Ex Parte Pintert et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 20, 2017

13140041 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 20, 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.
13/140,041 06/16/2011 Robert Pintert 2008P01646WOUS 5679
24737 7590 04/24/2017
PTTTT TPS TNTFT T FfTTTAT PROPFRTY fr STANDARDS
EXAMINER
465 Columbus Avenue COX, THADDEUS B
Suite 340
Valhalla, NY 10595 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3735
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/24/2017 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):
marianne. fox @ philips, com
debbie.henn @philips .com
patti. demichele @ Philips, com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ROBERT PINTERT, ANKE SCHMEINK, and
CRISTINA BESCOS DEL CASTILLO
Appeal 2015-001514
Application 13/140,0411
Technology Center 3700
Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, and
BRUCE T. WIEDER, Administrative Patent Judges.
WIEDER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35U.S.C. § 134 from the final
rejection of claims 1—10 and 12—19. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellants’ claimed “invention relates to a system and a method for
increasing a degree of relaxation of a person [by controlling a light source].”
(Spec. 1,11. 2-3.)
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Koninkliike Philips
N.V. (Appeal Br. 1.)
Appeal 2015-001514
Application 13/140,041
Claims 1, 14, and 15 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1 is
illustrative. It recites (emphasis added):
1. A light control system for increasing a degree of relaxation
of a person, the system comprising:
a first physiological parameter determining unit for
determining a first physiological parameter of the person;
a reference parameter providing unit for providing a
reference parameter;
a correlation determining unit for determining a degree of
correlation between the first physiological parameter and the
reference parameter;
a controller for determining control information based on
the determined degree of correlation for controlling a light source
unit,
at least one sensing device being adapted to detect
infrastructural parameters related to an infrastructural
environment of the person in which the system operates, said
infrastructural parameters including at least one light source
device not controlled by the controller through the control
information,
wherein in a mode of operation of the system the control
information is adapted to control the light source unit by at least
one of:
dimming the light source unit and
changing a color of light of the light source unit to warmer
color tones having a lower color temperature when the degree of
correlation increases;
wherein the control information is further based on
configurable settings related to the infrastructural parameters,
physiological parameters, and preferences of the person.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1—6, 12, and 14—17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Lee (US 2007/0083079 Al, pub. Apr. 12, 2007) and
Sandu (WO 2008/090494 Al, pub. July 31, 2008).
2
Appeal 2015-001514
Application 13/140,041
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Lee, Sandu, and Vock (US 7,966,154 B2, iss. June 21, 2011).
Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Lee, Sandu, and Elliott (US 2005/0187426 Al, pub. Aug. 25, 2005).
Claims 9, 10, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Lee, Sandu, and Heruth (US 2005/0215847 Al, pub.
Sept. 29, 2005).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Lee, Sandu, Hwang (US 7,324,609 Bl, iss. Jan. 29, 2008), and Bruder
(US 5,634,469, iss. June 3, 1997).
ANALYSIS
The principal issue on appeal relates to the meaning of “infrastructural
parameters.” Appellants argue that “the term ‘infrastructural parameters’
relates to building characteristics,” and, thus, the “[sjtreet lamps, advertising
lights, and car lamps, as stated by Sandu and relied upon by the Examiner,
are not related to the ‘infrastructural environment.’” (Appeal Br. 8.2)
The Examiner finds that Sandu discloses “at least one sensing device
being adapted to detect infrastructural parameters related to an
infrastructural environment of the person in which the system operates, said
infrastructural parameters including at least one light source device not
controlled by the controller through the control information,” as recited in
claim 1. (Final Action 4—5, citing Sandu, 5,1. 27—6,1. 8; 13,11. 3—12.)
2 “Appeal Br” refers to the Revised Appeal Brief filed September 5, 2014.
3
Appeal 2015-001514
Application 13/140,041
Sandu discloses “a wake up stimulus control system.” (Sandu,
Abstract.) The controlled “stimulus is preferably light.” (Id.) Sandu
discloses that the system may “take into account a varying ambient stimulus
level. For example, ambient lighting may vary according to the type of
blinds, curtains etc., and to whether they are closed, fully closed etc. . . .
Other factors could include headlights of passing cars, street lamps,
advertising lights, and so on.” (Id. at 5,11. 27—33.) Sandu further discloses
that
[bjecause ... the sun adds light, the overall light level could
become either too high, causing premature waking up of the
sleeper, or at least show too quick an increase, the system being
designed to correct for this sunlight. It does this by measuring
the total light level with a sensor (not shown), and adapts the
power control of the controlled light source(s).
(Id. at 15,1. 32-16,1.2.)
Appellants argue that Sandu does not disclose “detecting
‘infrastructural parameters related to the infrastructural environment’ and ‘at
least one light source device not controlled by the controller, ’ as recited in
independent Claim 1.” (Appeal Br. 6—7.) Specifically, Appellants argue
that
Sandu states at page 13, lines 5—12 the following:
The light level may due [sic] to any combination of
lit lamps, such as the ceiling lamp 24 or bedlamps
26-1 and 26-2. Furthermore, there may be ambient
light from dawn or dusk, external lamps or lights et
cetera, none of which are shown in Figure 2.
Nevertheless, this light will also be measured by the
sensors 5-1 [sic] and 25-2, and the measured values
will be supplied to the control device 1. Said
[controll device can calculate how to control the
various light sources in order to achieve a
4
Appeal 2015-001514
Application 13/140,041
gradually increasing light level such that a sleeper
is awoken at a desired time, assuming the sleeper
awakes at a certain light level. (Emphasis added.)
According to this description of Sandu, the “various light
sources” controlled by the control device refers to all the light
sources identified in the paragraph, i.e., the ceiling lamp,
bedlamps, and external lamps and lights. Hence, one skilled in
the art would take Sandu’s description of controlling “various
light sources” to refer to all the light sources described in Sandu.
(Id. at 7, footnote omitted.) Appellants further argue that “the term
‘infrastructural parameters’ relates to building characteristics, such as room
acoustics, presence of audio devices, presence of light sources, wall color,
etc.” (Id. at 8.) Therefore, Appellants assert,
[sjtreet lamps, advertising lights, and car lamps, as stated by
Sandu and relied upon by the Examiner, are not related to the
“infrastructural environment,” as described in the present
disclosure (see, e.g., [Spec, at 12, 1. 16—13, 1. 27] and as
understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The term
“infrastructural environment” of the present disclosure relates to
a building or a room within a building (e.g., a bedroom, and not
to objects external to the building, such as street lamps,
advertising lights, and car lamps).
(Id.)
We are not persuaded of error. “Nowhere does Appellant define the
terms ‘infrastructural environment’ or ‘infrastructural parameters’ within the
specification. . . . [BJecause this term was not defined by Appellant, it is
given its broadest reasonable interpretation and not the extremely narrow
interpretation provided by Appellant.” (Answer 4.)
In relevant part, the Specification discloses “acoustical sensors like
microphones or light sensors like photocells, being adapted to detect the
infrastructural parameters related to the infrastructural environment of the
5
Appeal 2015-001514
Application 13/140,041
person in which the system operates.” (Spec. 4,11. 21—23.) Appellants point
to nothing in the Specification that would provide for the microphone to
discriminate between noise generated outside of the room that is heard inside
of the room and noise generated inside of the room or for the light sensor to
discriminate between light generated outside of the room that is seen inside
of the room and light generated inside of the room. In other words, one of
skill in the art would have understood from the Specification that
infrastructural parameters detected by the sensing device in the
infrastructural environment include noise and/or light generated outside of
the room.
Therefore, we are not persuaded that “[sjtreet lamps, advertising
lights, and car lamps, as stated by Sandu and relied upon by the Examiner,
are not related to the ‘infrastructural environment,’ as described in the
present disclosure.” (See Appeal Br. 8.) And, thus, we are also not
persuaded that the Examiner erred in finding that Sandu discloses “at least
one sensing device being adapted to detect infrastructural parameters related
to an infrastructural environment of the person in which the system operates,
said infrastructural parameters including at least one light source device not
controlled by the controller through the control information.” (See Final
Action 4—5.)
To the extent Appellants argue that Sandu discloses controlling all of
the light sources, including external sources (see Appeal Br. 7), we disagree.
Sandu discloses simply taking into account the light from such external
sources. (Sandu, 5,1. 33—6,1. 2 (“[FJactors could include headlights of
passing cars, street lamps, advertising lights, and so on. Thus, if the ambient
stimulus level is higher, the control unit. . . could set a lower power level, to
6
Appeal 2015-001514
Application 13/140,041
cause less additional stimulus and achieve a desired overall stimulus level,
and vice versa.”).)
For the reasons discussed above, we are not persuaded that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1. Independent claims 14 and 15 and
dependent claims 2—6, 12, 16, and 17 are not separately argued. Therefore,
they fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2013).
Dependent claims 7—10, 13, 18, and 19 are separately argued only to
the extent of arguing that the argued “deficiencies of Lee and Sandu” are not
addressed by the additional art cited in the respective rejections. (See
Appeal Br. 9—12.) Therefore, for the reasons discussed above, we are not
persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 7—10, 13, 18, and 19.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—10 and 12—19 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) are 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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
7