SCHENK, Tim Corneel Wilhelmus. et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 4, 2020

2019003010 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 4, 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.
13/676,379 11/14/2012 Tim Corneel Wilhelmus SCHENK 2008P00102 US01 1058
138325 7590 06/04/2020
Signify Holding B.V.
465 Columbus Avenue
Suite 330
Valhalla, NY 10595
EXAMINER
JOHNSON, CHRISTINE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3697
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/04/2020 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):
Gigi.Miller@signify.com
jo.cangelosi@signify.com
kim.larocca@signify.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte TIM CORNEEL WILHELMUS SCHENK,
LORENZO FERI, and HONGMING YANG
Appeal 2019-003010
Application 13/676,379
Technology Center 3600
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, MAHSHID D. SAADAT, and
KRISTEN L. DROESCH, Administrative Patent Judges.
DROESCH, 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 rejecting claims 1, 8, 9, and 11–18. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42 (2017). Appellant indicates the real party-in-interest is
Philips Lighting Holding B.V. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2019-003010
Application 13/676,379

2

BACKGROUND
The disclosed invention relates to a method and system for controlling
the light output of a set of light sources, where the light output is modulated
by a modulation signal comprising individual information. See Spec. 1:2–7.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1, which is representative of the subject matter of the appeal
and is reproduced from the Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief, reads as
follows:
1. A method for controlling light emitted by a set of light
sources comprising:
at least one light source, wherein
said emitted light is modulated with a modulation signal,
said modulation signal carrying information related to the set of
light sources,
the method for controlling the light includes recurrently:
remotely detecting by a detector the light emitted by said
set of light sources;
extracting, from the modulation signal, the information
carried by the modulation signal;
determining, based on the extracted information, at least
one performance parameter of a light path extending
between the set of light sources and a position where the
remote detection takes place, by determining at least one of
signal-to-noise ratio of the light path and signal amplitude of
the modulation signal;
using said at least one performance parameter for
determining at least one quality measure by a controller; and
adjusting the modulation signal on basis of said at least
one quality measure by adjusting at least one of modulation
depth, frequency, and intensity of the modulation signal,
wherein the adjusting the modulation signal considers a
dimming level of the set of light sources and maintains the
dimming level.

Appeal 2019-003010
Application 13/676,379

3

REFERENCE
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Linnartz WO 2008/001262 A1 Jan. 3, 2008
REJECTION ON APPEAL
Claims 1, 8, 9, and 11–18 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Applicant Admitted Prior Art (AAPA) and
Linnartz. Final Act. 2–16.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments in the Brief and the Reply Brief, as well as the Examiner’s
Answer. We are persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. We highlight and
address specific findings and arguments below for emphasis.
The Examiner finds that AAPA teaches “adjusting the modulation
signal on basis of said at least one quality measure” as recited in claim 1,
based on the AAPA disclosure of adjusting power signals. See Final Act. 4;
Ans. 4. The Examiner finds that AAPA does not explicitly disclose
“wherein the adjusting the modulation signal considers a dimming level of
the set of light sources . . . ,” but relies on Linnartz for teaching this
limitation. See id. at 4–5. The Examiner determines that it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to
combine the teachings of AAPA with the disclosure of Linnartz regarding
modulating light emission of a lighting device to arrive at Applicant’s
claimed invention in order to create an adaptive lighting source and to
control the light emission of single LEDs by applying only a few sensors.
See id. at 5–6 (citing Linnartz 2:5–17, 3:5–7, 16:19).
Appeal 2019-003010
Application 13/676,379

4

Appellant argues that AAPA does not disclose that any modulation
signal is adjusted on the basis of a quality measure. See Appeal Br. 8.
According to Appellant, “the Office Action purports that the adjustment of
‘power signals’ disclosed in the background of the present application
constitutes the claimed adjustment of the modulation signal.” Id. (citing
Final Act. 4). Appellant further argues that Linnartz fails to cure the
deficiencies of AAPA. See id. at 9.
Appellant asserts that the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of
the Specification for “adjusting the modulation signal” as recited in claim 1
does not mean adjustment of the power signal. See Appeal Br. 8. Appellant
asserts that AAPA distinguishes between a modulation signal and a power
signal as follows: “the modulation signal carries the information content,
while the power signal provides the basic power that determines the light
intensity of the light source.” See id. (quoting Spec. 1:22–24); Reply Br. 4.
Appellant also points out that the Specification discloses: “by using the
modulation signal as a moderator rather than just adjusting the power
signal as in prior art, it is easier to modify the reliability without adversely
affecting light properties.” Appeal Br. 8 (quoting Spec. 3:23–25). Appellant
argues that the interpretation set forth in the Office Action is completely
opposite to the use of the claim terms in the Specification. See id.
In response, the Examiner provides the following additional
explanation:
Power drives light sources. A power signal is a light
source drive signal. There is only one signal driving any given
light source in this application. That is a power signal.
[] Generally speaking, light emitted by a light source
changes in intensity as its driving power (power signal) changes
in level. A power signal ‘includes’ or ‘carries’ information as
Appeal 2019-003010
Application 13/676,379

5

power level changes. (Changes are ‘signals’, change patterns
are symbols, symbols are information.) Light emitted by a light
source is modulated (changed) in accordance with changes in
power levels applied to the light source. Changes in emitted
light intensity (modulated light emission) project the
information the power signal carries as power level changes.
[] The power signal is the light modulation signal.
Ans. 3–4.
In the Reply Brief, Appellant points out that AAPA discloses that
drive signals include two components, namely a modulation signal and a
power signal. See Reply Br. 3 (quoting Spec. 1:21–24). Appellant further
points out that the Specification discloses the modulation signal is added at
the beginning of each power signal pulse and part of the power pulse signal
is removed. See id. at 4 (quoting Spec. 6:34–7:11). Appellant argues the
Examiner’s interpretation that modification of the power signal constitutes
the claimed modification of the modulation signal cannot be reasonable
because the Specification is diametrically opposed to the Examiner’s
interpretation. See id. In support of its argument, Appellant quotes portions
of the Specification disclosing: (1) adjusting properties of the modulation
signal based on quality, such as reliability, of the light output measurements
performed at the detector; (2) by adjusting the modulation signal instead of
adjusting the power signal, as in the prior art, it is easier to modify the
reliability of the light output without adversely affecting light properties; and
(3) adjusting the power signal will sometimes render no or little effect when
trying to improve the reliability of detecting the information carried by the
modulation signal. See id. at 4–5 (quoting Spec. 2:26–29, 3:23–4:2).
We agree with Appellant’s arguments. “During patent examination
the pending claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably
Appeal 2019-003010
Application 13/676,379

6

allow.” In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321 (Fed. Cir. 1989). The broadest
reasonable interpretation of the claims, however, must be consistent with the
Specification, and that claim language should be read in light of the
Specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.
See e.g., In re Cortright, 165 F.3d 1353, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 1999). In view of
Appellant’s Specification disclosing that each light source is driven by a
drive signal comprising a power signal and a modulation signal which
modulates the power signal (see Spec. 2:21–22, 6:30–33), we determine that
the broadest reasonable interpretation of adjusting a modulation signal does
not include adjusting a power signal. As Appellant points out, the
Specification discloses that a power signal is distinct from a modulation
signal, and the two signals are components of a drive signal. One with
ordinary skill in the art, when reading the claims in light of Appellant’s
Specification would not interpret a modulation signal as the same as, or
including, a power signal. Accordingly, we agree with Appellant that the
Examiner erred in finding that the AAPA disclosure of adjusting power
signals on the basis of overall light output does not teach or suggest
“adjusting the modulation signal on basis of said at least one quality
measure,” as recited in claim 1, and similarly recited in independent claims
11 and 13. As applied by the Examiner, the teachings of Linnartz do not
remedy the deficiencies of AAPA. See Final Act. 2–6; Ans. 3–4.
For the foregoing reasons, we are constrained to reverse the rejection
of independent claims 1, 11, and 13, and claims 8, 9, 12, and 14–18
dependent therefrom, as unpatentable over AAPA and Linnartz.
Appeal 2019-003010
Application 13/676,379

7

CONCLUSION
We reverse the rejection of claims 1, 8, 9, and 11–18 under pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over AAPA and Linnartz.
In summary:
Claims
Rejected 35 U.S.C. §
References/
Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 8, 9, 11–18 103(a) AAPA, Linnartz 1, 8, 9, 11–18

REVERSED