Ex Parte De Graaf et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 28, 2017

13000038 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 28, 2017)

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.
13/000,038 12/20/2010 Jan De Graaf 2008P00656WOUS 1160
138325 7590 05/02/2017
PHILIPS LIGHTING HOLDING B.V.
465 Columbus Avenue
Suite 330
Valhalla, NY 10595
EXAMINER
SANDVIK, BENJAMIN P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2826
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/02/2017 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):
kim.larocca@philips.com
j o. c angelosi @ philips. com
Gigi.Miller@philips.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JAN DE GRAAF,
MARTINUS PETRUS JOSEPH PEETERS,
ELVIRA JOHANNA MARIA PAULUSSEN,
DANIEL ANTON BENOY,
MARCELLUS JACOBUS JOHANNES VAN DER LUBBE,
GEORGE HUBERT BOREL,
MARK EDUARD JOHAN SIPKES,
and CHRISTOPH GERARD AUGUST HOELEN
Appeal 2015-005328
Application 13/000,038
Technology Center 2800
Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, MARKNAGUMO, and
JENNIFER R. GUPTA, Administrative Patent Judges.
HANLON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
A. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants filed an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection
of claims 1—5, 7—10, and 12. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Appeal 2015-005328
Application 13/000,038
The claimed subject matter is directed to a light emitting device and a
method for manufacturing a light emitting device. The light emitting device
comprises a light emitting diode arranged on a substrate and a collimator at least
partly surrounding the light emitting diode. The collimator is primarily attached to
the substrate by a first transmissive bonding element and is bonded to a lateral
surface of the light emitting diode by the first transmissive bonding element.
Representative claim 7 is reproduced below from the Claims Appendix of
the Appeal Brief dated October 28, 2014 (“App. Br.”). The limitation at issue is
italicized.
7. A light emitting device comprising:
at least one light emitting diode, wherein a bottom surface of
said at least one light emitting diode is arranged on top of a substrate;
and
a collimator at least partly laterally surrounding said at least one
light emitting diode for collimating light emitted by said at least one
light emitting diode, wherein said collimator comprises at least one
self-supporting wall element with a material thickness in the range of
100 to 500 pm and wherein said collimator is primarily attached to
said substrate by means of a first transmissive bonding element and is
bonded to a lateral surface of said at least one light emitting diode by
means of the first transmissive bonding element.
App. Br. 17.
Claim 1, the other independent claim on appeal, is directed to a method for
manufacturing a light emitting diode wherein, similar to claim 7, the collimator is
“primarily attached” to the substrate by means of a transmissive bonding element.
App. Br. 16.
2
Appeal 2015-005328
Application 13/000,038
The claims on appeal stand rejected as follows:1
(1) claims 1, 5, 7, 9, and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Kuwabara et al.2 in view of Mazzochette et al.;3
(2) claims 2 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Kuwabara in view of Mazzochette, and further in view of Harbers et al.;4
(3) claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kuwabara in
view of Mazzochette and Higashi et al.,5 and further in view of Uraya et al.;6 and
(4) claims 4 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Kuwabara in view of Mazzochette, and further in view of Park et al.7
B. DISCUSSION
Referring to Kuwabara Figure 3, reproduced below, the Examiner finds
Kuwabara teaches arranging a light emitting diode 13 and a collimator 14 on a
substrate 12. Final 6.
1 Claims 1 and 7 were finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, based
on the written description requirement. The rejection was withdrawn in the
Advisory Action dated August 28, 2014.
2 US 2005/0067628 Al, published March 31, 2005 (“Kuwabara”).
3 US 2007/0064429 Al, published March 22, 2007 (“Mazzochette”).
4 US 2007/0215890 Al, published September 20, 2007 (“Harbers”).
5 US 2007/0187706 Al, published August 16, 2007 (“Higashi”). The Examiner
relies on Higashi in the rejection of claim 1 to show “a separately formed
collimator . . . that is arranged on a substrate subsequent to said providing of a light
emitting diode ... on the substrate . . . .” Final Office Action dated June 19, 2014
(“Final”), at 5—6. In the event of further prosecution, the Examiner should
consider amending the statement of the rejections of claims 1, 2, 4, and 5 to
include Higashi.
6 US 2005/0133808 Al, published June 23, 2005 (“Uraya”).
7 US 2008/0038853 Al, published February 14, 2008 (“Park”).
3
Appeal 2015-005328
Application 13/000,038
11
Kuwabara Fig. 3 is a cross-sectional view of an
embodiment of a light emitting diode.
The Examiner finds collimator 14 at least partly laterally surrounds light
emitting diode 13 and is bonded to light emitting diode 13 and substrate 12 using
transmissive bonding element 22. Final 6—7. The Examiner finds collimator 14 is
primarily attached to substrate 12 by transmissive bonding element 22 because
“the sealing resin 22 is the only means of attaching the collimator 14 to the
substrate.”8 Final 6.
The Appellants argue that Kuwabara does not disclose or suggest “that the
resin sealant [22] is the primary means by which the reflector cup 14 is attached to
the purported substrate.” App. Br. 8—9. Rather, the Appellants argue that
“Kuwabara suggests that the frame 15 is the primary means of attachment.” App.
Br. 8 (citing Kuwabara 135).
8 Kuwabara discloses that resin sealant 22 covers only an upper part of light
emitting element 13 or in the alternative, discloses that the interior of collimator 14
may be filled with a sealing resin. Kuwabara H 34, 42.
4
Appeal 2015-005328
Application 13/000,038
In response, the Examiner finds that the Appellants’ Specification “does not
give any special or limiting definition to the term ‘primarily attached.’”9 Ans. 3.10
Thus, the Examiner explains that
during the examination of the application the claim limitation
“attached” has been interpreted according to its plain meaning. For
example, as given by Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary: Attach - to
fasten or join one thing to another; and Dictionary.com: Attach - verb
(used with object): 1. to fasten or affix; join; connect.
Ans. 3.
Based on those definitions of “attach,” the Examiner finds “it is clear from
Fig 4 of Kuwabara that the epoxy sealant 22 . . . produces an attachment between
the reflector 14 (i.e. collimator) and the substrate.” Ans. 3 (emphasis added); see
also Ans. 6 (finding that Kuwabara Figure 4 shows epoxy sealant 22 in direct
contact with collimator 14 and the substrate).
In contrast, the Examiner finds “Kuwabara does not disclose any attachment
between reflector/collimator 14 and the frame 15.” Ans. 4. For support, the
Examiner directs our attention to paragraph 35 of Kuwabara which states, in
relevant part, that “‘the reflection cup 14 is supported by the frame 15’” and “‘the
reflection cup 14 has an outwardly extending flange 31 along the entire
circumference thereof, which is placed on an opening edge 32 of the recess 30 on
the upper surface to support the reflection cup 14.’”* 11 Ans. 5 (citing Kuwabara
135 (emphasis added)). The Examiner finds there is no suggestion in either
paragraph 35 or Figure 3 of Kuwabara that collimator 14 is “attached” (i.e.,
9 There is no dispute on this record that “a ‘primary’ attachment is the principal
means by which one element is attached to another.” App. Br. 9.
10 Examiner’s Answer dated February 23, 2015.
11 The Appellants indicate that “the word ‘support’ does not necessarily mean
attachment.” Reply Brief dated April 20, 2015 (“Reply Br.”), at 5.
5
Appeal 2015-005328
Application 13/000,038
fastened, affixed, or bonded) to frame 15. Ans. 5. “If there is no attachment
between the reflector and the frame,” the Examiner finds “the frame cannot be
considered the ‘primary attachment’ between the reflector and the substrate.” Ans.
6. In other words,
[considering that the epoxy sealant 22 does create an attachment
between reflector/collimator 14 and the substrate . . ., while the frame
15 does not create an attachment, the examiner maintains that... it
[is] reasonable to characterize the epoxy sealant [22] as the primary
means of attachment as applied in the rejections to claims 1 and 7.
Ans. 6.
In response, the Appellants do not direct us to any error in the Examiner’s
finding that the term “attach” means fasten, affix, or bond. Rather, the Appellants
argue that “Kuwabara’s omission of an explicit disclosure of an attachment. . .
between [collimator 14 and frame 15] does not necessarily mean that the elements
are not attached.” Reply Br. 3.
“Factual determinations by the PTO must be based on a preponderance of
the evidence.” In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1449 (Fed. Cir. 1992). A
“[preponderance of evidence” is defined as “evidence which as a whole shows
that the fact sought to be proved is more probable than not.” Preponderance of
evidence, Black’s Faw Dictionary (5th ed. 1979). In this case, Kuwabara’s Figures
do not show any means of attachment between collimator 14 and frame 15.
Fikewise, Kuwabara does not disclose that an attachment means (e.g., epoxy) is
disposed between collimator 14 and frame 15. Kuwabara merely discloses that
outwardly extending flange 31 on collimator 14 “is placed on an opening edge 32
of the recess 30 on the upper surface to support the reflection cup 14.” Kuwabara
135 (emphasis added; bold omitted). Thus, a preponderance of the evidence
supports the Examiner’s finding that collimator 14 is not attached to frame 15.
6
Appeal 2015-005328
Application 13/000,038
Furthermore, in the rejection on appeal, the Examiner finds Kuwabara does
not teach that collimator 14 comprises a “self-supporting wall element with a
material thickness in the range of 100 to 500 micrometers” as recited in claims 1
and 7.12 Final 5, 7. The Examiner finds Mazzochette teaches that limitation and
concludes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to
modify the collimator of Kuwabara with a self-supporting wall element as
disclosed in Mazzochette. Final 5, 7. The Examiner finds that in the proposed
modification, “the supporting frame [15 of Kuwabara] would not necessarily need
to be included in the structure^ and in that] case, the epoxy bonding material
would also be the primary bond between the collimator and substrate.” Final 2.
In response, the Appellants argue that “Mazzochette does not disclose the
use of a bonding element that bonds a lateral surface of at least one light emitting
diode to a collimator” as recited in claims 1 and 7. App. Br. 10.
The Appellants’ argument is not persuasive of reversible error. As
explained by the Examiner:
Mazzochette is only being relied upon to disclose a thickness of the
collimator wall material and the self-supporting characteristic of a
wall having that thickness. It would not be necessary to modify any
of the other structures of Kuwabara (i.e. the arrangement or material
of epoxy 22) to form the collimator 14 with the thickness disclosed by
Mazzochette as in the proposed combination. In this case, since the
epoxy 22 of Kuwabara would not be modified it would continue to
bond a lateral surface of at [least] one light emitting diode 13 to a
collimator/reflector 14 [as claimed].
12 Kuwabara discloses that collimator 14 holds itself in the shape of a cup.
Kuwabara 135.
7
Appeal 2015-005328
Application 13/000,038
Ans. 7; see also Ans. 8 (citing In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413 (CCPA 1981) (“one
cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the
rejections are based on combinations of references”)).
For the reasons set forth above, the § 103(a) rejection of claims 1 and 7 is
sustained. The Appellants do not present arguments in support of the separate
patentability of any of dependent claims 2—5 and 8—10, and 12. See App. Br. 12—
13 (arguing that the remaining prior art of record does not cure the deficiencies in
the § 103(a) rejection of claims 1 and 7). Therefore, the § 103(a) rejections of
claims 2—5, 8—10, and 12 are also sustained.
C. DECISION
The Examiner’s decision is affirmed.
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
8