Phoseon Technology, Inc.

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 23, 2012

No. 77963815 (T.T.A.B. Aug. 23, 2012)

Mailed:
August 23, 2012

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
________

In re Phoseon Technology, Inc.
________

Serial No. 77963815
_______

Hillary A. Brooks of Marger, Johnson & McCollom, PC for Phoseon
Technology, Inc.

Kim Teresa Moninghoff, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office
113 (Odette Bonnet, Managing Attorney).
_______

Before Quinn, Kuhlke and Bergsman,
Administrative Trademark Judges.

Opinion by Bergsman, Administrative Trademark Judge:

Phoseon Technology, Inc. (“applicant”) filed a use-based
application on the Principal Register for the mark SEMICONDUCTOR
LIGHT MATRIX, in standard character form, for the following
goods, as amended,
Light curing systems composed primarily of
light emitting diodes for industrial
applications; UV curing systems composed
primarily of light emitting diodes, for
commercial applications, namely, for curing
inks, coatings, adhesives, and a variety of
other materials, in Class 9.

The Trademark Examining Attorney refused to register
applicant’s mark under Section 2(e)(1) of the Trademark Act of
THIS OPINION IS A
PRECEDENT OF THE TTAB
Serial No. 77963815

2

1946, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(e)(1), on the ground that applicant’s
mark is merely descriptive, and on the ground that applicant’s
mark as used on the specimen of record fails to function as a
trademark under Sections 1, 2 and 45 of the Trademark Act, 15
U.S.C. §§ 1051, 1052 and 1127.
Whether applicant’s proposed mark is merely descriptive?

The examining attorney argues that SEMICONDUCTOR LIGHT
MATRIX merely describes applicant’s goods as “a source of
electromagnetic radiation provided by an array of semiconductor
devices,”1 in other words, a light emitting matrix utilizing
semiconductors. “A term is merely descriptive if it immediately
conveys knowledge of a quality, feature, function, or
characteristic of the goods or services with which it is used."
In re Gyulay, 820 F.2d 1216, 3 USPQ2d 1009, 1009 (Fed. Cir.
1987). Whether a particular term is merely descriptive is
determined in relation to the goods or services for which
registration is sought and the context in which the term is
used, not in the abstract or on the basis of guesswork. In re
Abcor Development Corp., 588 F.2d 811, 200 USPQ 215, 218 (CCPA
1978); In re Remacle, 66 USPQ2d 1222, 1224 (TTAB 2002). In
other words, the question is not whether someone presented only
with the mark could guess the products listed in the description
of goods. Rather, the question is whether someone who knows

1 Examining Attorney’s Brief, p. 3 (unnumbered).
Serial No. 77963815

3

what the products are will understand the mark to convey
information about them. In re Tower Tech, Inc., 64 USPQ2d 1314,
1316-1317 (TTAB 2002); In re Patent & Trademark Services Inc.,
49 USPQ2d 1537, 1539 (TTAB 1998); In re Home Builders
Association of Greenville, 18 USPQ2d 1313, 1317 (TTAB 1990); In
re American Greetings Corp., 226 USPQ 365, 366 (TTAB 1985).
When two or more merely descriptive terms are combined, the
determination of whether the composite also has a merely
descriptive significance turns on the question of whether the
combination of terms evokes a new and unique commercial
impression. If each component retains its merely descriptive
significance in relation to the goods or services, the
combination results in a composite that is itself merely
descriptive. See In re Tower Tech, Inc., 64 USPQ2d 1314
(SMARTTOWER merely descriptive of commercial and industrial
cooling towers); In re Sun Microsystems Inc., 59 USPQ2d 1084
(TTAB 2001) (AGENTBEANS merely descriptive of computer programs
for use in developing and deploying application programs); In re
Putman Publishing Co., 39 USPQ2d 2021 (TTAB 1996) (FOOD &
BEVERAGE ONLINE merely descriptive of news and information
services in the food processing industry). In this regard, we
must consider the issue of descriptiveness by looking at the
mark in its entirety. Common words may be descriptive when
standing alone, but when used together in a composite mark, they
Serial No. 77963815

4

may become a valid trademark. See Concurrent Technologies Inc.
v. Concurrent Technologies Corp., 12 USPQ2d 1054, 1057 (TTAB
(1989) (CONCURRENT TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION found not merely
descriptive of printed electronic circuit boards because, while
“concurrent” had meaning in the computer field, “concurrent
technologies” had no established meaning in relation to computer
hardware or software).
Finally, “if one must exercise mature thought or follow a
multi-stage reasoning process in order to determine what product
or service characteristics the term indicates, the term is
suggestive rather than merely descriptive.” In re Tennis in the
Round, Inc., 199 USPQ 496, 498 (TTAB 1978). See also, In re
Shutts, 217 USPQ 363, 364-365 (TTAB 1983); In re Universal Water
Systems, Inc., 209 USPQ 165, 166 (TTAB 1980).
At the outset, definitions of the relevant terms are
helpful for determining whether the mark is merely descriptive.
1. A “semiconductor” is “a solid material that has
electrical conductivity between that of a conductor and an
insulator.”2 A light-emitting diode (also known as an LED)3 is a
type of semiconductor which produces light.4

2 MSN Encarta Dictionary attached to the June 28, 2010 Office action.
3 Applicant’s website, “Frequently Asked Questions,” attached to the
June 28, 2010 Office action.
4 Id.
Serial No. 77963815

5

2. “Light” means, inter alia, “electromagnetic radiation:
electromagnetic radiation that has wavelengths of any length.”5
3. A “matrix” is “an array of circuit elements (as diodes
and transistors) for performing a specific function.”6 Thus, two
or more LEDs can be joined together in a matrix or array to
produce more light than an individual LED.
In view of the foregoing, the term “Semiconductor Light
Matrix” would be understood as meaning a light emitting matrix
utilizing semiconductors. We find that the evidence of record
establishes that the words in the proposed mark SEMICONDUCTOR
LIGHT MATRIX retain their dictionary meanings when used by
applicant; and the proposed mark in its entirety is merely
descriptive, because as the words are combined they do not
create a meaning different from the individual elements.
Applicant’s goods use a “‘bulbless’ Semiconductor Light
Matrix (SLM) technology to produce UV light for curing
applications. … The result is a high intensity UV light system
that offers an efficient, scalable, safe, long-life, and
environmentally friendly alternative to traditional UV sources.”7

5 MSN Encarta Dictionary attached to the June 28, 2010 Office action.
6 Merriam-Webster Online (Merriam-webster.com) attached to the June 28,
2010 Office action.
7 Applicant’s pamphlet “What is Semiconductor Light Matrix Technology?”
attached to the June 28, 2010 Office action. The fact that applicant
uses initial upper-case letters when displaying the term SEMICONDUCTOR
LIGHT MATRIX does not ipso facto mean that the term is not merely
descriptive. See Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Continental General
Tire Inc., 70 USPQ2d 1067, 1076 (TTAB 2003) (“[T]he mere fact that
Serial No. 77963815

6

Applicant’s product “combines a dense array of light emitting
semiconductor devices” designed to optimize the thermal output,
i.e., the emitted light.8 Applicant’s product is used for, inter
alia, UV curing of printing, coatings, and adhesives.9
Applicant’s website further describes its SEMICONDUCTOR
LIGHT MATRIX technology as follows:
Features: SLM technology is implemented with
an array of light emitting semiconductors
that are configured into a system which
performs the following:

• The light is efficiently collected and
directed at the target using micro optics.
• The heat generated by the array is managed
with conductive packaging technology.
• Electronic control allows instant on/off and
light intensity control.

applicant often capitalizes the term cannot salvage a term that the
record shows otherwise to be a descriptive term.”); In re MetPath
Inc., 223 USPQ 88, 89 (TTAB 1984) (“Further, we are not persuaded that
the form of presentation of the term “P.A.P.” in applicant’s
designation, i.e., the use of all capital letters, each followed by a
period, would serve to dispel the probable significance of applicant’s
designation to consumers because we doubt that the average consumer
would be aware of the derivation (and hence the proper form of
presentation ) of the term ‘Pap test.’”).
8 Applicant’s website, “Technology,” (phoseon.com) attached to the
December 9, 2010 Office action.
9 Applicant’s website attached to the June 28, 2010 Office action. The
letters “UV” are the abbreviation for “ultraviolet” which means
“beyond the violet in the spectrum, corresponding to light having
wavelengths shorter than 4000 angstrom units.” The Random House
Dictionary of the English Language (Unabridged) p. 2051 (2nd ed. 1987).
The Board may take judicial notice of dictionary evidence. University
of Notre Dame du Lac v. J. C. Gourmet Food Imports Co., 213 USPQ 594,
596 (TTAB 1982), aff’d, 703 F.2d 1372, 217 USPQ 505 (Fed. Cir. 1983).

“UV Curing is the polymerization of UV sensitive materials, rather
than drying through evaporation of solvents.” “Frequently Asked
Questions” from applicant’s website (phoseon.com), attached to the
June 28, 2010 Office action.
Serial No. 77963815

7

• Individual semiconductor devices are
insensitive to failure of other devices in
the array.
• SLM arrays produce uniform and high intensity
UV output.10

An article published February 1, 2006 in the Adhesives &
Sealants Industry magazine (highbeam.com) entitled
“Semiconductor light matrix: a new UV technology for curing
adhesives ultraviolet” corroborates the technology as described
in applicant’s website.11 The article was written by Mark Owen
who is identified as being associated with applicant. The term
is used as follows in the article (emphasis added).
SEMICONDUCTOR LIGHT MATRIX (SLM) TECHNOLOGY
SLM technology is implemented with an array
of thousands of light-emitting
semiconductors … configured into a system
that performs the following functions:

* * * *

* Light is efficiently collected and
directed at the target using tiny lenses.

* The heat generated by the array is managed
with conductive packaging technology.

* Electronic control allows on/off, pulsing
and light-intensity control, and is
insensitive to failures of individual
semiconductor devices.

* The uniformity, intensity and size of SLM
arrays meet or exceed production
requirements at acceptable cost.

10 December 9, 2010 Office action.
11 Posted on the High Beam Research website (highbeam.com) and attached
to the December 9, 2010 Office action.
Serial No. 77963815

8

Throughout the article, SEMICONDUCTOR LIGHT MATRIX is used to
describe the technology, which uses “an array of thousands of
light-emitting semiconductors.” See In re Gould Paper Corp.,
834 F.2d 1017, 5 USPQ2d 1110, 1112 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (the Board
properly relied on applicant’s use of the term SCREENWIPE in its
specimen of use to show that the term was generic); see also In
re Chamber of Commerce of the U.S., 675 F.3d 1297, 102 USPQ2d
1217, 1220 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (content of applicant’s website and
articles discussing the activities of chambers of commerce
constituted substantial evidence supporting the Board’s
determination that NATIONAL CHAMBER is merely descriptive).
The term is used in a similar manner in an article
published April 1, 2006 in the Paintings & Coatings Industry
magazine entitled “UV curing: joins the solid-state world.” 12
The article was written by Paul Mills who is also identified as
being associated with applicant (emphasis added).
Now solid-state UV emitters, such as UV
LEDs, UV laser diodes or Semiconductor Light
Matrix (SLM) technology promise to alter the
discussion of how UV materials are cured in
a manner similar to the way the microwave
oven has transformed the way we talk about
cooking, just as a bowl of popcorn may look
and taste identical when cooked either way,
so will UV coatings look and perform
identically whether cured with conventional
medium-pressure mercury lamps or with solid-
state devices.

12 Posted on the High Beam Research website (highbeam.com) and attached
to the December 9, 2010 Office action.
Serial No. 77963815

9

* * * *

A much more useful way of integrating the
semiconductor light source is via “macro
packaging” technology. One such technology
is Semiconductor Light Matrix (SLM) which
involves mounting hundreds or thousands of
“chips” in a very close proximity on a
substrate, with micro optics to collect and
direct the UV light, and cooling via
conductive packaging to manage the thermal
issues associated with close integration of
a large number of solid-state devices.

The use of SEMICONDUCTOR LIGHT MATRIX to identify a
technology is further reinforced by two patent applications.13
1. U.S. Patent Application No. 2010018143, published July
22, 2010, shows descriptive use of the term “semiconductor light
matrix.” (Emphasis added).
Now referring to FIG. 6 a semiconductor
light matrix 600 (manufactured by Phoseon
Technology Inc., Beaverton, Oreg.,
www.phoseon.com) is illuminating the water
630. The output of the semiconductor light
matrix 600 is coupled to focusing lens 610.
The semiconductor light matrix 600 and
focusing lens 610 combination is positioned
at an angle 620 from the wafer 630 surface.
The camera 640 takes images of waters 630
surface to detect areas of subtle
delamination. The semiconductor light
matrix 600 is positioned at various points
600 … and at various angles 620 … such that
the entire surface may be inspected. The
use of a semiconductor light matrix 600 can
also be configured to illuminate the top of
the water 630 for metal layer wafers or
illuminate the bottom of the wafer 630 in

13 December 9, 2010 Office action.
Serial No. 77963815

10

the same manner as depicted in FIGS. 5A and
5B.

2. U.S. Patent Application No. 201000259187, published
October 14, 2010, shows descriptive use of the term
“semiconductor light matrix” (emphasis added):
The subarrays may consist of individual
semiconductor light emitting devices
arranged in an x-y grid. An “array” will
refer to a collection of subarrays into a
larger x-y grid. The array is then packaged
with its thermal and power controls, which
will be referred to here as a lighting
product or device. The subarrays and the
array may be referred to as a semiconductor
light matrix, or SLM™. The lighting device
may be referred to as containing or
consisting of SLM™ technology.

The examining attorney attached an excerpt from a third-
party website displaying the term “Semiconductor Light Matrix”
used descriptively. The Integration Technology website
(uvintegration.com) describes that company’s use of SLM
(Semiconductor Light Matrix) technology in connection with UV
LEDs in the inkjet market as part of a curing system.14 There is
no indication on the website that SLM (Semiconductor Light
Matrix) has any relationship with applicant.
The examining attorney also attached an abstract of a paper
published on the SPIE website (spie.org) displaying the term

14 December 9, 2010 Office action.
Serial No. 77963815

11

“Semiconductor Light Matrix” used descriptively.15 The abstract
provides the following information (emphasis added):
High power Ultraviolet Light-Emitting Diode
(UV-LED) is currently in high demand for a
variety of applications including lighting,
printing, and polymer curing with its’ [sic]
advantages of durability, reliability, non-
hazardous [sic] and safety. Recently, the
technology of Semiconductor Light Matrix
(SLM) by multiple individual LEDs mounted on
panels was put forward to obtain higher
power for curing application [sic].

Finally, the examining attorney submitted excerpts from
articles in periodicals asserting that the applicant uses
SEMICONDUCTOR LIGHT MATRIX to describe its technology, not as a
trademark.16 The example below is representative.
Adhesives & Sealants Industry (January 1, 2010)
UV LED Curing System: Phoseon
This company has announced the introduction of the RX
FireLine™ series – the next step in the evolution of
its SEMICONDUCTOR LIGHT MATRIX (SLM) – based, high-
power UV LED curing systems.

In view of the foregoing, we find SEMICONDUCTOR LIGHT
MATRIX directly describes the technology featured in applicant’s
products and, therefore, is merely descriptive of a significant
feature of the product. In particular, we note that in U.S.
Patent Application No. 201000259187, the patent applicant stated
that “[t]he subarrays and the array may be referred to as a

15 Id. The legend on the top of the website states that “SPIE is the
international society for optics and photonics.”
16 Id.
Serial No. 77963815

12

semiconductor light matrix,” and that applicant itself describes
its product “as a dense array of light emitting semiconductor
devices.”17
Applicant argues, inter alia, that SEMICONDUCTOR LIGHT
MATRIX is incongruous because “the phrase ‘semiconductor light’
serves as a modifier for the term ‘matrix,’ and because
‘semiconductor light’ makes no sense as a modifier of ‘matrix’
such that any attempts to make sense of Applicant’s mark
requires a complex, multistage mental process.”18 Applicant’s
argument is not persuasive. It fails because the record is
clear that applicant’s light curing system is a “matrix” (i.e.,
an array) of light emitting elements (i.e., “semiconductor
lights”). The fact that applicant may be the first or only
producer of such a matrix to call it a light matrix, rather than
an array of light emitting elements, does not render the term
“light matrix” incongruous or distinctive. See In re Sun
Microsystems, Inc., 59 USPQ2d at 1087; In re Acuson, 225 USPQ
790, 792 (TTAB 1985). Further, there is no support for
applicant’s argument that prospective purchasers of its systems
would consider “semiconductor” as a modifier of “light,” rather
than as a modifier of “light matrix.” Based on the record
before us, we find that purchasers of the involved goods, being

17 Applicant’s website attached to the June 28, 2010 Office action.
18 Applicant’s Brief, p. 4 (unnumbered).
Serial No. 77963815

13

familiar with light curing systems, will view “light matrix” as
the name of a light emitting system and “semiconductor” as a
modifier of that term, indicating that semiconductors are used
in the light matrix.
In view of the foregoing, we find that applicant’s mark
SEMICONDUCTOR LIGHT MATRIX is merely descriptive when used in
connection with “light curing systems composed primarily of
light emitting diodes for industrial applications; UV curing
systems composed primarily of light emitting diodes, for
commercial applications, namely, for curing inks, coatings,
adhesives, and a variety of other materials.”
Whether SEMICONDUCTOR LIGHT MATRIX fails to function as a mark?
The examining attorney also refused to register applicant’s
mark because, as used on the specimen of record, SEMICONDUCTOR
LIGHT MATRIX fails to function as a trademark to identify
applicant’s goods and distinguish them from the goods of others.
The essence of the refusal is that the term “Semiconductor Light
Matrix,” as used by applicant in the specimen of record,
identifies a technology, not the source of the UV curing system.
In its application, applicant identified the specimen of use,
shown below, as a “photo showing use of the mark in association
with the goods at a trade show.”

Serial

I
photog

19 Appli
No. 779
n opposi
raph “de

cant’s Bri
63815
tion to
monstrat

ef, p. 15
the refu
es the t
(unnumber
14
sal, app
rademark
ed).
licant a
promine
rgues th
ntly.”19
at the

Serial No. 77963815

15

The critical question in determining whether SEMICONDUCTOR
LIGHT MATRIX, as used in the specimens of record, functions as a
trademark is the commercial impression it makes on the relevant
public (e.g., whether the term sought to be registered would be
perceived as a mark identifying the source of the goods or
merely as an informational phrase). In re Aerospace Optico,
Inc., 78 USPQ2d 1861, 1862 (TTAB 2006) (“the mark must be used
in such a manner that it would be readily perceived as
identifying the specified goods and distinguishing a single
source or origin for the goods. … The mere fact that a
designation appears on the specimen of record does not make it a
trademark. … A critical element in determining whether matter
sought to be registered as a trademark is the impression the
matter makes on the relevant public.” (Citations omitted)); In
re Volvo Cars of North America Inc., 46 USPQ2d 1455, 1459 (TTAB
1998); In re Remington Products Inc., 3 USPQ2d 1714, 1715 (TTAB
1987); In re Morganroth, 208 USPQ 284, 287 (TTAB 1980). In this
regard, we must look to the specimen to determine how consumers
likely would perceive the subject matter sought to be
registered. In re Aerospace Optico, Inc., 78 USPQ2d at 1862; In
re The Signal Companies, Inc., 228 USPQ 956, 957 (TTAB 1986); In
re Wakefern Food Corp, 222 USPQ 76, 77 (TTAB 1984).
The commercial impression engendered by the displays in the
photograph is that applicant, Phoseon Technology, is
Serial No. 77963815

16

advertising/selling a UV curing system that uses semiconductor
light matrix technology. The term SEMICONDUCTOR LIGHT MATRIX as
used on the specimen identifies the technology of the UV curing
system; it does not identify and distinguish the source of the
goods, but instead it describes how the goods work. Applicant’s
use of the designation SEMICONDUCTOR LIGHT MATRIX to identify
the technology used in applicant’s product is similar to the use
of the mark SPECTRUM in In re Aerospace Optico, Inc., 78 USPQ2d
1861 (TTAB 2006). In Aerospace Optico, the Board found that
consumers would not perceive the designation SPECTRUM to be a
trademark because as used on the specimen of record, SPECTRUM
was merely one of several terms identifying features of the
product. Likewise, in this application, consumers will perceive
the term SEMICONDUCTOR LIGHT MATRIX as identifying the
technology used in applicant’s product (i.e., “UV Curing Systems
Using Semiconductor Light Matrix (SLM) Technology For Optical
Storage Media”) and not as the source of the goods.
In the alternative, applicant argues that the webpages made
of record by the examining attorney are acceptable specimens.20
An examining attorney’s submission of evidence into the record
does not satisfy the requirement that an application filed under
Section 1(a) of the Trademark Act include one specimen per class
showing how the applicant actually uses the mark in

20 Applicant’s Brief, p. 15 (unnumbered).
Serial No. 77963815

17

commerce. 37 C.F.R. § 2.34(a)(1)(iv). If the applicant
believed that these webpages showed use of its mark as a
trademark, it had the opportunity during prosecution to submit
the webpages as substitute specimens, supported by an affidavit
or declaration pursuant to Trademark Rules 2.20 and 2.59. In
any event, the use of SEMICONDUCTOR LIGHT MATRIX on the webpages
does not show trademark use because such use does not identify a
SEMICONDUCTOR LIGHT MATRIX brand UV curing system; the webpages
show SEMICONDUCTOR LIGHT MATRIX used to identify the technology
(e.g., “Phoseon’s proprietary Semiconductor Light Matrix (SLM)
technology for UV curing or drying combines a dense array of
light emitting semiconductor devices, with micro optics and
advances thermal technology in a cost-effective MOEMS (micro
opto electro-mechanical system) package.”).21
In view of the foregoing, we find that the term
SEMICONDUCTOR LIGHT MATRIX as used on the specimen of record
does not function as a trademark.
Decision: The refusals to register are affirmed.

21 December 9, 2010 Office action.