Ex Parte Chiou et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 27, 2014

12235193 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 27, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
12/235,193 09/22/2008 Wen-Chih Chiou 48047.105 5597
42717 7590 06/30/2014
HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP
IP Section
2323 Victory Avenue
Suite 700
Dallas, TX 75219
EXAMINER
CHAN, CANDICE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2813
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/30/2014 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 WEN-CHIH CHIOU, CHEN-HUA YU, and
DING-YUAN CHEN
____________________

Appeal 2012-006374
Application 12/235,193
Technology Center 2800
____________________

Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, CATHERINE Q. TIMM, and
JAMES C. HOUSEL, Administrative Patent Judges.

PER CURIAM.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appellants seek review of the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-
20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Kim1 in view of Lee et al2. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. §§ 6(b) and 134(a).
Appellants’ claims are directed to an LED package or light-generating
device including first and second conductive vias extending through a

1 Kim, US 7,592,638 B2, issued Sept. 22, 2009.
2 Lee, US 7,582,496 B2, issued Sept. 1, 2009.
Appeal 2012-006374
Application 12/235,193

2
substrate between contact pads as well as thermal vias extending through the
substrate (claims 1, 9, and 15; see also Fig. 6 (showing first and second vias
301 and thermal vias 305 through substrate 101)). There is no dispute that
Kim describes an LED package including thermal vias 280 extending
through the substrate, but does not include first and second conductive vias
extending through the substrate (Kim, Figs. 2 and 5; col. 3, ll. 30-38). To
provide an electrical connection below the substrate, Kim wraps electrodes
260 and 261 around the substrate instead of using vias through the substrate
(id.). But Lee supports the Examiner’s conclusion that electrically
connecting upper electrodes (contact pads) to lower electrodes using
conductive via holes was a known alternative to using wrapped electrodes
(Ans. 5 and 9-10, see also Lee, col. 5, ll. 52-57). Moreover, for the reasons
articulated by the Examiner, we are unconvinced that Lee teaches away from
extending the thermal vias through the substrate in the LED package of Kim
(Ans. 9-10).
For the reasons presented by the Examiner in the Answer, we
AFFIRM.
CONCLUSION
We sustain the Examiner’s rejection.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision is affirmed.

Appeal 2012-006374
Application 12/235,193

3
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)(1).

AFFIRMED

cam