Hans-Peter Hauser et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 6, 2020

12676980 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Feb. 6, 2020)

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.
12/676,980 10/12/2011 Hans-Peter Hauser 016466-9019-US00 6704
23409 7590 02/06/2020
MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP (Mke)
100 E WISCONSIN AVENUE
SUITE 3300
MILWAUKEE, WI 53202
EXAMINER
LUONG, HENRY T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2844
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/06/2020 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):
mkeipdocket@michaelbest.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HANS-PETER HAUSER, MARCEL GRIESSMANN,
MARTIN BUSER, and URS ZELTNER
Appeal 2019-001803
Application 12/676,980
Technology Center 2800

Before JEFFREY B. ROBERTSON, JAMES C. HOUSEL, and JANE E.
INGLESE, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOUSEL, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 2, 4–19, 21, and 22.2 We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Bron Elektronik
AG. Appeal Br. 3.
2 Pending claims 3 and 20 are not rejected, but were objected to as being
dependent on a rejected base claim. Final Action dated February 8, 2018
(“Final Act.”) 14. These claims are not before us on appeal.
Appeal 2019-001803
Application 12/676,980

2
We REVERSE.3
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to color temperature control of flash units.
Claim 1, reproduced below from the Claims Appendix to the Appeal Brief,
is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A flash unit comprising:
a flash generator having at least one energy storage
element and at least two light source channels as well as
having at least two flash tubes, the flash tubes being
supplied with energy by the at least one energy storage
element via the light source channels;
an energy quantity control device configured to supply
each light source channel any desired energy quantity from a
minimum charge to a maximum charge of the at least one
energy storage element; and
a color temperature control device configured to vary an
average emitted color temperature for each light source
channel independently of the energy quantity supplied for
each light source channel by independently controlling times
of the flash discharges of the at least two flash tubes,
wherein the functions of all light source channels being fully
equivalent.
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art:
Name Reference Date
Orban US 4,287,453 Sept. 1, 1981
Aoki et al. (“Aoki”) US 5,485,201 Jan. 16, 1996

3 Our Decision additionally refers to the Specification (“Spec.”) filed Mar. 8,
2010, the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”) dated Oct. 30, 2018, and Appellant’s
Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”) filed Dec. 28, 2018.

Appeal 2019-001803
Application 12/676,980

3
REJECTIONS
The Examiner maintains, and Appellant requests our review of, the
following grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a):
1. Claims 1, 2, 4–17, 21, and 22 as unpatentable over Aoki; and
2. Claims 18 and 19 as unpatentable over Aoki in view of Orban.
OPINION
After review of the Examiner’s and Appellant’s opposing positions
and the appeal record before us, we determine that Appellant’s arguments
are sufficient to identify reversible error in the Examiner’s obviousness
rejections. In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Accordingly,
we reverse the stated rejections for substantially the reasons set forth in the
Appeal and Reply Briefs.
The Examiner has the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case
of obviousness based on an inherent or explicit disclosure of the claimed
subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 103. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445
(Fed. Cir. 1992) (“[T]he examiner bears the initial burden, on review of the
prior art or on any other ground, of presenting a prima facie case of
unpatentability”). To establish a prima facie case of obviousness, the
Examiner must show that each and every limitation of the claim is described
or suggested by the prior art or would have been obvious based on the
knowledge of those of ordinary skill in the art. In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071,
1074 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
The Examiner finds that Aoki teaches each element of claim 1, albeit
in different embodiments, such that the flash unit of claim 1 would have
been obvious over Aoki. Specifically, the Examiner finds that Aoki, Figure
74, teaches a flash unit comprising flash generator 770 having at least one
Appeal 2019-001803
Application 12/676,980

4
energy storage element 719, 779 supplying energy via at least two light
source channels S3, S4 to at least two flash tubes 710, 712. Final Act. 8. The
Examiner also finds that Aoki, Figure 74, teaches energy quantity control
device 730 configured to supply each light source channel any desired
energy quantity from a minimum to a maximum charge from energy storage
elements 719, 779. Id., citing Aoki 63:25–30. The Examiner acknowledges
that Aoki, Figure 74, does not explicitly teach a color temperature control
device configured to vary an average emitted color temperature for each
light source channel independently of the energy quantity supplied for each
light source channel by independently controlling times of the flash
discharges of the flash tubes, wherein the functions of all light source
channels are fully equivalent. Id. at 9. However, the Examiner finds that
Aoki teaches, in a different embodiment, controlling means 530 for
determining ratios of quantities of light emitted from flash tubes 510, 512
such that light emitted from low color temperature flash tube 512 is
increased and light emitted from high color temperature flash tube 510 is
reduced when the color temperature of peripheral light is low. Id., citing
Aoki 39:45–60. The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious
to understand that varying the emission duration of emitted light
independently is essentially varying an average emitted color
temperature of a light since an average emitted color temperature
can be determined based on [a] duration of emission waveform
. . . and the color temperature balance over the total emission time
can be made optimal and color imbalance does not take place
under insufficient exposure conditions.
Id., additionally citing Aoki 36:40–50; Figs. 53, 54.
Appellant argues, inter alia, that the Examiner misinterprets Aoki.
Appeal Br. 9–11. In particular, Appellant contends that Aoki does not teach
Appeal 2019-001803
Application 12/676,980

5
independently controlling flash discharge times of the at least two tubes. Id.
at 9. Instead, Appellant asserts that Aoki teaches the only way to achieve the
desired color temperature averaged between two flash tubes is to modify the
emission duration of the respective tubes dependent on one another. Id. In
addition, Appellant contends that Aoki contradicts the Examiner’s
obviousness conclusion by expressly stating that the charge left in energy
storage element 419 might be too low for a second flash tube to emit light if
the first flash tube consumes a great quantity of charge before the second
tube is charged. Id., citing Aoki 39:50–59. Appellant further urges that Aoki
subdivides the emission duration of each tube into extremely short periods of
time and then alternately or simultaneously carries out emission. Id. at 10,
citing Aoki 36:43–47. Appellant contends, therefore, that “the emission
duration of one tube is still dependent on the other tube, whether the
emission for each tube is carried out in series, in parallel, or in an alternating
manner.” Id.
Appellant further argues that Aoki teaches that the average emitted
color temperature for each flash tube cannot be independent of the energy
quantity supplied. Appeal Br. 10. In particular, Appellant asserts that Aoki,
Figures 46, 53, 54, and 74, teach that the flash tubes are directly connected
to respective condensers via transistors, such that current flows to the flash
tubes “in direct accordance with the amount of charge stored in the
condenser[s].” Id. at 10–11. Appellant contends that this configuration
prevents varying color temperature independently of the energy quantity
supplied. Id.
Appellant’s arguments are persuasive of reversible error. Aoki teaches
a flash unit whose overall emitted color temperature can be varied, but does
Appeal 2019-001803
Application 12/676,980

6
so by controlling the energy supplied to each flash tube dependent upon each
other, based on preset control temperatures of the flash tubes. As Appellant
asserts, Aoki teaches a flash unit using a plurality of flash tubes of differing
light emission color temperatures, and varying the color temperature of the
flash unit by adjusting the light emission quantities of the tubes in a
dependent manner in order to match the color temperature of peripheral
light. See, e.g., Aoki 2:20–30; 2:35–48; 2:50–58; 3:30–36; 4:32–51;
particularly 36:40–42 (“since provision is made for a plurality of xenon
tubes which emit strobe lights having differing color temperatures”) and
39:46–49 (“the calculating/controlling means 530 determines the ratio of the
quantities of light emitted from the xenon tube 512, which has a low color
temperature, and the xenon tube 510, which has a high color temperature”).
In our view, these passages teach that color temperatures of the flash tubes
are not varied, but the light quantity emitted from each flash tube is varied
dependent on the color temperatures of the flash tubes to achieve a desired
overall color temperature of the emitted light from the flash unit. In addition,
these passages teach that the flash tube discharge times of each flash tube are
dependent on those of the other flash tubes in order to maintain the desired
overall color temperature of the emitted light from the flash unit. Thus, Aoki
does not vary an average emitted color temperature for each light source
channel, does not do so independently of the energy quantity supplied for
each light source channel, nor independently control the times of flash
discharges of the flash tubes as recited in claims 1 and 17.
Therefore, we are persuaded that the Examiner erred in finding that
Aoki teaches the flash unit of claim 1 and the method of claim 17. We note
that the Examiner does not rely on Orban to remedy the deficiencies in Aoki
Appeal 2019-001803
Application 12/676,980

7
discussed above. As such, the Examiner has not carried the burden of
establishing, by a preponderance of the evidence, the factual basis for the
conclusion that the claimed invention would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s
obviousness rejections of claims 1 and 17, and of dependent claims 2, 4–16,
18, 19, 21, and 22.
CONCLUSION
Upon consideration of the record, and for the reasons given above and
in the Appeal and Reply Briefs, the decision of the Examiner rejecting
claims 1, 2, 4–19, 21, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Aoki, alone or further in view of Orban, is reversed.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35
U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 4–17, 21,
22
103(a) Aoki 1, 2, 4–17,
21, 22
18, 19 103(a) Aoki, Orban 18, 19
Overall
Outcome
1, 2, 4–19,
21, 22

REVERSED