed claims the
broadest reasonable meaning of the words in their ordinary
usage as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in
the art, taking into account whatever enlightenment by way of
definitions or otherwise that may be afforded by the written
description contained in the applicant’s specification.

In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See also In re Zletz,
893 F.2d 319, 321 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (stating that “claims must be interpreted
as broadly as their terms reasonably allow.”). Our reviewing court further
states, “the ‘ordinary meaning’ of a claim term is its meaning to the ordinary
artisan after reading the entire patent.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d
1303, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc).
In particular, Appellant’s Specification states the following:
In one embodiment the system defines its own internal time of
day clock by sensing sunrise and / or sunset or both based upon
voltage measurements of the output of the solar panels. The
time of sunset (Tsunset) is determined when the voltage of the
solar panel falls below a trigger level. The time of the sunrise
Appeal 2011-000902
Application 11/745,606

6
(Tsunrise) is determined when the voltage level of the solar
panel exceeds a trigger level that would indicate the sun is
impinging on the solar panels. The difference between Tsunset
and Tsunrise is the length of the night Tnight.… Because of the
programming and sensing capabilities there is no need to set or
retain the actual time of day in the system memory. The system
can self-calibrate. This allows for a simplified multi-position
switch to be the user interface to program the system for
durations of time the lights should be on after sunset and before
sunrise.

(Spec. 8, l. 20-spec. 9, l. 3.) (emphasis added.)
A frame structure 201, 206, 207 and 208 is removably attached
to the existing signpost [of Figure 1]. The [s]tructure may be
locked to the post for security purpose using a typical padlock
attached through the hole 208 in the pin 207 attachment part.

(Spec. 5, ll. 3-6.)
We note that the relevant portions of Appellant’s Specification cited
above do not expressly define the terms “diurnal clock,” and “lockable.” We
therefore give the broadest reasonable interpretation to those terms
consistent with the Specification. Accordingly, we conclude that the “diurnal
clock,” as recited in the disputed limitations, pertains to an internal clock
that senses sunrise and/ or sunset based upon voltage measurements obtained
from the solar panels without having to retain an actual time in its memory.
Similarly, we conclude that the term “lockably,” as recited in the disputed
limitations, is an adverb indicating the capability of securely fastening a
light system to a signpost.5 While such secure fastening can be achieved
through the use of a padlock, it can alternatively be achieved through other

5 See also dictionary definitions provided by Appellant (Reply Br. 2) and the
Examiner. (Ans. 10.)
Appeal 2011-000902
Application 11/745,606

7
means as well. We therefore decline Appellant’s invitation to construe
lockable to include the use of a padlock.
Arcadia discloses an illuminated memorial assembly containing a
light source powered by solar panels whereby a control circuit included in
the light system distinguishes daylight conditions from night condition by
comparing the voltage of the solar panels to that of a threshold voltage. (Col.
6, l. 50- col. 7, l. 13.) Arcadia further discloses that the illuminated
memorial assembly can be fastened to a tomb via bolts in a pattern matching
the bolt aperture pattern on the mounting flange. (Col. 5, ll. 6-11.)
Similarly, Stewart discloses a cemetery monument illuminator containing an
electronic circuit for controlling the amount of energy to supply from solar
panels to a lamp attached thereto. In particular, the electronic circuit
includes a phototransistor that senses darkness or daylight to thereby provide
energy to the lamp as needed. (Col. 2, ll. 33-47.) The lighting system (i.e.,
the lamp, control circuit and solar panels) are fastened to a bottom surface
via a clamping mechanism. (Col. 2, ll. 23-27.)
Consistent with our claim construction above, we find that both
Arcadia’s and Stewart’s disclosures of a controller that senses darkness and
daylight either by comparing the voltage of solar panels coupled thereto with
a reference voltage or by using a phototransistor to thereby provide energy
to the light source attached thereto teach or suggest a diurnal clock that
controls turning the light source on/off. Similarly, because the both Arcadia
and Stewart disclose a mechanism for securely fastening a light source to a
support either by using bolts or a clamp, we find that the cited references
teach a clamp that is capable of securely fastening a lighting system to a sign
Appeal 2011-000902
Application 11/745,606

8
post. It follows that Appellant has not shown error in the Examiner rejection
of claim 1.
Regarding the rejection of claim 2, we find unpersuasive Appellant’s
argument that neither Stewart nor Arcadia teaches or suggests a self-
calibrating diurnal clock. (App. Br. 8-9.) As discussed above, because both
Arcadia and Stewart disclose a control circuit that automatically senses
daylight from darkness to decide whether or not to provide energy to the
lamp, the disclosed control circuits are self-calibrating. It follows Appellant
has not shown error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 2.

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 2 as set forth
above.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

msc