Roberts, John et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 23, 2020

14827007 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 23, 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.
14/827,007 08/14/2015 John Roberts 2294-113 9876
166620 7590 01/23/2020
IDEAL and Withrow + Terranova
106 Pinedale Springs Way
Cary, NC 27511
EXAMINER
CHAI, RAYMOND REI-YANG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2844
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/23/2020 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):
patents@wt-ip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JOHN ROBERTS and JAMES MCBRYDE
Appeal 2019-002218
Application 14/827,007
Technology Center 2800
BEFORE LINDA M. GAUDETTE, GEORGE C. BEST, and
JEFFREY W. ABRAHAM, Administrative Patent Judges.
GAUDETTE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL1
The Appellant2 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision finally rejecting claims 1–3 and 5–22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Kingsmill (US 2016/0127874 A1, published May 5, 2016)
in view of Henig (US 2011/0031897 A1, published Feb. 10, 2011),

1 This Decision includes citations to the following documents: Specification
filed Aug. 14, 2015 (“Spec.”); Final Office Action dated Mar. 22, 2018
(“Final”); Appeal Brief filed Oct. 19, 2018 (“Appeal Br.”); and Examiner’s
Answer dated Dec. 13, 2018 (“Ans.”). We also have considered the
arguments made in the Reply Brief filed Jan. 18, 2019.
2 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. The Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Cree,
Inc. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2019-002218
Application 14/827,007

2
Spaulding (US 2014/0168610 A1, published June 19, 2014) and Keränen
(US 2017/0134521 A1, published May 11, 2017).3
We AFFIRM.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The invention relates to lighting fixtures and systems. Spec. ¶ 1. “In
one embodiment, a lighting system includes a number of lighting fixtures
and a lighting management system.” Id. ¶ 41. The lighting fixtures may
include communication circuitry that allows detection of the proximal
presence of one or more mobile devices. Id. Upon detecting one or more
mobile devices, the lighting fixtures send a message to the lighting
management system. Id. The lighting management system determines if a
detected mobile device is associated with a settings profile and, if so,
facilitates the implementation of the desired settings, such as light output
settings for one or more lighting fixtures in the lighting system, or settings
for one or more networked speakers, media players, set top boxes,
appliances, HVAC systems, and the like. Id. ¶ 46. The lighting management
system includes processing circuitry, a memory, and communication
circuitry. Id. ¶ 55. The processing circuitry may be configured to execute
one or more instructions stored in the memory to provide the lighting
management system with certain functionality. Id. The communication
circuitry allows the lighting management system to communicate, either
wirelessly or otherwise, with the lighting fixtures in the lighting system or
with one or more additional devices. Id. For example, the lighting
management system may send a command to lighting fixtures instructing

3 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Appeal 2019-002218
Application 14/827,007

3
them to adjust light output based on the desired settings in the settings
profile. Id. ¶ 61.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A lighting management system comprising:
communications circuitry;
processing circuitry; and
a memory storing instructions, which, when executed by
the processing circuitry cause the lighting management system
to:
receive a message from a lighting fixture via the
communications circuitry, the message indicating a
proximal presence of a detected mobile device to the
lighting fixture and including mobile device distance
information describing a distance of the detected mobile
device relative to the lighting fixture;
determine if the detected mobile device is
associated with settings preferences indicating one or
more desired actions to be taken upon detection of the
proximal presence of the detected mobile device;
upon determining that the detected mobile device
is associated with the settings preferences indicating the
one or more desired actions to be taken upon detection of
the proximal presence of the detected mobile device,
send the associated settings preferences to one or more
devices; and
receive an acknowledgement message from the
one or more devices acknowledging execution of the one
or more desired actions.
Appeal Br. 12 (Claims Appendix).
Appeal 2019-002218
Application 14/827,007

4
OPINION
The Examiner rejected claims 1–3 and 5–22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Kingsmill, Henig, Spaulding, and Keränen. Final 2. For
the reasons stated in the Final Office Action, the Answer, and below, we
sustain the rejection.
Kingsmill discloses a lighting fixture that includes a transceiver, thus
allowing the lighting fixture to receive a wireless signal transmitted from a
mobile device, such as a smartphone. Kingsmill ¶ 33. The lighting fixture
sends a message to a server to report the detection of the mobile device. Id.
Upon receipt of the message, the server obtains a unique device identifier
and a unique outlet identifier associated with the lighting fixture. The server
thus knows that, at the current date and time, the mobile device has the
location identified by the outlet identifier associated with the lighting fixture.
Id. The server may have its own processor, application specific integrated
circuit, or other component that executes a server-side algorithm stored in a
memory. Id. ¶ 41. The server may retrieve a profile associated with the
device identifier of the mobile device. Id. ¶ 61. The server may activate a
television, music system, or other entertainment component, based on the
current location of the mobile device, and automatically select the
programming and/or music, based on the content preferences in the profile.
Id.
The Examiner found that Kingsmill discloses a light management
system as recited in claim 1 with the exceptions of a memory storing
instructions, which, when executed by the processing circuitry, cause
the lighting management system to: (1) receive a message from a lighting
fixture that includes information describing a distance of the detected
Appeal 2019-002218
Application 14/827,007

5
mobile device relative to the lighting fixture, (2) send settings preferences
associated with a detected mobile device to one or more devices, and
(3) receive an acknowledgement message from the one or more devices
acknowledging execution of one or more desired actions indicated by the
settings preferences. Final 3–5.
The Examiner relied on Henig for a teaching of a lighting
management system configured to receive a message from a lighting fixture
that includes information describing a distance of the detected mobile device
relative to the lighting fixture. Final 4. Henig discloses a lighting system
comprising a set of fixtures (e.g., luminaires, wall switches, etc.) and at least
one remote driver that collects information from a set of sensors and controls
and sets the output light level for each luminaire. Henig ¶ 17. “The lighting
system further comprises communications means to allow each fixture to
communicate with [a] control system. Such means can include direct wired
connections, or any other known communications means such as optical
fibers, wireless (radio frequency), ultrasonic, infrared, etc.” Id. ¶ 18. Henig
discloses obtaining distance measurements between fixtures, including
luminaires and other devices such as standalone sensors, via signal sources
and compatible detectors in the fixtures. Id. ¶¶ 31–32. The Examiner found
that the ordinary artisan at the time of the invention would have modified
Kingsmill’s lighting fixtures and mobile phone by including Henig’s sensors
or detectors in order to include in the message sent by the lighting fixtures to
the server a distance vector describing the relative distance between the
lighting fixture and the mobile phone in order to more precisely identify the
location of the mobile phone. Final 4 (citing Henig ¶¶ 33–34, Kingsmill
¶ 55).
Appeal 2019-002218
Application 14/827,007

6
The Examiner relied on Spaulding for a teaching of a lighting
management system configured to send settings preferences associated with
a detected mobile device to one or more devices. Spaulding discloses an
intelligent nodal lighting system that is controllable using a wireless
protocol, such as Wi-Fi. Spaulding ¶ 7. The system includes a controller
wirelessly connected to at least one intelligent node. Id. ¶ 12. The controller
includes a controller processor and a wireless transceiver that can be
connected to a wireless network. Id. The controller may be a mobile phone.
Id. “[E]ach light unit (or node) in the system may have its own independent
Wi-Fi address and may act independently upon commands from a wirelessly
connected controller.” Id. ¶ 7. “Each intelligent light node may contain a
CPU and memory for storing and interpreting commands from the controller
to achieve a desired light color, intensity, or quality.” Id. More specifically,
upon receiving scene settings from the controller, the lighting node’s
command interpretation module interprets and communicates these scene
settings to an output module, also located within the lighting node. Id. ¶ 14.
“The output module may be one or more lighting elements and may output
the desired color, intensity, and quality of light requested by the controller.”
Id. The Examiner found that an ordinary artisan at the time of the invention
would have configured Kingsmill’s lighting management system to send
settings preferences as taught by Spaulding, rather than a command to
perform an action based on the preferences, to a lighting fixture. Final 5. The
Examiner found that the ordinary artisan would have made such
modification to decentralize the lighting system and allow each fixture to
decide whether the action can be performed. Id. (citing Spaulding ¶ 10
(“[T]he lighting node may assess the controller commands and determine
Appeal 2019-002218
Application 14/827,007

7
whether the desired system settings are within the capabilities of the
individual lighting unit. . . . [T]he lighting node may intelligently calculate
and output the closest alternative settings if those requested by the controller
cannot be supported by the particular lighting unit.”)).
The Examiner relied on Keränen for a teaching of a communication
network configured to receive an acknowledgement message from the one or
more devices acknowledging execution of one or more desired actions
indicated by the settings preferences. Final 5. Keränen discloses a
communication network comprising at least first and second nodes. Keränen
¶ 36. The nodes may be configured to communicate wirelessly. Id. Keränen
describes an embodiment wherein the first node receives a single message
containing instructions to perform a plurality of actions. Id. ¶ 39. After
performing the plurality of actions, the first node may send an
acknowledgment message to the second node confirming that it has
performed all of the actions. Id. The Examiner found that the ordinary
artisan at the time of the invention would have configured Kingsmill’s
lighting management system to receive an acknowledgement message from
a device confirming that a desired action was completed as taught by
Keränen, thereby allowing the controller to display the current status of the
device and confirm implementation of the desired setting. Final 5.
The Appellant argues that the Examiner erred reversibly in (1) relying
on Keränen because Keränen is nonanalogous art, and (2) finding that one of
ordinary skill in the art would have combined the teachings of Kingsmill,
Henig, Spaulding, and Keränen because the references address different
problems. See generally Appeal Br. 5–10.
Appeal 2019-002218
Application 14/827,007

8
We turn first to the Appellant’s argument that Keränen is
nonanalogous art. A reference qualifies as prior art for an obviousness
analysis only when it is analogous to the claimed invention. Innovention
Toys, LLC v. MGA Entm’t, Inc., 637 F.3d 1314, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
(citing In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 658 (Fed. Cir. 1992)). As acknowledged by
the Appellant, see Appeal Br. 6, “[t]wo separate tests define the scope of
analogous prior art: (1) whether the art is from the same field of endeavor,
regardless of the problem addressed and, (2) if the reference is not within the
field of the inventor’s endeavor, whether the reference still is reasonably
pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved,” In
re Klein, 647 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (quoting In re Bigio, 381
F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004)).
The Appellant argues that the claimed invention “relates to a lighting
management system that sends . . . setting preferences to a device in order to
have the device execute an action without manual intervention.” Appeal Br.
6–7. The Appellant contends that Keränen is not in the same field of
endeavor as the claimed invention because it relates to “cellular networks,
where radio devices communicate via a RAN, and relates to sending
messages between the radio devices in a cellular network.” Id. at 6. The
Appellant argues that “the present invention address[es] problems associated
with adjusting light output settings with a portable device,” whereas
“Keränen addresses problems associated with message transmissions from
radio devices when the radio devices transition from a sleep mode, along
with latency and network utilization.” Id. (emphasis omitted). The Appellant
thus contends that Keränen also is not reasonably pertinent to the problem
faced by the present inventors. Id.
Appeal 2019-002218
Application 14/827,007

9
The Examiner contends that the Appellant has provided an overly
narrow definition of the field of the inventor’s endeavor as “a lighting
management system that sends the setting preference to a device in order to
have the device execute an action without manual intervention.” Ans. 4. The
Examiner contends the field of endeavor is a “communication network used
in a field of lighting applications.” Id. at 5. The Examiner thus maintains that
Keränen “is in the same field of endeavor as the present invention, as both
are related to a communication network used to transmit instructions and
acknowledgment messages.” Id.
Having considered the Examiner’s and the Appellant’s respective
positions in light of the evidence of record, we are not convinced of
reversible error in the Examiner’s finding that Keränen is analogous art. As
indicated by the Examiner, see Ans. 4, Keränen discloses that a cellular
radio communication network is merely an embodiment of the invention,
Keränen ¶ 34, which Keränen describes more broadly as “relat[ing] to a
method performed by a node in a communication network for sending or
receiving instructions to/from a second node in said network for performing
a plurality of actions,” id. ¶ 1. Keränen states expressly that “[t]he
communication network may be any communication network.” Id. ¶ 36 (“If
at least one of the first and second nodes 1 and 2 is a radio device, it may be
configured to communicate over its radio interface . . . .” (emphasis added)).
The present invention involves the use of a communications network to send
and receive settings and instructions for performing desired actions, see, e.g.,
id. ¶¶ 10, 12–13. Accordingly, at a minimum, Keränen is pertinent to a
problem with which the inventors were involved.
Appeal 2019-002218
Application 14/827,007

10
We turn next to the Appellant’s argument that the ordinary artisan
would not have combined Kingsmill, Henig, Spaulding, and Keränen
because the references address different problems. The Appellant argues that
“Kingsmill, Henig, Spaulding, and Keränen respectively address problems
associated with locating a smartphone, installing lighting systems,
centralized lighting systems, and cellular network signaling. . . . [O]ne
skilled in the art would not consult all four [references] . . . at the same
time.” Appeal Br. 10 (emphasis omitted). The Appellant’s arguments are not
persuasive because they fail to address and, therefore, do not identify error
in the Examiner’s fact finding and reasoning in determining that the ordinary
artisan would have combined the teachings of the references to achieve the
claimed invention. For example, the Appellant argues that “[t]here . . . is no
reason why one skilled in the art would combine a reference in the field
using GPS to determine the location of a device (Kingsmill) with a reference
relating to problems associated with installing lighting systems having a
large number of discrete components (Henig).” Appeal Br. 10 (emphasis
omitted). However, the Appellant does not address the Examiner’s reason as
to why the ordinary artisan would have modified Kingsmill’s lighting
fixtures and mobile phone by including Henig’s sensors or detectors, i.e., to
include in the message sent by a lighting fixture to the server a distance
vector describing the relative distance between the lighting fixture and the
mobile phone in order to more precisely identify the location of the mobile
phone, see Final 4.
In sum, for the reasons discussed above, in the Final Office Action,
and in the Answer, we are not persuaded of reversible error in the
Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness as to claim 1. Because the Appellant
Appeal 2019-002218
Application 14/827,007

11
does not make separate arguments in support of patentability of any
particular claim or claim grouping, we sustain the rejection as to all claims
subject to the rejection.
CONCLUSION
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–3, 5–22 103 Kingsmill, Henig,
Spaulding, Keränen
1–3, 5–22

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)(iv).
AFFIRMED