Ex Parte Morgan et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 16, 2012

11224683 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 16, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte FREDERICK M. MORGAN, BRIAN CHEMEL, COLIN
PIEPGRAS, TOMAS MOLLNOW, and MICHAEL K. BLACKWELL
____________________

Appeal 2009-012498
Application 11/224,683
Technology Center 2800
____________________

Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, ERIC S. FRAHM, and DAVID M.
KOHUT, Administrative Patent Judges.

MacDONALD, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2009-012498
Application 11/224,683

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Introduction
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of
claims 1-6, 9-13, 15, 17, 20-22, and 24-50. (App. Br. 4). We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Exemplary Claim
Exemplary independent claim 1 under appeal reads as follows:
1. An apparatus, comprising:
at least one user interface to facilitate control of a lighting network
including multiple LED-based lighting units for providing light in a
plurality of lighting zones, each lighting zone of the plurality of lighting
zones constituting a particular predefined unique area and/or
arrangement of at least some of the lighting units in a given
environment, at least one first lighting unit of the lighting network being
assigned to a first lighting zone of the plurality of lighting zones and at
least one second lighting unit of the lighting network not being assigned
to the first lighting zone and being assigned to a second lighting zone of
the plurality of lighting zones, the at least one first lighting unit: (i)
providing at least first radiation having a first spectrum and second
radiation having a second spectrum and (ii) comprising at least one
controller for independently controlling at least a first intensity of the
first radiation and a second intensity of the second radiation, wherein at
least a first light is provided in the first lighting zone, the first light being
perceived only as first essentially white light, and wherein at least a
second light is provided in the second lighting zone, the second light
being perceived only as second essentially white light, the user interface
comprising:
at least one color temperature control mechanism for varying a first
color temperature of the first light generated by the at least one first
lighting unit in the first lighting zone, and/or a second color temperature
of the second light provided in the second lighting zone, such that the
first color temperature and the second color temperature are different;
and
at least one zone select mechanism for selecting at least one
lighting zone of the plurality of lighting zones.

Appeal 2009-012498
Application 11/224,683

3
Rejection and Appellants’ Contentions1
Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Berman (US 7,148,632 B2)
because:
1. “Berman fails to teach, ‘the at least one first lighting unit ...
comprising at least one controller for independently controlling at
least a first intensity of the first radiation and a second intensity of
the second radiation,’ as recited in claim 1.” (App. Br. 14). 2
2. “Berman at best discloses that external computer 300 can be
temporarily coupled to central controller 700 and indirectly
coupled to lighting device 100A. Berman does not disclose that
external computer 300, in any way, could be included in lighting
device 100A and assigned to a ceiling.” (Reply Br. 4).
3. “Berman fails to teach, ‘the user interface comprising: at least one
color temperature control mechanism for varying a first color
temperature of the first light generated by the at least one first
lighting unit,’ as recited in claim 1.” (App. Br. 16).
4. Further:
Berman, at column 10, lines 46-50, discloses, "The
sliders 551, 552, and 553 are used to control the relative

1 Separate patentability is not argued for claims 2-6, 9-13, 15, 17, 20-22, and
24-50. While using an argument for patentability of a first claim as a cut-
and-paste argument for a second claim might outwardly appear to be a
separate argument for patentability of the second claim, such a cut-and-paste
argument is not in fact an argument for “separate patentability.”

2 Contentions 1 and 2 are not applicable to all the appealed claims as the
argued limitation (or a variation thereof) is not found in every appealed
claim.
Appeal 2009-012498
Application 11/224,683

4
intensities of the red, green and blue light, respectively,
emitted from the one or more lighting devices 100 that
provide the ceiling light (or sidewall light, in the case of
area 600)" (emphasis added). Accordingly, Berman at
best discloses a mechanism for varying the relative
intensities of the red, green, and blue light. As explained
in the Appeal Brief, varying the relative intensities of red,
green, and blue light does not necessarily vary a color
temperature. See Appeal Brief at 17 and 18.
(Reply Br. 6).

Issue on Appeal
Did the Examiner err in rejecting the claims as being anticipated
because Berman fails to describe the argued “controller for independently
controlling” and “color temperature control mechanism” limitations?

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
contentions that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants’
conclusions.
We adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the
Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and (2) the reasons
set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to
Appellants’ Appeal Brief. We concur with the conclusion reached by the
Examiner.
Particularly as to Appellants above contentions 1 and 2, we agree with
the Examiner that Berman teaches one first lighting unit, comprising at least
one controller for independently controlling. (Ans. 16). Contrary to
Appellants’ contention that Berman does not disclose that external computer
Appeal 2009-012498
Application 11/224,683

5
300 could be included in lighting device 100A; we conclude that, as alluded
to by Appellants, an artisan would have understood that Berman discloses
that external computer 300 can be temporarily coupled to central controller
700 and indirectly coupled to lighting device 100A to form the claimed
lighting unit.
Particularly as to Appellants above contentions 3 and 4, the
Appellants state that:
Color temperature essentially refers to a particular color content
or shade (e.g., reddish, bluish) of white light.
(Spec. ¶ [0017]). We agree with the Examiner’s analysis (Ans. 5 and 16-17)
that Berman (col. 8; ll. 8-39; col. 10; ll. 27-50) teaches a color temperature
control mechanism as claimed.

CONCLUSIONS
(1) The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 1-6, 9-13, 15, 17,
20-22, and 24-50 as being anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
(2) Claims 1-6, 9-13, 15, 17, 20-22, and 24-50 are not patentable.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-6, 9-13, 15, 17, 20-22, and
24-50 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)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED
tj