Chi Chan et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 15, 2021

2020001579 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 15, 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.
12/498,277 07/06/2009 Chi Keung Chan P1055US-7 8098
23935 7590 01/15/2021
KOPPEL, PATRICK, HEYBL & PHILPOTT
4550 E. Thousand Oaks Blvd.
SUITE 250
Westlake Village, CA 91362
EXAMINER
HARRISON, MONICA D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2815
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/15/2021 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):
GENERALMAIL@KOPPELPATENT.COM
eofficeaction@appcoll.com
usptointake@koppelpatent.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte CHI KEUNG CHAN, YUE KWONG LAU, ZHANG ZHIKUAN,
and YAN XINGTAO
____________

Appeal 2020-001579
Application 12/498,277
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, JAMES C. HOUSEL, and
JANE E. INGLESE, Administrative Patent Judges.

INGLESE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 requests review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1–4, 6–17, 19–46, and 48–54.2 We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to the “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Cree Huizhou Opto Limited as the real
party in interest. Appeal Brief filed May 13, 2019 (“Appeal Br.”) at 4.
2 Final Office Action entered April 4, 2018 (“Final Act.”) at 1.
Appeal 2020-001579
Application 12/498,277

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant claims a light emitting diode (LED) display (independent
claim 1), a light emitting diode (LED) package (independent claims 17, 21,
23, 25, 30, 37, and 41), and a display (independent claim 44). Appeal Br. 4–
8. Claim 1 illustrates the subject matter on appeal, and reads as follows:
1. A light emitting diode (LED) display, comprising:
a plurality of LED packages,
wherein at least some LED packages in the plurality of
LED packages each comprise a peak emission that is angled
away from a centerline of each respective LED package and
wherein each of said at least some LED packages
produces a respective asymmetrical field pattern off the
centerline of each respective LED package,
in which the plurality of LED packages are mounted
within the LED display to generate an image comprising a peak
emission that is angled away from a perpendicular direction of a
plane of the LED display;
wherein an angle away from the centerline varies
between the at least some of said LED packages.

Appeal Br. Claims Appendix (unnumbered page 1) (emphasis and
spacing added).
Like claim 1, the remaining independent claims on appeal—
claims 17, 21, 23, 25, 30, 37, 41, and 44—recite, in part, an LED
package having a peak emission angled away from a centerline of the
LED package, which LED package produces an asymmetrical field
pattern off the centerline of the LED package.
REJECTIONS
The Examiner maintains the following rejections in the Examiner’s
Answer entered October 21, 2019 (“Ans.”):
Appeal 2020-001579
Application 12/498,277

3
I. Claims 1–4, 6–9, 12, 13, 15–17, 19–27, 30–42, 44–46, and 48–
53 under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a) and 102(e) as anticipated by Chakraborty;3
II. Claims 10, 11, 14, 28, 29, 43, and 54 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Chakraborty in view of Matsubara;4 and
III. Claims 10, 11, 14, 28, 29, 43, and 54 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Yoo5 in view of Matsubara.6
FACTUAL FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS
Upon consideration of the evidence relied upon in this appeal and
each of Appellant’s contentions, we reverse the Examiner’s rejections under
35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a), 102(e), and §103(a), for reasons set forth in the Appeal
and Reply Briefs, and below.
We limit our discussion to independent claims 1, 17, 21, 23, 25, 30,
37, 41, and 44, which each recite, in part, an LED package having a peak
emission angled away from a centerline of the LED package, which LED
package produces an asymmetrical field pattern off the centerline of the
LED package.

3 Chakraborty et al. (US 2008/0308825 A1, published December 18, 2008
(hereinafter “Chakraborty”)).
4 Matsubara et al. (US 6,642,547 B2, issued November 4, 2003 (hereinafter
“Matsubara”)).
5 Yoo et al. (US 2008/0048193 A1, published February 28, 2008 (hereinafter
“Yoo”)).
6 The Examiner appears to rely on Chakraborty in the rejection of dependent
claims 10, 11, 14, 28, 29, 43, and 54 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Yoo in view of Matsubara. Ans. 15–16. We, accordingly,
consider this rejection to be over Chakraborty in view of Yoo and
Matsubara, but in the event of further prosecution of this application, we
encourage the Examiner to clarify the prior art relied upon in this rejection.
Appeal 2020-001579
Application 12/498,277

4
Chakraborty discloses light emitting device 1300 comprising light
sources 1314 (LEDs), encapsulant 1302, and “several light scattering
elements.” Chakraborty ¶ 84, Fig. 13. Chakraborty discloses that the light
scattering elements include light scattering particles distributed within
encapsulant 1302, and also include modified surfaces 1306, 1307 of
encapsulant 1302. Id. Chakraborty discloses that some of the light
scattering particles are concentrated in high-density region 1304 at the tip of
encapsulant 1302. Id. Chakraborty discloses that “[t]he scattering elements
can be arranged within the device such that light from some or all of the
sources 1314 can be manipulated to achieve a desired output profile.”
Chakraborty ¶ 85.
The Examiner finds that Chakraborty discloses that each light source
1314 (LED) “may either be the same or different colors, have different
center lines and the scattering elements with the light sources cause desired
asymmetric output.” Final Act. 2–3 (citing Chakraborty, Fig. 13); Ans. 4,
10–11.
On the record before us, however, the Examiner does not provide a
sufficient factual basis to establish that at least one light source 1314 (LED)
disclosed in Chakraborty produces, or is capable of producing, an
asymmetrical field pattern off the centerline of the light source (LED), for
reasons expressed by Appellant and discussed below.
As Appellant points out (Reply Br. 6), the Examiner does not identify
any disclosure in Chakraborty that illustrates or describes the emission
profile (field pattern) generated by light sources 1314 (LEDs) illustrated in
Chakraborty’s Figure 13. The Examiner appears to rely on Chakraborty’s
Figure 3 as supposedly illustrating an asymmetric field pattern off the
Appeal 2020-001579
Application 12/498,277

5
centerline of an LED. Ans. 9. As Appellant points out (Reply Br. 7),
however, Chakraborty’s Figure 3 does not show the emission (field) pattern
produced by the device of Chakraborty’s Figure 13. Instead, Figure 3 shows
the waveform produced from the device shown in Chakraborty’s Figure 2,
which illustrates encapsulant 200 including high density region 206 of light
scattering particles 204 in the tip of encapsulant 200. Chakraborty ¶¶ 42, 63,
67, Figs. 2, 3. Chakraborty discloses that a single light source (LED)
positioned below encapsulant 200 produces light rays that emanate into
encapsulant 200. Chakraborty ¶ 63, Fig. 2. Chakraborty does not indicate
that the resulting waveform illustrated in Figure 3 produced from
encapsulant 200 is asymmetric. Rather, the waveform appears to be
symmetric. Chakraborty, Fig.3. And Chakraborty explains that light
scattering particles 204 in the tip of encapsulant 200 have “the effect of
flattening out the output profile graph over the specified angle range . . .
shown in Figure 3.” Chakraborty ¶ 67.
Although the Examiner also finds, citing to Figure 9 of Chakraborty,
that Chakraborty discloses that “light coming from the device may be
manipulated to be angular” (Ans. 9–10), the Examiner does not identify any
disclosure in Chakraborty indicating that such angular emission produces an
asymmetrical field pattern off the centerline of the light source (LED) used
to produce the photons of light illustrated in Figure 9.
And although the Examiner further finds that paragraphs 83 to 85 of
Chakraborty disclose that “scattering elements can be arranged within the
device [of Figure 13] such that light from some or all of the sources 1314
can be manipulated to achieve a desired output profile” (Ans. 9), this
disclosure does not constitute a teaching that at least one of light sources
Appeal 2020-001579
Application 12/498,277

6
1314 produces an asymmetrical field pattern off the centerline of the light
source (LED). On the record before us, the Examiner does not identify any
disclosure in Chakraborty indicating that an asymmetrical field pattern is “a
desired output profile” for the device of Figure 13.
The Examiner, therefore, does not provide any objective evidence
establishing that at least one light source 1314 (LEDs) illustrated in
Chakraborty’s Figure 13 produces an asymmetrical field pattern off the
centerline of the light source (LED), as required by the present independent
claims. Nor does the Examiner provide a technical explanation, supported
by objective evidence, establishing a reasonable basis to believe that at least
one light source 1314 (LED) illustrated in Figure 13 of Chakraborty would
be capable of producing an asymmetrical field pattern off the centerline of
the light source (LED). In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255 (CCPA 1977). The
record before us is simply devoid of any such explanation or finding.
Therefore, because the Examiner does not rely on any disclosure in
the additional prior art references applied in the rejections under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) that cures the deficiencies in the Examiner’s reliance on
Chakraborty (Final Act. 13–14), we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejections
under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a), 102(e), and 103(a).

Appeal 2020-001579
Application 12/498,277

7

CONCLUSION

Claims
Rejected

35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/
Basis
Affirmed Reversed
1–4, 6–9,
12, 13, 15–
17, 19–27,
30–42, 44–
46, 48–53
102(a) and
(e)
Chakraborty 1–4, 6–9, 12,
13, 15–17,
19–27, 30–
42, 44–46,
48–53
10, 11, 14,
28, 29, 43,
54
103 Chakraborty,
Matsubara
10, 11, 14,
28, 29, 43, 54
10, 11, 14,
28, 29, 43,
54
103 Chakraborty,
Yoo, Matsubara
10, 11, 14,
28, 29, 43, 54
Overall
Outcome
1–4, 6–7, 19–
46, 48–54

REVERSED