Ex Parte Pirschel

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 27, 2012

10549020 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 27, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
________________

Ex parte NILS PIRSCHEL
________________

Appeal 2009-010905
Application 10/549,020
Technology Center 2600
________________

Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, CARL W. WHITEHEAD, JR., and
BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, Administrative Patent Judges.

BAUMEISTER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2009-010905
Application 10/549,020

2
SUMMARY
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejections of claims 13-29:
(1) Claims 13-15, 17-23, and 27-29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over Norman et al. (US 5,426,429; issued June
20, 1995) in view of Kaku (US 2003/0117647 A1; published June 26,
2003).
(2) Claim 16 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Norman in view of Kaku and further in view of Satoh (US
2001/0038345 A1; published Nov. 8, 2001).
(3) Claims 24-26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Norman in view of Kaku and Nitzan (US 2004/0080433 A1;
published Apr. 29, 2004).
We affirm.

THE INVENTION
Appellant describes his invention as follows:
[A]n airport navigation light unit and an airport
navigation light system corresponding herewith, in which
complex states prevailing outside the airport navigation light
unit can also be detected simply and yet safely and reliably and
can be transmitted to a central communication unit
superordinate to the airport navigation light unit. In the event
that the airport navigation light unit is connected via a
transformer to a series power supply circuit, data transmission
Appeal 2009-010905
Application 10/549,020

3
should essentially be independent of the length of a spur line
from the transformer to the airport navigation light unit.
(Spec. 3:11-21).

CLAIMS 13-23 AND 25-29
Independent claim 13 is representative of the claims listed above1:
13. An Airport navigation light unit, comprising:
a base body;
connection elements arranged in the base body for
connecting supply lines;
a lighting device;
a sensor device;
a switching device; and
a communication device, the switching device and the
communication device connected to the connection elements,
wherein
the switching device is configured to be switched by the
communication device based on control signals transmitted to
the communication device via the supply lines for switching the
lighting device to the connection elements using the switching
device,

1 Although Appellant nominally argues claims 14-23 and 25-29 separately
from claim 13 (App. Br. 9-14), the arguments presented for claims 14-23
and 25-29 are substantially the same as those presented for claim 13.
Accordingly, we treat claims 13-23 and 25-29 as a single claim grouping,
and select claim 13 as representative of this group. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Appeal 2009-010905
Application 10/549,020

4
the sensor device is configured to detect a state prevailing
outside the airport navigation light unit and to transmit the
detected state in form of a raw signal to the communication
device,
the communication device is configured to evaluate the
raw signal, to generate a warning signal based on the evaluated
raw signal, and to feed the warning signal to the supply line,
and
the communication device is configured to transmit the
control signals and the warning signal via the supply lines in the
form of OFDM signals.
Appellant presents two arguments as to why the proposed
combination of Norman and Kaku is improper (App. Br. 6-8). Appellant
first contends that Norman does not disclose the features recited in claim 13,
“control signals transmitted to the communication device via the supply
lines” or “feed[ing] the warning signal to the supply line” (App. Br. 7-8).
Specifically, Appellant argues that the elements of Norman cited by the
Examiner as the claimed “communication device,” namely the concentrator,
loop computer, and the AE unit, receive control signals from the central
computer via cable or optical fiber, not from the supply lines (Reply Br. 3
(citing Norman, col. 4, ll. 58-62)).
Appellant’s first argument is not persuasive. The Examiner finds,
inter alia, that Norman’s modem 36 in Figure 4 receives control signals via
the supply lines (Ans. 19). The Examiner also finds that warning signals are
sent via the power supply lines (id., (citing Norman, col. 8, ll. 27-32)).
Review of Norman’s disclosure confirms that the modem “receiv[es] control
Appeal 2009-010905
Application 10/549,020

5
signals which are either carried on separate signals cables or are digital
signals superposed on the power cabling” (Norman, col. 6, ll. 41-43).
Norman additionally discloses that the modem feeds warning signals to the
power supply cables (Norman, col. 6, ll. 47-51 and col. 8, ll. 40-46).
Appellant next contends that the proposed combination of Norman
and Kaku is improper for lack of motivation (App. Br. 8). The Examiner
finds, though, that one would have been motivated to perform the power
supply line data transmissions using OFDM signals so as to remove any
intersymbol interference (Ans. 5 (citing Kaku, ¶ [0080])). The Examiner has
provided a reasoned rationale for the combination of Norman and Kaku that
Appellant has not persuasively rebutted.
For the reasons above, Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 13 as well as
claims 14-23 and 25-29, which are grouped with claim 13.

CLAIM 24
Appellant contends that Nitzan “does not appear to integrate [an
environmental characteristic] in a lighting system or light unit” (App. Br.
13).
The Examiner finds that Nitzan does disclose integration of
environmental temperature sensors into a runway lighting system (Ans. 11
(citing Nitzan, element 320 in Figure 6a)). The temperature sensor of Nitzan
Appeal 2009-010905
Application 10/549,020

6
is mounted onto the housing of an airport lighting assembly (Nitzan,
¶ [0051]).
For the above reasons, Appellant’s argument is not persuasive.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 24.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 13-29 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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2010).

AFFIRMED

rwk