Ex Parte van de Ven et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 10, 2018

12704730 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 10, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/704,730 02/12/2010
65106 7590
MYERS BIGEL, P.A.
P.O. BOX 37428
RALEIGH, NC 27627
09/12/2018
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Antony P. van de Ven
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.
5308- l 128IP 6817
EXAMINER
PHAM,THAIN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2844
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/12/2018 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):
uspto@myersbigel.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ANTONY P. VAN DE VEN,
GERALD H. NEGLEY, MICHAEL JAMES HARRIS,
PAUL KENNETH PICKARD, JOSEPH PAUL CHOBOT,
and TERRY GIVEN
Appeal2017-005505
Application 12/704,730 1
Technology Center 2800
Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, JEFFREY R. SNAY, and
MICHAEL G. McMANUS, Administrative Patent Judges.
HANLON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
A. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants filed an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from an Examiner's
decision finally rejecting claims 1, 3, 4, 7-9, 13-17, 22-25, and 29. 2 We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
1 The real party in interest is said to be Cree, Inc. Appeal Brief dated July 19, 2016
("App. Br."), at 1.
2 Claims 5, 6, 11, 18-21, and 26-28 are also pending. Claims 11 and 26-28 are
allowed. Claims 5, 6, and 18-21 are objected to as being dependent on a rejected
base claim but otherwise would be allowable if rewritten in independent form
Appeal2017-005505
Application 12/704,730
We REVERSE.
The claims on appeal are directed to a lighting apparatus comprising a string
of serially-connected light emitting devices and a bypass circuit, wherein the
bypass circuit is configured to, inter alia, bypass at least one light-emitting device
of the string of serially-connected light emitting devices based on a color point of
the at least one light emitting device. The Appellants disclose that "[t]he
chromaticity of a particular light source may be referred to as the 'color point' of
the source." Spec. ,r 48.
Claims 1, 13, 22, and 29 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1 is
reproduced below from the Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief.
1. A lighting apparatus comprising:
a string of serially-connected light emitting devices; and
a bypass circuit configured to bypass at least one light-emitting
device of the string of serially-connected light emitting devices based
on a color point of the at least one light emitting device, to sense a
current in the string and to individually vary a bypass current
conducted by the bypass circuit in proportion to the sensed current in
the string and concurrently responsive to a temperature sense signal.
App. Br. 12.
Similarly, claim 13 recites, in relevant part:
13. A lighting apparatus comprising:
a string of serially-connected light emitting devices; and
a bypass circuit coupled to first and second nodes of the string
and configured ... to individually variably partially bypass at least
one of the light-emitting devices based on a color point of the at least
one of the light emitting devices ....
App. Br. 14.
including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Final
Office Action dated March 11, 2016 ("Final Act."), at 23.
2
Appeal2017-005505
Application 12/704,730
Claim 22 recites an apparatus comprising, inter alia, "a variable resistance
circuit coupled to first and second nodes of the string of serially-connected light
emitting devices and configured to individually variably partially bypass at least
one of the light-emitting devices based on a color point of the at least one of the
light emitting devices." App. Br. 16. Finally, claim 29 recites a light apparatus
comprising, inter alia, "bypass means ... for controlling a color point of a string of
serially-connected light emitting devices through selective bypass of at least one of
the light emitting devices based on a color point of the at least one of the light
emitting devices." App. Br. 17.
The Examiner maintains the following rejections on appeal:
(1) claims 1, 3, 7, 8, 13-15, 22, and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) (pre-
AIA) as unpatentable over Tziony et al. 3 in view of Johnson et al. 4 and Shimizu et
al.;s
(2) claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over Tziony in view
of Johnson and Shimizu, and further in view of Hosoya; 6
(3) claims 9, 16, 17, 23, and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable
over Tziony in view of Johnson and Shimizu, and further in view of Bouchard; 7
and
(4) claim 29 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over Tziony in
view of Shimizu.
3 US 2010/0134018 Al, published June 3, 2010 ("Tziony").
4 US 2007/0257623 Al, published November 8, 2007 ("Johnson").
5 US 7,656,371 B2, issued February 2, 2010 ("Shimizu").
6 US 7,427,838 B2, issued September 23, 2008 ("Hosoya").
7 US 7,994,725 B2, issued August 9, 2011 ("Bouchard").
3
Appeal2017-005505
Application 12/704,730
B. DISCUSSION
As to claim 1, the Examiner finds Tziony discloses a lighting apparatus
comprising a string of serially-connected light emitting devices and a bypass
circuit configured to bypass at least one light emitting device of the string of
serially connected light emitting devices. Final Act. 3. The Examiner finds
Tziony discloses that the bypass circuit is configured to sense a current in the
string and vary a bypass current conducted by a bypass circuit in proportion to the
sensed current in the string. Final Act. 3. The Examiner, however, finds "Tziony
does not explicitly disclose a bypass circuit to bypass at least one light-emitting
device of the string of serially-connected light emitting device[ s] based on a color
point of the at least one light emitting device."8 Final Act. 4.
The Examiner finds Shimizu discloses a light emitting apparatus including
"a bypass circuit (which is [] variable constant current sources 2410) to bypass at
least one light-emitting device of the string of serially-connected light emitting
device[s] (which is red, green and blue LEDs 241, 242, and 243) based on a color
point of the at least one light emitting device." Final Act. 5 ( citing Shimizu Fig.
24; Shimizu, col. 3, 11. 33--43 and col. 38, 11. 47-63). The Examiner makes
substantially the same findings as to independent claims 13, 22, and 29. See Final
Act. 9, 13-14, 19-20.
The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art "to modify the bypass circuit as taught by Tziony with the bypass
8 The Examiner also finds "Tziony does not explicitly disclose individually vary a
bypass current conducted by a bypass circuit in proportion to the sensed current in
the string." Final Act. 3 (emphasis added). The Examiner finds Johnson teaches
that limitation. Final Act. 3--4. The Appellants argue that the Examiner's finding
is erroneous. App. Br. 6. It is not necessary to address the Appellants' argument
in view of our reversal on other grounds.
4
Appeal2017-005505
Application 12/704,730
circuit as taught by Shimizu to bypass at least one light-emitting device of the
string of serially-connected light emitting device[ s] based on a color point of the at
least one light emitting device in order [to] stably provide a desired chromaticity
and luminance and/or color rendering level." Final Act. 5 ( emphasis added); see
also Final Act. 10, 14, 20.
As to claim 1, the Appellants argue:
Shimizu does not teach or suggest anything about bypass circuits.
Rather, Shimizu describes driving separate LEDs of different colors
using separate current sources .... For example, the cited FIG. 24 of
Shimizu shows separate variable constant current sources 2410 that
drive respective different LEDs 241, 242, 243 of different colors that
are not serially connected. Therefore, Shimizu provides no teaching
regarding "a bypass circuit configured to bypass at least one light-
emitting device of the string of serially-connected light emitting
devices."
App. Br. 7 ( emphasis added). The Appellants argue that the rejections of claims
13, 22, and 29 are erroneous for at least that reason. App. Br. 7-8, 10-11.
The Appellants' argument is supported by the record. Shimizu Figure 24,
reproduced below, is a schematic view of a structure of a backlight.
5
Appeal2017-005505
Application 12/704,730
FlG,24
Upper part of Shimizu Figure 24 depicts
a control circuit of a backlight, and lower part of
Shimizu Figure 24 depicts a side view.
Shimizu discloses that red LED 241, green LED 242, and blue LED 243
are mounted on board 247. Shimizu discloses that LEDs 241,242, and 243 are
electrically connected to variable constant current sources 2410 via wire 249,
respectively. Shimizu does not disclose that the LEDs are serially-connected, as
found by the Examiner. Rather, Shimizu discloses that the LEDs are individually
driven using separate variable constant current sources. See Shimizu, col. 38, 11.
47---63; see also, e.g., Shimizu, col. 40, 11. 37--44 (disclosing that the drive current
values of the red LED are set at 10 mA, 15mA, 20mA, and 25mA and the drive
current values of the green and blue LEDs are adjusted); Shimizu Fig. 16.
6
Appeal2017-005505
Application 12/704,730
Referring to Shimizu Figure 1, the Examiner also finds that a bypass circuit
is "provided with a light output controller 500 to provide temperature
compensation for the fluctuation variation of light emission output." Ans. 7
( emphasis added). 9 The Appellants argue that "the operations of Shimizu's
controller 500 based on less fluctuation of the overall light output as a function of
time or temperature variation contain no mention of control operations based on
color point of one or more LEDs." Reply Br. 4 ( emphasis omitted). 10 In that
regard, the Examiner does not make any finding that correlates "fluctuation
variation" of a light emission output with the claimed "color point." See Spec. ,r 48
( describing "color point") Moreover, the Examiner does not direct us to any
disclosure in Shimizu to support a finding that the bypass circuit provided with
controller 500 bypasses at least one light-emitting device in a string of serially-
connected light-emitting devices as claimed. See Ans. 7 ( citing Shimizu, col. 1, 1.
41---col. 2, 1. 2); see also Reply Br. 4.
Based on the foregoing, there is no basis to conclude that it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Tziony' s bypass circuit, in
view of Shimizu, to bypass at least one light-emitting device in the string of
serially-connected light emitting devices based on a color point of the at least one
light emitting device, as recited in the claims on appeal. The Examiner does not
rely on Hosoya or Bouchard to cure the deficiencies in the obviousness rejections
of independent claims 1, 13, 22, and 29. See Final Act. 15-18. Therefore, the
obviousness rejections on appeal are not sustained.
9 Examiner's Answer dated December 19, 2016.
10 Reply Brief dated February 15, 2017.
7
Appeal2017-005505
Application 12/704,730
C. DECISION
The Examiner's decision is reversed.
REVERSED
8