Ex Parte Fukasawa

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 19, 2017

13167247 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 19, 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.
FUKASAWA=13 7616
EXAMINER
SALERNO, SARAH KATE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2814
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
13/167,247 06/23/2011
1444 7590
Browdy and Neimark, PLLC
1625 K Street, N.W.
Suite 1100
Washington, DC 20006
04/19/2017
Koichi FUKASAWA
04/19/2017 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 KOICHI FUKASAWA1
Appeal 2015-006723
Application 13/167,247
Technology Center 2800
Before MARK NAGUMO, JAMES C. HOUSEL, and LILAN REN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
Opinion for the Board by NAGUMO, Administrative Patent Judge.
HOUSEL, Administrative Patent Judge, concurring.
NAGUMO, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Koichi Fukasawa (“Fukasawa”) timely appeals under
35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection2 of all pending claims 1—3, 5—
11, and 13. We have jurisdiction. 35 U.S.C. § 6. We reverse.
1 The real parties in interest are identified as Citizen Electronics Co., Ltd.,
and Citizen Holdings Co., Ltd (Appeal Brief, filed 29 January 2015
(“Br.”), 1.)
2 Office action mailed 29 July 2014 (“Final Rejection”; cited as “FR”).
Appeal 2015-006723
Application 13/167,247
OPINION
A. Introduction3
The subject matter on appeal relates to high brightness light emitting
devices. The devices comprise a plurality of linear packages L4 of LED
elements 2. Within each package, the LED elements are provided on a
substrate and connected electrically in parallel. Successive packages L are
arranged parallel to one another, and are connected electrically in series.
An example of a prior art embodiment is shown in Figure 15.
^m kt) w (Prior Art)
i HI
* 4
LI L2 13 L4 L5
Positions of sight-emitting arrays -------
(Fig. 16: heat profile}
According to the ’247 Specification, “the generally same current value flows
in each LED element and generates heat in approximately the same way.”
(Spec. 3,11. 16—17.) The Specification explains that diode packages LI
and L5, at the ends of the array, can release heat to the surroundings.
In contrast, interior diode packages L2, L3, and L4 “tend to keep
accumulated buildup temperature, which are blocked by other diode
102 ; 2a
103c
i "l ( fPh ; : rtfi j -£=h> |
| i : -w-j: i ‘T'b
■{A-- ->4 r
j / : i -e*j: : j ■A
i ji ■ "vA1 - ; W: : ■ > ; "/r
—... \
*5 2 -- £3
13a_ ...ry t ,o
u 1 i 1 )H
"2e
CL
8
1——!—\—f—7—j—j—
2a 2b 2c 2d / ! (
12a LI 14a
Hi
LI L2 L3 L4 L5
Positions of I ight-emitting arrays-------=»-
(Fig. 2 shows an inventive LED array} (Fig. 3 shows the heat profile}
Claim 1 is representative of the dispositive issues and reads:
A light-emitting device [10] comprising:
a substrate [11];
a plurality of electrode strips [12] arranged parallel to
each other on an upper surface of the substrate;
a plurality of light-emitting arrays [L] arranged parallel to
each other, the plurality of light-emitting arrays each with
a structure in that
a plurality of light-emitting diode elements [2] are
arranged in a line between an adjacent pair of the
plurality of electrode strips and
3
Appeal 2015-006723
Application 13/167,247
electrically connected in parallel to the adjacent pair of
the plurality of electrode strips by wires;
the plurality of electrode strips [12] and the plurality of
light-emitting arrays [L] being arranged alternately and
parallel to each other; and
at least two electrodes for external electrical connection
including a first electrode [13a] and a second
electrode [13b] and provided separately from each other,
the first electrode provided contiguously at, at least one
end of one of two electrode strips of the plurality of
electrode strips,
the second electrode provided contiguously at, at least
one end of an other of the two electrode strips that are
positioned at opposite ends of an alternately arranged
direction where the plurality of electrode strips and the
plurality of light-emitting arrays are arranged
alternately and parallel to each other,
wherein the plurality of light-emitting arrays L, that
are arranged parallel to each other include
a central-position light-emitting array L3 that is
positioned in a center of the alternately arranged
direction where the plurality of electrode strips
and the plurality of light-emitting arrays are
arranged alternately and parallel to each other,
and wherein
the number of the light-emitting diode elements
arranged in each of the light-emitting arrays is
gradually decreased from the central-position light-
emitting array that is positioned in the center of the
alternately arranged direction toward the light-
emitting arrays positioned adjacent to the two
electrode strips where the electrode strips and the
light-emitting arrays are arranged alternately and
parallel to each other.
(Claims App., Br. 13—14; some indentation, paragraphing, bracketed labels
to elements shown in Figure 2, and emphasis added.)
4
Appeal 2015-006723
Application 13/167,247
Remaining independent claim 10 is similar, but expresses the critical
requirement as, “wherein the number of the light-emitting diode elements in
the light-emitting group positioned adjacent to a center of the light-emitting
array is more than the number of the light-emitting diode elements arranged
in each of the light-emitting groups that are positioned adjacent to the two
electrodes for external electrical connection . . . (Id. at 17,11. 14—17.)
The Examiner maintains the following grounds of rejection5,6:
A. Claims 1—3, 5, 6, 8, and 9 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of the combined teachings of
Konishi5 6 7 and Yuan.8
Al. Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of
the combined teachings of Konishi, Yuan, and Takeuchi.9
B. Claims 10, 11, and 13 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of the combined teachings of
Shuy10 and Yuan.
5 Examiner’s Answer mailed 6 May 2015 (“Ans.”).
6 Because this application was filed before the 16 March 2013 effective date
of the America Invents Act, we refer to the pre-AIA version of the statute.
7 Masahiro Konishi et al., Light emitting device and method for
manufacturing the same, U.S. Patent Application Publication
2008/0224608 Al (2008).
8 Thomas Cheng-Hsin Yuan and Bemd Keller, LED array and method for
fabricating same, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2008/0170396 Al
(2008).
9 Ryouichi Takeuchi et al., Semiconductor light-emitting device, . . . , U.S.
Patent No. 6,512,248 B1 (2003).
10 Geoffrey Wen-Tai Shuy et al., Light emitting diode matrix, U.S. Patent
Application Publication 2008/0099772 Al (2008).
5
Appeal 2015-006723
Application 13/167,247
B. Discussion
Findings of fact throughout this Opinion are supported by a
preponderance of the evidence of record.
The Examiner finds that Konishi (Figure 1) and Shuy (Figure 4)
disclose LED arrays meeting the requirements of independent claims 1
and 10, respectively, but for the requirement that the number of diodes in the
arrays decrease with distance from the central light-emitting array. (FR 2,
1. 15, to 3,1. 16; and 6,1. 19, to 7,1. 11.) The Examiner finds that Yuan
describes this missing limitation in Fig. la and in paragraph [0030].
{Id. at 3,11. 16-20; 7,11. 12-19.)
In Yuan Figure la, shown to the right, FIG. la
Yuan, paragraph [0030], reads in full:
The present invention is directed to compact, simple and
efficient light emitting devices or arrays and methods for
manufacturing same. Each array can comprise a submount
with a plurality of LEDs coupled together to emit light
simultaneously when an electrical signal is applied to the
array. The arrays according to the present invention can
include features to provide for improved thermal
management including spreading heat from the LED into the
submount from where the heat can then dissipate into a heat
sink attached at the bottom of device or the ambient. This
LED elements 106 are connected electrically in
series, and are arranged in a serpentine pattern
on top surface 104 of substrate 102 between
electrodes input and output contact pads 114
and 116.
(Fig. la shows an LED array}
6
Appeal 2015-006723
Application 13/167,247
allows the arrays to operate under higher power and emit
higher luminous flux without overheating.
(Yuan 2 [0030]; emphasis added.)
We are unable to discern any substantial evidence of a teaching in this
passage that serially-connected parallel arrays of LEDs connected in parallel
would be afforded improved thermal management by reducing the number
of LED elements in the arrays more removed from the centrally positioned
array. The only apparent teachings regarding heat dissipation relate to heat­
spreading elements that conduct heat to sinks disposed on the bottom of the
device.
Fukasawa points out, with commendable candor, that Yuan does
mention that “[t]he light emitting elements can be connected in parallel, in
series, or in a combination of both to achieve optimal light output.” (Br. 8,
11. 5—7, quoting Yuan 3 [0045].) This teaching provides a reasonable
description of the arrangement of LEDs in both Konishi, Figure 1, and Shuy,
Figure 4. But it is not apparent that it teaches or suggests reducing the
number of LED elements in sub-arrays more distant from the centrally-
positioned array. The Examiner has not explained how the routineer would
have been prompted to make the required modification.
The Examiner makes no findings regarding other teachings of the
applied references that cure this fundamental defect.11
11 We are well aware of the practical difficulty of finding prior art teachings
of seemingly “simple” or “obvious” modifications of seemingly “simple”
inventions. But obviousness under § 103 must be based on evidence in the
prior art, and a proper rejection must explain how that evidence would have
taught, suggested, or motivated the modifications necessary to overcome the
differences between the prior art and the claimed invention. To proceed
7
Appeal 2015-006723
Application 13/167,247
We, therefore reverse the appealed rejections.
C. Order
It is ORDERED that the rejection of claims 1—3, 5—11, and 13 is
reversed.
REVERSED
without adequate evidence and explanation is to fall into the trap of
prohibited hindsight.
8
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KOICHI FUKASAWA12
Appeal 2015-006723
Application 13/167,247
Technology Center 2800
Before MARK NAGUMO, JAMES C. HOUSEL, and LILAN REN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
HOUSEL, Administrative Patent Judge, concurring
Although I concur with the majority that the Examiner has not
established a prima facie case of obviousness for the claimed subject matter,
I write separately to raise a matter that neither the Examiner nor the majority
address. I note that the Examiner’s obviousness rejection relied on
modifying Konishi’s LED array in view of Yuan’s teaching of a three rows
of 2, 3, 2 LED’s and Yuan’s discussion of improved thermal management in
paragraph 30. Ans. 3^4. As the majority states, Yuan’s discussion of
improved thermal management does not relate to Yuan’s selection of the
number of LED’s in each row as depicted in Figure la. Therefore, the basis
on which the Examiner relies for motivating the ordinary artisan to decrease
12 The real parties in interest are identified as Citizen Electronics Co., Ltd.,
and Citizen Holdings Co., Ltd (Appeal Brief, filed 29 January 2015
(“Br.”), 1.)
Appeal 2015-006723
Application 13/167,247
the number of LED’s in each row from a center row or position is harm fill
error.
Nonetheless, Yuan does depict in Figure la an LED array having a
plurality of rows, wherein the number of LED’s arranged in each row on
opposing sides of the center row have fewer (two) LED’s than the center
row (three LED’s). Further, Yuan teaches that the LED’s “can be connected
in parallel, in series, or in a combination of both to achieve optimal light
output.” Yuan |45 (emphasis added). Appellant discloses, as prior art
Figure 15, and Konishi teaches arrangements for connecting rows of LED’s
in an LED array using a combination of parallel and series connections. In
my view, given these teachings, it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to connect Yuan’s LED’s in each row in parallel and
connect the rows in series as a known and predictable arrangement for
connecting such LED arrays as taught in Appellant’s admitted prior art and
Konishi with a reasonable expectation of success.
2