Ex Parte Fung et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 30, 2009

10779116 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 30, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
________________

Ex parte ELIZABETH CHING LING FUNG, KEE YEAN NG,
and HONG HUST YEOH
________________

Appeal 2009-002776
Application 10/779,116
Technology Center 2800
________________

Decided:1 June 30, 2009
________________

Before EDWARD C. KIMLIN, CHARLES F. WARREN, and
TERRY J. OWENS, Administrative Patent Judges.

OWENS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-4, 6, 7, 11-13, 17-19, 21, and 24. Claims 8, 10, 15,
and 22, which are all of the other pending claims, stand withdrawn from
consideration by the Examiner. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, begins to run from the Decided Date
shown on this page of the decision. The time period does not run from the
Mail Date (paper delivery) or Notification Date (electronic delivery).
Appeal 2009-002776
Application 10/779,116

2
The Invention
The Appellants claim a light emitting diode display and a method for
making it. Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A light emitting diode display device, comprising:

a substrate comprising a first conductive portion and a second
conductive portion;

a light emitting diode die coupled to said first conductive
portion;

a wire bond coupled to said light emitting diode die and coupled
to said second conductive portion;

a non-gaseous encapsulant coating said light emitting diode die
and surrounding said wire bond and extending above said substrate
such that said light emitting diode die and said wire bond are
encapsulated between said substrate and said non-gaseous
encapsulant coating; and

an overlay bonded to said light emitting diode display device
above said non-gaseous encapsulant coating, said overlay
comprising an opaque area and a transparent area, said transparent
area and said opaque area both being illuminated by said light
emitting diode, while only light from said transparent region leaves said
light emitting display device, said overlay having a glass transition
temperature of at least 260 degrees Celsius.

The References
Usui 3,869,637 Mar. 4, 1975
Appeldorn 4,146,883 Mar. 27, 1979
Stein 4,853,593 Aug. 1, 1989
Aitken 6,998,776 B2 Feb. 14, 2006
(filed Apr. 16, 2003)

Appeal 2009-002776
Application 10/779,116

3
The Rejections
The claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as follows: claims 1,
4, 6, 7, and 11 over Stein in view of Aitken and Usui, and claims 1-4, 6, 7,
11-13, 17-19, 21, and 24 over Appeldorn in view of Aitken and Usui.
OPINION
The rejection over Stein in view of Aitken and Usui is affirmed as to
claims 1, 4, 7, and 11, and reversed as to claim 6. The rejection over
Appeldorn in view of Aitken and Usui is affirmed as to claims 1-4, 6, 7, 11-
13, 17, 18, 21, and 24, and reversed as to claim 19.
Rejection of claims 1, 4, 6, 7, and 11 over
Stein in view of Aitken and Usui
Claims 1, 4, 7, and 11
Issue
Have the Appellants shown reversible error in the Examiner’s
determination that Stein discloses a substrate comprising a first conductive
portion and a second conductive portion?
Findings of Fact
Stein discloses a light emitting diode (LED) display comprising a
conductor tape (7) formed as a lead frame (col. 3, ll. 37-38). Conductor
tape 7 has two portions, one of which (right side portion in Figure 2) is
coupled to an LED (3), and the other of which (left side portion in Figure 2)
is coupled to one end of a wire, the other end of the wire being coupled to
LED 3 (Fig. 2).
Analysis
The Appellants argue (Br. 11):
Appeal 2009-002776
Application 10/779,116

4
Neither Stein, Aitken, nor Usui either in combination or individually
disclose a substrate having a first conduction [sic, conductive] portion
and a second conductive portion. Stein shows conductor tape 7
formed as a so-called lead frame, not as a substrate (Fig. 2, column 3,
lines 36-38).

“[D]uring examination proceedings, claims are given their broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification.” In re Translogic
Tech. Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2007), quoting In re Hyatt, 211
F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
The Appellants’ Specification states that the substrate can be a lead
frame (Spec. 6:14-15; claim 11). Hence, Stein’s lead frame is a substrate as
the term “substrate” reasonably would have been most broadly construed
consistently with the Appellants’ Specification.
The Appellants argue that “[i]t appears that the Examiner’s proposed
combination of Stein, Aitken, and Usui is based solely on hindsight derived
from the Appellants’ specification” (Br. 17).
The Appellants, however, have provided no explanation in support of
that argument.
Conclusion of Law
The Appellants have not shown reversible error in the Examiner’s
determination that Stein discloses a substrate comprising a first conductive
portion and a second conductive portion.
Claim 6
Issue
Have the Appellants shown reversible error in the Examiner’s
determination that Stein discloses an epoxy encapsulant coating?
Appeal 2009-002776
Application 10/779,116

5
Findings of Fact
Stein discloses “a transparent synthetic resin” light guide (1) (col. 2,
ll. 51-52; col. 3, l. 21-22; Fig. 2) which corresponds to the Appellants’
encapsulant coating (250, Fig. 2A).
Analysis
The Appellants argue that Stein discloses a synthetic resin, and that
not all synthetic resins are epoxies (Br. 17).
The Examiner argues (Ans. 10):
As is understood in the art, epoxies are adhesives that are at
least partially made from a resin. Stein teaches a “synthetic resin”
that forms the non-gaseous encapsulant (light guide 4; see col. 2,
lines 50-53), and further states that the light guide material preferably
has an adhesive property in order to hold the LED package together
see col. 2, lines 57-61). Thus, Stein teaches an adhesive resin used as
the non-gaseous encapsulant, as claimed.

The Examiner’s argument that Stein’s transparent synthetic resin has
an adhesive property and, therefore, is an epoxy is not persuasive because
the Examiner has not established that all adhesive resins are epoxies. An
epoxy has “an –O– bridge in a molecule attached to different C atoms,
which are otherwise united.”2 The Examiner has not established that Stein’s
transparent synthetic resin includes such a structure or explained how Stein
would have rendered prima facie obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art,
the use of an epoxy as the transparent synthetic resin light guide material.
Conclusion of Law
The Appellants have shown reversible error in the Examiner’s
determination that Stein discloses an epoxy encapsulant coating.

2 Hackh’s Chemical Dictionary 244 (McGraw-Hill 1972).
Appeal 2009-002776
Application 10/779,116

6
Rejection of claims 1-4, 6, 7, 11-13, 17-19, 21, and 24
over Appeldorn in view of Aitken and Usui
Claims 1-4, 6, 7, 11-13, 17-18, 21, and 24
Issue
Have the Appellants shown reversible error in the Examiner’s
determination that Appeldorn discloses wire bonds coupling the LED and
the substrate’s second conductive portion?
Findings of Fact
Appeldorn discloses a display comprising a substrate (26) having one
or more recesses (33) for receiving an LED chip (27) having a plurality of
electrodes (34) connected to conductors (43) on a lead conductor tape
assembly (28) (col. 5, ll. 17-22, 29-30, 56-61).
Analysis
The Appellants argue (Br. 21-22):
Neither Appeldorn, Aitken, nor Usui either in combination or
individually disclose wire bonds coupling each LED die to the second
conductive portion. The Examiner indicates that wire bonds 43 are
disclosed in Appeldorn (Final Office Action, pg. 5). Appeldorn does
not disclose wire bonds 43. Rather, Appeldorn discloses tape
assembly conductors 43 (See col. 6, lines 55-57).

Appeldorn’s conductors 43 are called “tape assembly conductors”
(col. 6, ll. 56-57) because they are on lead conductor tape assembly 28
(col. 5, ll. 58-61). The disclosed dimensions of conductors 43 (about 0.03-
0.06 mm thick and as little as 0.05 mm wide (col. 5, ll. 66-68)) indicate that
they reasonably can be considered to be wires.
The Appellants argue that the Examiner’s combination of Appeldorn,
Aitken and Usui is based solely upon hindsight (Br. 23).
Appeal 2009-002776
Application 10/779,116

7
The Appellants, however, have provided no explanation in support of
that argument.
Conclusion of Law
The Appellants have not shown reversible error in the Examiner’s
determination that Appeldorn discloses wire bonds coupling the LED and
the substrate’s second conductive portion.
Claim 19
Issue
Have the Appellants shown reversible error in the Examiner’s
determination that Appeldorn discloses an overlay attached to a top housing
surface by a layer of double-sided tape?
Findings of Fact
Appeldorn discloses that the display includes an inner cover (32) that
mounts an outer cover (31) and is affixed to tape assembly 28 and/or
substrate 26 (col. 6, ll. 8-10). Outer cover 31 has downwardly extending
ribs (52) that fit into slots or notches (53) in recesses (54) of inner cover (32)
(col. 6, ll. 28-31).
Analysis
The Appellants argue (Br. 31-32):
Appeldorn teaches (Column 5, lines 10-12) the use of “a beam lead
tape assembly 28 for connecting the chips to a source of electrical
signals to activate the LED’s for emitting light.” Claim 19 requires
the presence of double-sided tape that attaches the overlay to the top
surface of the housing. The Examiner has not pointed to any teaching
that the tape in Appeldorn satisfies this requirement.

The Examiner argues that Appeldorn’s substrate 26 forms a housing
(Ans. 6) or part of a housing (Ans. 12).
Appeal 2009-002776
Application 10/779,116

8
The Appellants’ claim 17, from which claim 19 depends, requires a
housing coupled to a substrate. Because Appeldorn’s substrate 26 cannot
reasonably be considered to be coupled to itself, it cannot correspond to all
or part of the Appellants’ housing.
The Examiner argues that Appeldorn’s outer (31) and inner (32)
covers together correspond to the Appellants’ overlay and are attached to
substrate 26 by double-sided tape 28 (Ans. 12).
If Appeldorn’s outer (31) and inner (32) covers together correspond to
the Appellants’ overlay, then Appeldorn has no structure corresponding to
the Appellants’ housing. Appeldorn’s inner (32) and outer (31) covers may
be considered to correspond, respectively, to the Appellants’ housing and
overlay, but if so, Appeldorn lacks a disclosure that outer cover 31 is
attached to inner cover 32 by double-sided tape.
Conclusion of Law
The Appellants have shown reversible error in the Examiner’s
determination that Appeldorn discloses an overlay attached to a top housing
surface by a layer of double-sided tape.
DECISION/ORDER
The rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Stein in view of Aitken and
Usui is affirmed as to claims 1, 4, 7, and 11, and reversed as to claim 6. The
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Appeldorn in view of Aitken and Usui
is affirmed as to claims 1-4, 6, 7, 11-13, 17, 18, 21, and 24, and reversed as
to claim 19.
It is ordered that the Examiner’s decision is affirmed-in-part.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
Appeal 2009-002776
Application 10/779,116

9
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

PL Initial:
sld

KATHY MANKE
AVAGO TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED
4380 ZIEGER ROAD
FORT COLLINS, CO 80525