Ex Parte Shah et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 20, 2018

14439646 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 20, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/439,646 04/29/2015 Tanay Shah
24252 7590 11/20/2018
OSRAM SYLVANIA Inc.
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
2012P22006WOUS 2129
EXAMINER
200 Ballardvale Street CHAN, WEI
Wilmington, MA 01887
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2844
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/20/2018 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 TANA Y SHAH and ANIL JESW ANI
Appeal 2017-011587
Application 14/439,646
Technology Center 2800
Before TERRY J. OWENS, JENNIFERR. GUPTA, and
MICHAEL G. McMANUS, Administrative Patent Judges.
OWENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Applicant/ Appellant (OSRAM SYLVANIA Inc.) appeals under
35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-20. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
The Invention
The claims are to a light driver circuit, a method for using the light
driver circuit, and a lighting system comprising the light driver circuit.
Claims 1 and 7 are illustrative:
1. A method, comprising:
receiving input power at a light driver circuit comprising
a plurality of output channels, wherein the plurality of output
channels comprises a first output channel and a second output
channel;
Appeal 2017-011587
Application 14/439,646
setting an output current for at least a first output channel
and a second output channel in the plurality of output channels
by using a respective multi-pin header block, such that an
output current of the first output channel of the light driver
circuit is set by using a first multi-pin header block and an
output current of the second output channel of the light driver
circuit is set by using a second multi-pin header block; and
providing the output current of the first output channel to
a first light source and the output current of the second output
channel to a second light source.
7. A driver, comprising:
a first converter stage configured with a first output
channel to provide a current to a first light source; and
a first multi-pin header block configured to set the
current of the first output channel, comprising a plurality of first
pin-pairs, each capable of receiving a shunt connector.
Recknagel
Lys (Lys '352)
Lys (Lys '427)
Kim
The References
us 6,031,343
US 2005/0213352 Al
US 2007/0188427 Al
US 2010/0315012 Al
The Rejections
Feb.29,2000
Sept. 29, 2005
Aug. 16, 2007
Dec. 16, 2010
The claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as follows:
claims 1, 3, 5-8, 10, 12, 13, 15, 17, and 18 over Recknagel in view of
Lys '427; claims 2 and 9 over Recknagel in view of Lys '427 and Kim;
and claims 4, 11, 14, 16, 19, and 20 over Recknagel in view ofLys '427
and Lys '352.
OPINION
We reverse the rejections. We need address only the independent
claims, i.e., claims 1, 7, and 17. Claim 1 requires setting first and second
light driver output channel output currents by using, respectively, a first
2
Appeal 2017-011587
Application 14/439,646
multi-pin header block and a second multi-pin header block. Claim 7
requires a multi-pin header block which comprises a plurality of pin-pairs,
each capable of receiving a shunt connector, and is configured to set the
current of an output channel. Claim 17 requires first and second multi-pin
header blocks each comprising a plurality of pin-pairs, each pin-pair being
capable of receiving a shunt connector, at least one of a first output
channel's current and a second output channel's current being set by
installing and/ or removing one or more shunt connectors from at least one of
the first and second multi-pin header blocks. To meet the above-stated
requirements of claim 1 the Examiner relies upon Recknagel (Final Act. 7-
9). To meet the requirements of claims 7 and 17 the Examiner relies upon
the combined disclosures ofRecknagel and Lys '427 (Final Act. 10, 12, 13).
Recknagel discloses a bowling center decorative lighting system
comprising light modules (140) including a circuit board (30) inside a
housing (40) having a connection port (35) through which connector
pins (3 8) extend from the circuit board (30) ( col. 1, 11. 5-6; col. 4, 11. 31-32,
50-53). The connector pins (38) allow coupling of the housing (40) to a
plug (50) of a wiring cable (125) which extends from the opposite side of the
next light module (140) such that with a port (35) at one end and a
cable (125) with a plug (50) at the opposite end, the light modules (140) can
be serially coupled together to form a light string (130) (col. 4, 11. 53-55,
59---65; Figs. 1, 6). The port (35) alternatively can be a female port having
receptacles instead of being a male port having pins (38) (col. 4, 11. 55-58).
Lys '427 discloses a light module (100) circuit comprising a data
input pin (20) which provides data and power to a processor (16) (i-f 193;
Fig. 22).
3
Appeal 2017-011587
Application 14/439,646
The Examiner finds, regarding claims 1, 7, and 17, that Recknagel' s
ports (35) having connector pins (38) correspond to the Appellant's first and
second multi-pin header blocks (Final Act. 8, 10, 12). In support of that
finding the Examiner states that "[a]ccording to appellant['s] specification in
Paragraph [0007] 'The header block may include any number of pin pairs,
with each pin pair configured to be capable of receiving' and 'multi-pin
header blocks' as recited in claim 1" (Ans. 10).
The Examiner omits a relevant portion of that Specification
disclosure. The complete disclosure is: "The header block may include any
number of pin pairs, with each pin pair configured to be capable of
receiving, and in some embodiments to receive, a shunt connector"
(Spec. ,r 7). 1 The Examiner does not establish that Recknagel's connector
pins (38) are capable of receiving a shunt connector. The Examiner finds
that Rl-R3 in Lys '427's Figure 22 are shunt connectors (Final Act. 10, 13),
but the Examiner does not establish that Lys '427's Rl-R3, which appear to
be resistors, are shunt connectors. Nor does the Examiner establish that
Lys '427 would have provided one of ordinary skill in the art with an
apparent reason to connect together the connector pins (3 8) within
Recknagel's connection ports (35). See KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
550 U.S. 398,418 (2007) (establishing a prima facie case of obviousness
requires an apparent reason to modify the prior art as proposed by the
examiner).
Moreover, the Appellant's claims 1 and 17 require that the first and
second multi-pin header blocks can set first and second output channel
1 The Appellant states that "shunted" means "connected together"
(Spec. ,r 8).
4
Appeal 2017-011587
Application 14/439,646
currents. The Examiner does not establish that Recknagel's connector
pins (38), which connect light modules (100) together to form a string of
light modules (100), are capable of setting first and second output channel
currents (col. 4, 11. 53-55, 62---65).
The Examiner concludes, regarding the Appellant's claims 7 and 1 7,
that "[i]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the
time the invention was made to modify Recknagel each capable [sic] of
receiving a shunt connector for [the] purpose of dissipate [sic] the high
electric current following [sic] through the load as disclosed by Lys ['427]
(Paragraph [0193]) (Final Act. 10, 13), but the Examiner does not point out
where that portion of Recknagel discloses dissipating high electric current
flowing through a load, let alone disclose using a shunt connector for that
high current flow dissipation.
Thus, the Examiner has not set forth a factual basis that is sufficient to
support a conclusion of obviousness of the Appellant's claimed invention.
See In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967) ("A rejection based on
section 103 clearly must rest on a factual basis, and these facts must be
interpreted without hindsight reconstruction of the invention from the prior
art"). Accordingly, we reverse the rejections.
DECISION
The rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 1, 3, 5-8, 10, 12,
13, 15, 17, and 18 over Recknagel in view ofLys '427; claims 2 and 9 over
Recknagel in view ofLys '427 and Kim; and claims 4, 11, 14, 16, 19, and 20
over Recknagel in view of Lys '427 and Lys '352 are reversed.
The Examiner's decision is reversed.
REVERSED
5