Ex Parte Wendt et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 29, 2016

12743820 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
121743,820 05/20/2010
138325 7590
PHILIPS LIGHTING BY
465 Columbus A venue
Suite 330
Valhalla, NY 10595
08/31/2016
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Matthias Wendt
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.
2007P01397WOUS 7089
EXAMINER
KUMAR, ANIL N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2174
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/31/2016 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):
kim.larocca@philips.com
jo.cangelosi@philips.com
Gigi.Miller@philips.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MATTHIAS WENDT,
SALVADOR EXPEDITO BO LEKO RIBAS, VOLKMAR SCHULZ, and
FELIX HENRIC GOVERT OGG
Appeal2015-003817
Application 12/743,820
Technology Center 2100
Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., ERIC B. CHEN, and
AARON W. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
CHEN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2015-003817
Application 12/743,820
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 20-23, 27-33, and 35-37. Claims 1-19, 24--26, and 34 have been
cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention relates to integration of an energy function into
a light management system for saving energy and monitoring energy
consumption. (Abstract.)
Claim 20 is exemplary, with disputed limitations in italics:
20. A light management system configured to execute one or
more of the plurality of lighting commands to control a lighting
system including one or more light fixtures, the plurality of lighting
commands including commands to tum on one or more light fixtures,
tum off one or more light fixtures, and alter an intensity of one or
more light fixtures to create a defined photometric effect, the system
compnsmg:
a memory for receiving energy information about energy
consumption of the light fixtures;
a controller including an energy function for determining, based
on at least the energy information, at least one scenario-adaptation for
facilitating reduction in the energy consumption of the lighting system
while substantially maintaining the defined photometric effect; and
the controller adapted for translating the scenario-adaptation
into one of the plurality of lighting commands;
wherein the energy function further determines the scenario-
adaptation based on settings of the light system;
wherein the scenario-adaptation results in adjustments of the
settings of the lighting system within calculated boundaries of the
photometric effects yielding a substantially similar photometric effect
and reducing the energy consumption of the light fixtures; and
wherein the settings include a description of lighting
atmosphere.
2
Appeal2015-003817
Application 12/743,820
Claims 20-23, 27-29, 31-33, 35, and 37 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Matsubara (US 2005/0096797 Al;
May 5, 2005) and Morgan (US 2004/0160199 Al; Aug. 19, 2004).
Claims 30 and 36 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Matsubara, Morgan, and Taffet (US 2007/0218428 Al;
Sept. 20, 2007). 1
ANALYSIS
We are unpersuaded by Appellants' arguments (App. Br. 3-7; see also
Reply Br. 3-5) that the combination of Matsubara and Morgan would not
have rendered obvious independent claim 20, which includes the limitation
"for facilitating reduction in the energy consumption of the lighting system
while substantially maintaining the defined photometric effect."
The Examiner found the claim limitation "for facilitating reduction in
the energy consumption of the lighting system while substantially
maintaining the defined photometric effect" reads on the building
administrator (BA) server of Matsubara, which communicates with a remote
control server to determine wasteful consumption. (Final Act. 3--4; see also
Ans. 12-13.) We agree with the Examiner.
Matsubara relates to "managing the energy consumed by units of a
facility such as a building based on an operational plan generated by the
system." (i-f l .) Matsubara discloses Building Energy Management System
(BEMS) center module 10, which manages energy for the building 190,
1 Appellants do not present any separate arguments with respect to the
rejections of dependent claims 30 and 36 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Thus,
any such arguments are deemed to be waived.
3
Appeal2015-003817
Application 12/743,820
including Building Automation (BA) server 102 (if 26; see also Fig. 1) with
remote control server 150 in communication with BA server 102 (if 27). In
one embodiment, Matsubara discloses that time and building area are
registered with server 150, such that "the remote control server 150 ...
determines that energy consumption by lighting devices is wasteful if a ratio
of lighting devices in operation exceeds a threshold." (if 59.) In another
embodiment for local control, Matsubara discloses that:
[ w ]hen the BA server 102 finds that a predetermined time has
elapsed, during which the operational ratio of PC's falls below a
predetermined value or the number of PC's is not more than a
predetermined value in an area, the BA server 102 controls to
tum off or reduce output of lighting devices so as to reduce
wasteful energy consumption.
(if 175.) Furthermore, Matsubara discloses that " [ o ]ne PC can be registered
for plural areas" which "will prevent inconvenience that a user who is
located between two lighting devices suffers from insufficient illuminance
when one light is turned off regardless of the operation of the PC." (Id.)
Thus, the claim limitation "for facilitating reduction in the energy
consumption of the lighting system" reads on remote control server 150 of
Matsubara, which determines wasteful energy consumption, such that BA
server 102 turns off or reduces the output of lighting devices if the number
of PC's falls below a predetermined value. Furthermore, the claim
limitation "while substantially maintaining the defined photometric effect"
reads on the disclosure of Matsubara that if one PC is registered to two
lighting devices, both lighting devices stay on as long as the PC is
operational. In other words, a user of a PC registered to two lighting devices
would experience "substantially ... the defined photometric effect" because
4
Appeal2015-003817
Application 12/743,820
both lighting devices remain on, while lighting devices registered to an
unused PC is turned off.
Appellants present a multiplicity of arguments, including the
following: (i) "Matsubara is merely turning lights off to meet such ratio and
not taking a defined photometric effect and maintaining such effect after
application of an energy function" (App. Br. 3); (ii) "Matsubara looks at the
operational ratio of PC's falling below a predetermined value in an area to
thereby either tum off or reduce the output of lighting device" (App. Br. 3-
4); (iii) "the addition of Morgan fails to aid in the lack of disclosure"
because "Morgan . .. simply seeks to maximize light while maintaining an
acceptable lifetime from the LED through modification of driving current"
(App. Br. 5); (iv) "such reasoning [for combining Matsubara and Morgan] is
discordant with the actual reference" because "[ m ]erely monitoring
conditions within a room is insufficient basis with which to suggest such
significant alternative technological subject matter" (App. Br. 6); (v)
"Para. [0163] of Matsubara actually discloses maintaining
'comfortableness' for setting temperatures of air conditioning" (Reply
Br. 3); and (vi) "Matsubara states that an individual user/PC may be
assigned to plural areas so that if that user is determined to be present,
multiple areas will be illuminated while other areas, where PCs are turned
off, are simply left dark" (Reply Br. 4). However, such arguments are
unpersuasive because the Examiner relied upon paragraph 17 5 of Matsubara
and Appellants merely provide a conclusory statement that the limitation
"for facilitating reduction in the energy consumption of the lighting system
while substantially maintaining the defined photometric effect" does not
read upon the cited paragraph.
5
Appeal2015-003817
Application 12/743,820
Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Matsubara
and Morgan would have rendered obvious independent claim 20, including
the limitation "for facilitating reduction in the energy consumption of the
lighting system while substantially maintaining the defined photometric
effect."
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a), as well as independent claims 32 and 37 commensurate
in scope and not argued separately. (App. Br. 7.) We also sustain the
rejection of dependent claims 21-23, 27-31, 33, 35 and 36 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a), not separately argued.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 20-23, 27-33 and 35-37 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)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
6