Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-14-01518/USCOURTS-ca13-14-01518-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Dwight C. Shaneour
Appellant

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

IN RE DWIGHT C. SHANEOUR

______________________ 

2014-1518

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Serial No. 

11/764,995.

______________________ 

Decided: January 8, 2015

______________________ 

THOMAS N. YOUNG, Young Basile Hanlon & MacFarlane P.C., of Troy, Michigan, for appellant. 

NATHAN K. KELLEY, Solicitor, United States Patent 

and Trademark Office, of Alexandria, Virginia, for appellee. With him on the brief were MONICA B. LATEEF and 

MICHAEL S. FORMAN, Associate Solicitors. 

______________________ 

Before PROST, Chief Judge, O’MALLEY, and TARANTO,

Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM. 

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board of the United 

States Patent and Trademark Office rejected Dwight 

Shaneour’s application for a patent—U.S. Patent ApplicaCase: 14-1518 Document: 33-2 Page: 1 Filed: 01/08/2015
 2 IN RE: SHANEOUR

tion No. 11/764,995 entitled “Remote Controlled Athletic 

Field Lighting System.” The application describes and 

claims a system of high-intensity light fixtures—as might 

be used to light a sports stadium—with each fixture 

associated with its own sensor that detects the light level, 

thereby allowing intensity adjustments at each fixture in 

order to achieve “substantially uniform light outputs.” 

J.A. 229. The patent examiner rejected all of Mr. Shaneour’s claims as obvious over U.S. Patent No. 7,635,958

(Miki) in light of U.S. Patent No. 6,960,892 (Loughrey), 

and the Board affirmed. Ex Parte Dwight C. Shaneour, 

No. 2011-013548, 2014 WL 651397 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 18, 

2014). 

Mr. Shaneour appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 141. We 

have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A). We 

affirm.

BACKGROUND

The ’995 application describes a lighting system that 

automatically corrects variations in light intensity levels 

between individual fixtures. J.A. 35. Claim 1 is representative of all claims on appeal. It reads:

1. A multiple fixture lighting system for an activity area such as an athletic field comprising:

at least one lighting fixture array disposed 

proximate the area to direct light onto the area;

said array comprising a plurality of fixtures 

containing high-intensity, electronically switchable ballasted lamps and being mounted on a support;

said array further comprising a plurality of 

multi-level output controls for said array wherein 

each output control is connected to at least one 

individual fixture and is capable of providing mulCase: 14-1518 Document: 33-2 Page: 2 Filed: 01/08/2015
IN RE: SHANEOUR 3

tiple operating output levels in relatively small 

output increments;

said array further comprising a plurality of 

light level sensors equal in number to the number 

of fixtures in the array wherein each sensor is associated with an individual fixture and capable of 

producing a signal related to the light level being 

produced at any given time by the lamp in said 

fixture;

a command center located proximate the area 

for selectively activating all of the fixtures in the 

array at selected nominal output levels within an 

available range of relatively large intensity increments; and

a logic system associated with the array and 

connected to receive individual fixture light output signals from said sensors and operative to adjust individual output controls in relatively small 

output increments between said nominal incremental levels as necessary to achieve substantially uniform light outputs from all of the fixtures in 

the array.

J.A. 229. Claims 7 and 9 further specify the use of ballasted arc lamps in the lighting system. J.A. 230–31. 

Figure 2 illustrates one embodiment of Mr. Shaneour’s invention:

Case: 14-1518 Document: 33-2 Page: 3 Filed: 01/08/2015
 4 IN RE: SHANEOUR

J.A. 74. It discloses a system of light fixtures attached to 

electronic ballasts (22) that function as dimmers. J.A. 38. 

Light intensity sensors (42, 44) measure the actual light 

intensity output of the fixtures and send the performance 

data to a logic box (30). J.A. 38–39. If the system detects 

a variation between the actual light output and a pre-set 

intensity level, the system directs the ballast to adjust the 

fixture’s output to achieve the desired level. J.A. 39–40. 

Case: 14-1518 Document: 33-2 Page: 4 Filed: 01/08/2015
IN RE: SHANEOUR 5

The Board relied on two prior-art references in affirming the examiner’s rejection for obviousness. The primary 

reference, Miki, claims a lighting system that, using light 

sensors that transmit light-output information to a command center, automatically corrects for variations in light 

intensities by comparing the actual light intensity against 

a pre-set target intensity. J.A. 362, col. 27, lines 50–52; 

J.A. 366, col. 35, lines 19–31. Miki’s Figure 7 illustrates a 

partial embodiment that discloses a one-to-one ratio of 

fixtures and light sensors: 

J.A. 344. Each light fixture is associated with a given 

light sensor, i.e., “illumination sampling portion” (122x, 

122y, 122z), that transmits information gathered by the 

sensor to the “illumination comparing device” (12). J.A. 

360, col. 24, lines 24–38.

Case: 14-1518 Document: 33-2 Page: 5 Filed: 01/08/2015
 6 IN RE: SHANEOUR

Because Miki does not teach using ballasted arc 

lamps in its lighting system, the Board also relied on

Loughrey, which discloses dimmable, networkable light 

fixtures whose light intensity may be individually manipulated or controlled. J.A. 321; J.A. 330, col. 1, lines 6–12. 

Loughrey teaches the use of ballasts (either remote or 

connected) to perform the dimming function, J.A. 335, col. 

12, lines 13–17, and discusses arc lamps as one potential 

light source, J.A. 331, col. 3, lines 48–52.

DISCUSSION

Whether a claim is invalid under 35 U.S.C § 103 for 

obviousness is a question of law based on underlying 

findings of fact. In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1316 (Fed. 

Cir. 2000). Factual inquiries relevant to this appeal 

include the scope and content of the prior art, differences 

between the prior art and the claim at issue, and whether 

the prior art is in the inventor’s field or pertinent to the 

problem the inventor was addressing. See In re Kubin, 

561 F.3d 1351, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2009); In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 

1320, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2004). We review the Board’s 

factual findings for substantial evidence, Gartside, 203 

F.3d at 1316, and its conclusion of obviousness, based on 

those facts, de novo, In re Sullivan, 498 F.3d 1345, 1350 

(Fed. Cir. 2007). 

Mr. Shaneour first challenges the Board’s determination that Miki is pertinent prior art. The obviousness 

determination requires indulging the assumption that a 

skilled artisan had knowledge of all prior art in the “field 

of endeavor” relevant to the claim. In re Antle, 444 F.2d 

1168, 1171–72 (CCPA 1971). Where prior art falls outside 

that field, it should still be considered if it is “reasonably 

pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was involved.” In re Wood, 599 F.2d 1032, 1036 

(CCPA 1979); Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1325. Here, substantial 

evidence supports the Board’s consideration of Miki. 

Case: 14-1518 Document: 33-2 Page: 6 Filed: 01/08/2015
IN RE: SHANEOUR 7

It is enough that the Miki reference falls within the 

relevant field of endeavor. Mr. Shaneour claims a “multiple fixture lighting system” that is “capable of providing 

multiple operating output levels.” J.A. 229. The Board 

did not err in classifying the invention within the field of 

“lighting control systems.” J.A. 5. And even if, as Mr. 

Shaneour urges, we were to read the preamble of claim 1 

as limiting the field of endeavor to athletic fields’ lighting 

control systems—and we do not, see Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. 

Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 1999) 

(preamble not limiting where it merely states “the purpose or intended use of the invention”)—Miki would fall 

within that field. Miki describes the use of its invention 

“in places such as in a hall, in an ordinary room, and 

outdoors.” J.A. 349, col. 1, lines 55–56; see State Contracting & Eng’g Corp. v. Condotte Am., Inc., 346 F.3d 1057, 

1069 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (similarity in structure and function 

between the invention and the prior art supports a conclusion that the prior art is within the inventor’s field of 

endeavor).

Mr. Shaneour’s challenge to the Board’s claim construction likewise lacks merit. Seeking to distinguish his 

invention from Miki, Mr. Shaneour argues that the claims 

require each light sensor to be placed at “the point of [the 

light’s] origin” so as to measure only the “output[] of 

[each] individual lamp[].” Appellant’s Opening Br. at 19. 

But this reading departs from the “broadest reasonable 

construction in light of the specification as it would be 

interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art”—the approach used by the Board during prosecution. Phillips v. 

AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en 

banc) (quotation marks and citation omitted). 

The claim language describes each sensor as being

“associated with an individual fixture” and “capable of

producing a signal related to the light level being produced.” J.A. 229 (emphases added). The two highlighted 

phrases are quite reasonably read as covering sensors 

Case: 14-1518 Document: 33-2 Page: 7 Filed: 01/08/2015
 8 IN RE: SHANEOUR

that are somewhat removed from the particular lamp or 

fixture and that measure the level of light that is a blend 

of outputs from more than one lamp or fixture. And we 

have been shown no recitation in the patent disclosure or 

prosecution history that compels the narrow interpretation Mr. Shaneour advances. 

Accordingly, the Board did not err in concluding that

Miki—in Figure 7, supra, and its accompanying description—teaches a lighting system in which individual 

sensors, each “associated with” individual light fixtures, 

are capable of measuring light outputs “related to” those 

same fixtures. Although Miki does not disclose the use of 

ballasted arc lamps as a specific source of light, Loughrey 

does. J.A. 331, col. 3, lines 48–52. And Mr. Shaneour has 

not made any distinct argument that undermines the 

Board’s conclusion as to Loughrey or its combination with 

Miki. Mr. Shaneour’s challenge to the Board’s obviousness conclusion therefore fails.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Board’s decision is affirmed.

AFFIRMED

Case: 14-1518 Document: 33-2 Page: 8 Filed: 01/08/2015