ALEX CHAN et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 31, 2021

2020006290 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 31, 2021)

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.
12/875,873 09/03/2010 ALEX CHI KEUNG CHAN 1194-610 1098
27820 7590 08/31/2021
WITHROW & TERRANOVA, P.L.L.C.
106 Pinedale Springs Way
Cary, NC 27511
EXAMINER
GUPTA, RAJ R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2829
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/31/2021 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 ALEX CHI KEUNG CHAN, DAVID EMERSON,
CHAK HAU PANG, and JUN ZHANG
Appeal 2020-006290
Application 12/875,873
Technology Center 2800
Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, CHRISTA P. ZADO, and
PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
ZADO, 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 to reject claims 1–11, 13–21, 23–27, and 29–39. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Cree Huizhou
Opto Ltd. Appeal Br. 4.
Appeal 2020-006290
Application 12/875,873
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The instant application relates to light emitting diode (LED) packages
and displays, wherein the LED packages: 1) include conversion material that
converts [the wavelengths (i.e., color) of] at least some of the light from the
LED chips; and 2) provide good contrast between the different pixels in
LED displays. Spec. ¶¶ 1, 10. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of
the claimed subject matter:
1. A light emitting diode (LED) package, comprising:
an LED chip and conversion material to convert at least some
light emitted from said LED chip, said package emitting light
from said conversion material or a combination of light from said
conversion material and said LED chip;
a casing comprising a cavity around said LED chip, said cavity
comprising a reflective surface that reflects at least some light
from said LED chip;
one or more conductive parts adjacent said LED chip within said
cavity;
a reflective layer coating at least one of said conductive parts;
and
a contrasting coating on the upper surface of said casing outside
said reflective surface comprising a color that contrasts with light
emitted from said package, said contrasting coating defined by
the shape of said upper surface;
wherein said upper surface is above said LED chip and faces the
same direction as light emitted from said LED chip, such that
light emits from said package without impinging directly on said
contrasting coating, wherein said contrasting coating and said
reflective surface comprise different materials and are
contrasting colors.
Appeal Br. Supp. 2–3 (Claims App’x).2

2 Herein, “Appeal Br. Supp.” refers to the February 2, 2019 corrections to
the July 7, 2018 Appeal Brief.
Appeal 2020-006290
Application 12/875,873
3
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Pugh US 5,122,943 June 16, 1992
Baretz US 2004/0016938 A1 Jan. 29, 2004
Izuno US 2006/0267042 A1 Nov. 30, 2006
Amo US 2008/0149960 A1 June 26, 2008
Abdul Karim US 2009/0057708 A1 Mar. 5, 2009
Aizar US 2009/0129085 A1 May 21, 2009
van de Ven US 2010/0103660 A1 Apr. 29, 2010
REJECTIONS
Claims 1–11, 13–21, 23–27, 29, and 31–39 stand rejected under 35
USC § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combinations of Aizar, Amo, Izuno,
Abdul Karim, Pugh, and van de Ven. Final Act. 3–18.
Claim 30 stands rejected under 35 USC § 103(a) as unpatentable over
the combinations of Aizar, Amo, Izuno, Abdul Karim, Pugh, van de Ven,
and Baretz. Id. at 18–19.
OPINION
Background
The instant application describes LED packages, and more
specifically, LED packages used in large screens (a.k.a., giant screens) such
as are found in sporting arenas, race tracks, concerts, and public areas such
as New York Times Square. Spec. ¶ 6. These screens comprise thousands
of pixels or pixel modules, each of which contains one or more LED chips.
Id. ¶ 7. Maximizing the contrast between pixels in the display is an
important aspect of delivering good image quality. Id. However, increasing
contrast comes at the cost of reducing the emission intensity of pixel
emitters, and therefore, of the overall display, according to the Specification.
Appeal 2020-006290
Application 12/875,873
4
Id. For example, in one technique contrast is improved by surrounding the
area of the LED chip with a coating whose color contrasts with the color of
the light emitted from the LED. Id. ¶ 9. However, according to the
Specification, there was concern that contrasting coating might absorb light,
thereby reducing the overall brightness of the LED package. Id.
Despite the above-discussed alleged concern that contrasting coating
might absorb light (thereby reducing display brightness), the instant
application proposes a casing directly surrounding the LED chip comprising
a reflective area (e.g., an area comprising a reflective cup) and an area
outside the reflective area that comprises material whose color contrasts with
that of the LED light. Spec. ¶ 26. For example, an LED chip that emits
white light may be surrounded by a reflective cup that reflects white light,
wherein the reflective area is surrounded by black coated material that
contrasts with the white light. Id. The combination of reflective material
surrounded by material whose color contrasts with that of the emitted light
provides for improved contrast between the light emitted from the LED chip
and the surrounding package. Id. ¶ 27. This improved contrast in turn leads
to improved contrast between different pixels in the display. Id.
As noted above, the Specification states that it was believed
contrasting coating would absorb “an unreasonable amount of LED package
light.” Spec. ¶ 27. The Specification alleges that the casing proposed in the
instant application, however, has the unexpected result that the display
brightness appears to be essentially the same as for displays whose casing
does not have contrasting coating. Id. According to the Specification, the
increased contrast caused by the contrasting coating compensates for the
light absorbed by the coating, so that the viewer of the display perceives
substantially the same image brightness. Id.
Appeal 2020-006290
Application 12/875,873
5
Discussion
Appellant submits that all pending claims—i.e., 1–11, 13–21, 23–27,
29, and 31–39—are allowable. Appellant provides arguments directed to
independent claim 1, and argues the remaining independent claims—i.e.,
claims 13, 23, and 29—are allowable for the same reasons as those given for
claim 1. Appeal Br. 15. Appellant further contends all pending dependent
claims—i.e., claims 2–11, 14–21, 24–27, and 30–34—are allowable based
on their dependence on one of claims 1, 13, 23, and 29. Id. at 15–16. For
the following reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s rejections.
1. LED package with a contrasting area outside a reflective area
Appellant argues the Examiner has not shown that the prior art
teaches a LED package with a contrasting surface outside a reflective layer,
as recited in claim 1.3 The Examiner relies on Aizar for teaching a reflective
layer and on Amo for teaching a contrasting surface. Final Act. 3–4. Aizar
relates to LED housing, and teaches a housing comprising a cavity for the
LED, wherein the cavity walls have a polished surface or reflective coating
to reflect incident light. Aizar ¶¶ 16–17; Final Act. 3 (citing Aizar ¶¶ 16–17,
29). Amo relates to LED packages, and teaches an embodiment wherein the
package is fabricated using a single insulating substrate comprising dark
colored material to provide high contrast. Amo ¶ 48; Final Act. 4 (citing
Amo ¶¶ 39, 48). The Examiner finds that combining Aizar with Amo would
have resulted in a contrasting surface outside of a reflective layer. Final

3 Claim 1 recites a LED package comprising a casing with a cavity
comprising a reflective layer and “a contrasting coating on the upper surface
of said casing outside said reflective surface comprising a color that
contrasts with light emitted from said package, said contrasting coating
defined by the shape of said upper surface.”
Appeal 2020-006290
Application 12/875,873
6
Act. 4. Appellant raises the following arguments to dispute the Examiner’s
findings.
First, Appellant argues that the Examiner incorrectly finds that Amo
teaches a contrasting surface outside of a reflective layer, because Amo
teaches only a dark colored (i.e., asserted contrasting) surface. Appeal Br.
9–10. This argument is not persuasive because the Examiner relies on
Aizar, not Amo, for teaching of a reflective layer. Final Act. 3; Ans. 8 (“the
proposed combination maintains the reflective cup of Aizar, while
incorporating the dark colored casing of Amo for the purpose of increasing
contrast”).
Next, Appellant submits the Examiner relies on impermissible
hindsight to arrive at the claimed feature, arguing that Aizar and Amo each
describe LED packages made of a homogeneous material, and therefore,
neither reference teaches a package comprising both a contrasting surface
and a reflective layer. Appeal Br. 10–12. According to Appellant, the
Examiner’s combination of Aizar and Amo is improper because there is “no
suggestion of such a combination, no mention of the potential benefits of
such an arrangement, or the unexpected results as described in the present
application.” Id. at 12.
We disagree that the Examiner relied on impermissible hindsight. A
rationale to combine does not require that a prior art reference provide a
specific teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine, as Appellant’s
arguments suggest. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 419 (2007).
Combining the prior art elements according to known methods to yield
predictable results is a rationale that may support a conclusion of
obviousness. Id. at 416–417 (2007); MPEP § 2143. Aizar and Amo each
provide a known element for use in a LED housing and/or package. As we
Appeal 2020-006290
Application 12/875,873
7
noted above, Aizar discloses use of a reflective coating to reflect light off of
incident walls within the housing (Aizar ¶¶ 16–17), and Amo discloses use
of a dark surface surrounding the LED to increase contrast (Amo ¶ 48); Ans.
6 (“the reflective cup directs light in a desired direction, the dark colored
casing provides contrast”). As the Examiner explains, the combination of
these elements according to known methods yields predictable results,
namely that each element (i.e., the reflective coating within the LED cavity
and the dark material surrounding the LED, respectively) merely performs
the same function as it does separately. Ans. 5–6. The reflective coating
will still reflect incident light and the dark surrounding surface will still
enhance contrast. Id.
Appellant does not dispute that the Examiner’s proposed combination
would yield the predictable result that Aizar’s reflective layer would reflect
incident light and that Amo’s dark colored surface would enhance contrast.
Rather than address the predictable result set forth by the Examiner,
Appellant focuses on what it contends is an unpredictable result of the
proposed combination. Appeal Br. 11–12. Appellant’s argument is
inapposite for at least the following reason. The asserted “unpredictable
result” argued by Appellant is not directed to placing a contrasting surface
outside a reflective layer. The Specification states that it was believed that
the following combination would result in unacceptable losses in brightness:
1) a LED chip that converts the light emitted by the LED using conversion
material; and 2) a color contrasting area. Spec. ¶¶ 9, 27. The Specification
asserts that contrary to such alleged belief, the combination results in no
perceived loss of display brightness because the enhanced contrast
compensates for light absorbed by the contrasting material. Id. ¶ 27.
Therefore, the “unexpected result” described in the Specification relates not
Appeal 2020-006290
Application 12/875,873
8
to the combination of a reflective layer with an outside contrasting surface,
as Appellant argues, but rather to the use of conversion material with a
contrasting surface. Appellant’s “unexpected result” argument does not
discuss the combination of conversion material with a contrasting surface,
and therefore, is unavailing.
Moreover, despite any alleged belief that brightness would be lost
when combining a conversion material with a high contrast area (as stated in
the instant application), Amo explicitly discloses this combination.
Specifically, Amo describes using conversion material to convert the light of
the LED chip (e.g., Amo ¶¶ 39, 42), and combines this with high contrast
material (Amo ¶ 48).
Appellant also argues that Amo’s disclosure regarding use of a dark
colored (i.e., contrasting) surface is limited to a homogenous substrate.
Appeal Br. 11–12. This argument is unavailing because Amo is not limited
to a homogenous substrate. Ans. 7. Rather, Amo discloses that the
embodiments may use a reflective cup. Amo ¶ 89. With reference to an
embodiment of the same construction (except for placement of phosphor
particles) as the first embodiment (i.e., the embodiment that may comprise a
dark colored area), Amo describes applying the particles using a printing
method. Id. Notably, Amo states that “[w]hen such printing method is
applied to the package having a reflector around the light-emitting diode, the
upper reflector is preferably flush with the surface on which the light-
emitting device is placed.” Id. The word “[w]hen” discloses that Amo’s
packages use a reflective cup at least sometimes, and therefore are not only
heterogeneous, but are expressly disclosed as including a reflective area.
Appellant also argues the purpose of Amo would be frustrated by use
of a reflective layer because Amo teaches that a dark color should be used
Appeal 2020-006290
Application 12/875,873
9
for the entire cavity surface. Appeal Br. 12 (citing Amo ¶¶ 42, 48). The
paragraphs cited by Appellant provide no such teaching, and Appellant fails
to cite any language in Amo to support such a position. Paragraph 42 of
Amo describes the amount of phosphor on pedestal 301 of the LED package,
making no mention of a dark color. Amo ¶ 42. Paragraph 48 describes use
of a dark colored substrate. Id. ¶ 48. In a separate sentence, paragraph 48
describes producing low cost apparatuses by fabricating the apparatuses as a
single insulating substrate then dividing the substrate into individual devices.
Id. However, Amo does not disclose that the dark area “should” be used for
an entire cavity, much less that to do otherwise would frustrate the purpose
of Amo. Id. To the extent any inference can be drawn that, in an
embodiment, the dark colored surface of Amo comprises a single substrate,
the only stated purpose of doing so would be to optionally lower costs, and
doing so is neither required nor related to any purpose of Amo. Id.
Moreover, as we discussed above, Amo discloses use of a reflective cup.
Although Amo’s reflective cup is not expressly combined with Amo’s dark
colored substrate, as we discussed above, Amo’s use of the word “when”
discloses that a reflective cup is sometimes used. For the above-stated
reasons, we are not persuaded that inclusion of a reflective layer with Amo’s
dark colored substrate would have frustrated the purpose of Amo.
For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in
finding that the combination of Aizar and Amo teaches or suggests a LED
package comprising a casing with a cavity comprising a reflective layer and
“a contrasting coating on the upper surface of said casing outside said
reflective surface comprising a color that contrasts with light emitted from
said package, said contrasting coating defined by the shape of said upper
Appeal 2020-006290
Application 12/875,873
10
surface,” as recited in claim 1, or the similarly recited recitations in
independent claims 13, 23, and 29.
2. “wherein said contrasting coating and said reflective surface
comprise different materials and are contrasting colors”
The claims require that the contrasting coating and reflective surface:
1) comprise different materials; and 2) must be of colors that contrast with
each other.4 As we discussed above, the Examiner relies on Aizar for
teaching a reflective layer and on Amo for teaching a contrasting surface
(i.e., Amo’s dark colored substrate). Although Aizar’s reflective coating and
Amo’s dark colored substrate comprise different materials,5 the Examiner
nonetheless introduces Abdul Karim and Izuno for their respective
disclosures of different materials. Final Act. 4–5. The Examiner also
introduces Abdul Karim and Izuno for their teachings of colors that contrast
with each other, i.e., a white reflective coating and black surrounding area.
Id.

4 Claim 1 recites “wherein said contrasting coating and said reflective
surface comprise different materials and are contrasting colors,” and
independent claims 13, 23, and 29 recite similar limitations.
5 Amo discloses that the dark colored insulating substrate may be, for
example, a resin substrate, a hybrid substrate formed of an inorganic
material, or an inorganic substrate such as ceramic, wherein the substrate
incorporates, e.g., Cr2O3, MnO2, TiO2, or Fe2O3 to create a dark color. Amo
¶ 48. Aizar discloses that the side walls of a reflector housing have a
“reflective coating” to reflect incident light. Aizar ¶ 17. Although Aizar
does not expressly identify the material used for the reflective coating, we
find that Aizar’s reflective coating is not the same material as Amo’s dark
colored insulating substrate because, as argued by Appellant, the dark
colored substrate absorbs, rather than reflects, light. Appeal Br. 9 (arguing
that Amo’s dark colored substrate “is made of a dark, light absorbing
material”).
Appeal 2020-006290
Application 12/875,873
11
Izuno relates to a light emitting apparatus, and discloses a black top
surface 114 that shields light. Izuno (57), ¶ 198. The Examiner finds that it
would have been obvious to combine Izuno’s black surface with Aizar and
Amo to shield light. Final Act. 4–5. Appellant argues that Izuno does not
teach a “contrasting coating,” because there is no teaching that the dark area
in Izuno is to provide contrast with a reflective area. Appeal Br. 13.
Appellant’s reasoning is unavailing. First, the Examiner need not rely on
Izuno because Amo already discloses that the dark colored insulated
substrate is dark. Amo ¶ 48. Moreover, Amo teaches that the dark area
provides contrast with the light emitted from the LED package. Id.
Accordingly, Amo’s teachings are sufficient to show a dark, contrasting
area, with or without Izuno.
Abdul Karim relates to a light source such as a LED housed within a
cup that may include reflective side walls to reflect light. Abdul Karim (57).
Abdul Karim discloses a white reflective cup, wherein white is selected to
provide a diffuse reflector. Final Act. 5 (citing Abdul Karim ¶ 11). The
Examiner relies on Abdul Karim to show it would have been obvious to use
a white reflective coating in Aizar. Final Act. 5. We are persuaded, even
without Abdul Karim’s teachings, that a skilled artisan would have used
lighter colors, such as white, for a reflective coating, rather than dark colors
because dark colors absorb more light than do lighter colors which reflect
more light. Abdul Karim’s teachings confirm that a skilled artisan would
have known to use a lighter color for a reflective coating. Indeed, Appellant
does not dispute that Amo’s reflective coating would have comprised a light
color. Rather, Appellant’s arguments focus on whether Abdul Karim
discloses a contrasting area surrounding the reflective cup. Appeal Br. 14.
Appellant’s arguments are inapposite because, as we discussed above, the
Appeal 2020-006290
Application 12/875,873
12
Examiner relies on references other than Abdul Karim (i.e., Amo) for
teaching a contrasting area.
For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in
finding that the combination of Aizar and Amo, with or without Izumo
and/or Abdul Karim, teaches or suggests “wherein said contrasting coating
and said reflective surface comprise different materials and are contrasting
colors,” as recited in claim 1, or the similarly recited recitations in
independent claims 13, 23, and 29.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections are affirmed.
More specifically, we sustain the rejections of:
Claims 1–11, 13–21, 23–27, 29, and 31–39 under 35 USC § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combinations of Aizar, Amo, Izuno, Abdul Karim,
Pugh, and van de Ven; and
Claim 30 under 35 USC § 103(a) as unpatentable over the
combinations of Aizar, Amo, Izuno, Abdul Karim, Pugh, van de Ven, and
Baretz.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–11, 13–
21, 23–27,
29, 31–39
103(a) Aizar, Amo, Izuno,
Abdul Karim,
Pugh, van de Ven
1–11, 13–
21, 23–27,
29, 31–39

30 103(a) Aizar, Amo, Izuno,
Abdul Karim,
Pugh, van de Ven,
Baretz
30
Appeal 2020-006290
Application 12/875,873
13
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
Overall
Outcome
1–11, 13–
21, 23–27,
29–39

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED