Ex Parte Bour et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 15, 2016

12337580 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 15, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/337,580 12/17/2008 David P. Bour
81941 7590 08/16/2016
PARC-XEROX/BSTZ
BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN LLP
1279 Oakmead Parkway
Sunnyvale, CA 94085-4040
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.
200805 l?Q-US-NP _8538P01 l 3934
EXAMINER
MUNOZ, ANDRES F
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2894
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
08/16/2016 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DAVID P. BOUR, CHRISTOPHER L. CHUA, AND
NOBLE M. JOHNSON
Appeal2015-003901
Application 12/337,580
Technology Center 2800
Before BEYERL YA. FRANKLIN, LINDA M. GAUDETTE, and
WESLEY B. DERRICK, Administrative Patent Judges.
GAUDETTE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2015-003901
Application 12/337,580
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision2 finally rejecting claims 11, 13-21, and 23-25. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
The invention relates to an apparatus for "fabricat[ing] a monolithic LED to
emit white or full color." Specification filed December 17, 2008 ("Spec.") i-f 36.
Claim 11 is representative of the invention and reads as follows:
11. An apparatus comprising:
a first active region grown on an n-type layer; and
a first vicinity area in the first active region having a first
wavelength shift with respect to a first color around a first pattern
defined by a first mask, wherein the first active region includes single
or multiple quantum wells (QWs) of the first color, the single or
multiple QWs causing the first wavelength shift, the first wavelength
shift resulting in an emission of a first desired color according to the
first pattern.
Claim 21, the only other independent claim on appeal, recites "[a] light-
emitting diode" comprising a substrate and an n-type layer deposited thereon.
Claim 21 further recites that the LED comprises a first active region and a first
vicinity area, i.e., the same limitations recited in the body of claim 11.
The claims stand rejected as follows:
1. Claims 11, 13-16, 18, 19, 21, and 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Mishra et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,795,798, issued
August 18, 1998 ("Mishra")) in view of Shioda et al. (Simulation and Design of the
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Palo Alto Research Center
Incorporated. Appeal Brief filed October 13, 2014 ("Br."), 3.
2 Final Office Action mailed April 11, 2014.
2
Appeal2015-003901
Application 12/337,580
Emission Wavelength ofMultiple Quantum Well Structures Fabricated by Selective
Area Metalorganic Chemical Vapor Depositions, Thin Solid Films, vol. 498, 2006,
pp. 174--78, available online August 31, 2005 ("Shioda")).
2. Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Mishra in view of Shioda, as applied to claim 13, and further in view of
Mokkapati et al. (Controlling the Properties of InGaAs Quantum Dots by
Selective-Area Epitaxy, Appl. Phys. Lett. 86, 113102, 2005 ("Mokkapati")).
3. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Mishra in view of Shioda, as applied to claim 11, and further in view of Koide
(U.S. Patent No. 6,765,234 B2, issued July 20, 2004).
Appellants' arguments in support of patentability of all appealed claims are
based on limitations common to independent claims 11 and 21. See App. Br. 12-
13 (stating that the dependent claims are patentable for the reasons argued in
connection with independent claims 11 and 21 ). Accordingly, the dependent
claims will stand or fall with claims 11 and 21.
The Examiner finds Mishra discloses the invention as recited in claims 11
and 21 with the exception of the limitations recited in the wherein clauses. See
Final Act 3. The Examiner relies on Shioda for a teaching of the limitations in the
wherein clauses. Id. at 3--4. The Examiner finds one of ordinary skill in the art
would have been motivated "to include the mask arrangement/wavelength shift of
Shioda [in] the device of Mishra so as to enable growth of active layers with
different wavelength emission via a single growth step (Shioda, Abstract)
applicable to Mishra's multi-wavelength high efficiency emission (Mishra,
Abstract) ... [thereby] reduc[ing] the number of manufacturing steps." Id. at 4.
3
Appeal2015-003901
Application 12/337,580
Appellants request reversal of the Examiner's rejections on the basis that:
the Examiner erred in various findings of fact with respect to the teachings of
Mishra and Shioda (see Br. 8-9); modifying Mishra based on the teachings of
Shioda would render Mishra unsatisfactory for its intended purpose (see id. at 9-
1 O); and one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to combine
the references due to differences in their principles of operation (see id. at 10-11 ).
See also id. at 11-12, bridging paragraph (further asserting that the Examiner's
rejections are based on improper hindsight reconstruction).
We have considered the arguments advanced by Appellants in the Appeal
Brief, but find them unconvincing of error in the Examiner's conclusion of
obviousness for the reasons stated in the Response to Argument section of the
Examiner's Answer. See Examiner's Answer mailed December 17, 2014 ("Ans."),
8-17. We find the Examiner's obviousness determination is supported by a
preponderance of the evidence of record.
We affirm the Examiner's rejections of claims 11, 13-21, and 23-25 based
on the detailed fact finding and reasoning set forth in the Final Office Action and
the Examiner's Answer. See Final Act. 2-13; Ans. 2-17.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this
appeal maybe extended under 37 C.F.R. §1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
4