Ex Parte Harbers et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 11, 2013

11242300 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 11, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
________________

Ex parte GERARD HARBERS and SERGE J. BIERHUIZEN
________________

Appeal 2011-005272
Application 11/242,300
Technology Center 2800
________________

Before RICHARD E. SCHAFER, JOHN G. NEW, and HUNG H. BUI,
Administrative Patent Judges.

NEW, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-005272
Application 11/242,300

2
SUMMARY
Appellants file this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1-29. Specifically, claims 1, 2, 6-8,
13, 20, 22-26, and 28 stand rejected as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Inoue et al. (EP 1 564478 A1, October 17, 2003)
(“Inoue”).
Claims 3-5, 14-19, 21, 27, and 29 stand rejected as unpatentable
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over the combination of Inoue
and Keuper et al. (US 5,947,587, September 7, 1999) (“Keuper”).
Claims 9-12 stand rejected as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being obvious over Inoue.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

NATURE OF THE CLAIMED INVENTION
Appellants’ invention is directed to a light system including a
plurality of light emitting elements, such as light emitting diodes, arranged
in an array. One or more light emitting elements are positioned in a center
region of the array. The light emitting elements in the center region have
superior performance, such as luminance and/or efficiency, relative to the
remainder of the light emitting elements in the array. A second region that
is outside the center region, i.e., farther from the center of the array, include
a second group of light emitting elements that have superior performance
relative to any additional light emitting elements in the array. The array
may include additional regions farther from the center of the array that
include light emitting elements with lower performance. A collection optic
Appeal 2011-005272
Application 11/242,300

3
having an optical axis is optically coupled to the array such that the optical
axis is located at approximately the center of the array. Abstract.
GROUPING OF CLAIMS

Because Appellants argue that the Examiner erred for substantially
the same reasons with respect to claims 1-29, we select claim 1 as
representative of these claims. App. Br. 5, 8, 9. Claim 1 recites:
1. A light system comprising:

a plurality of light emitting dements arranged in an array,
wherein the light emitting elements in the array are the same
kind of light emitting elements, wherein the light emitting
elements vary in a parameter that is intrinsic to the light
emitting elements and is a performance criterion for the light
system, the array comprising:

a center region in which is positioned a first light
emitting element, the first light emitting element having an
intrinsic superior performance in the parameter relative to the
remainder of the light emitting elements in the array; and

a second region that is outside the center region, the
second region containing a second group of light emitting
elements having lower performance in the parameter relative to
the first light emitting element

App. Br. 10.

ISSUE
Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in finding that the cited
prior art references teach or suggest the limitation of claim 1 reciting
“wherein the light emitting elements vary in a parameter that is intrinsic to
Appeal 2011-005272
Application 11/242,300

4
the light emitting dements.” App. Br. 5. We therefore address the issue of
whether the Examiner so erred.

ANALYSIS
Appellants argue that, in the Examiner’s Final Rejection, the
Examiner stated that Inoue teaches “the brightness may either be varied by
differences in voltage or ‘by the difference in dominant radiation
wavelength within the visible light wavelength region (difference in
brightness of R, G, B),’ which corresponds to an intrinsic property of the
LED.” App. Br. 6 (quoting Final Rej. 11). Appellants contend that the
Examiner was incorrect in finding that the variation of brightness described
in paragraph [0142] of Inoue is a variation in intrinsic parameter of each
LED, as required by claim 1. Id.
Appellants submit that brightness refers to a visual perception of the
amount of light emitted by a source, which can vary depending upon whom
or what is doing the perceiving. App. Br. 6-7. As such, argue Appellants,
brightness is not a parameter that is intrinsic to the light emitting elements.
App. Br. 7. Appellants point to the US Federal Glossary of
Telecommunication Terms Federal Standard 1037C, which defines
brightness as “An attribute of visual perception in which a source appears to
emit a given amount of light. Note 1: ‘Brightness’ should be used only for
nonquantitative references to physiological sensations and perceptions of
light.” App. Br. 7 (quoting Evidence App’x 2). According to Appellants,
because brightness is not quantitative, it cannot be measured and has no
units. App. Br. 7.
Appeal 2011-005272
Application 11/242,300

5
Appellants concede that brightness has been used as a synonym for a
quantitative measure such as luminance. App. Br. 7 (quoting Evidence
App’x 2, Note 2) (“‘Brightness” was formerly used as a synonym for the
photometric term ‘luminance’ and (incorrectly) for the radiometric term
‘radiance.’”). However, argue Appellants, Inoue teaches brightness in a
qualitative sense, and does not to refer to a parameter that is intrinsic to an
LED. App. Br. 7 (quoting Inoue, ¶ [0144] (“[T]he brightness of LEDs 56
can be adjusted, for example, by the difference in dominant radiation
wavelength within the visible light wavelength region (difference in
brightness of R, G or B) . . . .”). Appellants point out that the “difference in
brightness of R, G or B” refers to the sensitivity of the human eye to certain
wavelengths; when two LEDs that emit different colors of light at the same
luminance are compared, one may appear brighter because the human eye is
more sensitive to that wavelength. App. Br. 7. Appellants thus argue that
the difference in brightness is due to the varying sensitivity of human
perception and not due to a difference in a parameter intrinsic to the LEDs.
App. Br. 7-8. Appellants also argue that the Examiner has failed to
demonstrate any teaching that Inoue is using the term “brightness”
qualitatively or as a synonym for luminance. Id.
The Examiner responds that Inoue teaches that the variation in
brightness is caused by different dominant wavelengths of a red, green, or
blue LED: the wavelength of the LED being a property that is intrinsic to
the LED. The Examiner finds that Inoue also teaches that color is listed as
one of the intrinsic LED parameters. Ans. 13 (citing Inoue, claim 2).
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments. Inoue teaches that:
“[t]he brightness of LEDs 56 can be adjusted, for example, by the
Appeal 2011-005272
Application 11/242,300

6
difference in dominant radiation wavelength within the visible light
wavelength region (difference in brightness of R, G or B).” Inoue,
¶ [0144]; see Final Rej. 11. Inoue thus teaches that the differential
brightness of the LEDs in the array is a direct result of the differential
distribution of LEDs possessing differing dominant radiation emission
wavelengths within the visible light range of the electromagnetic radiation
spectrum. Whether “brightness” is being used by Inoue in a qualitative
sense or as a synonym for radiance is immaterial. We find that Inoue
teaches differential distribution of light-emitting elements with different
radiation emission characteristics. The dominant wavelength emitted by an
LED is an intrinsic element of the LED. We therefore agree with the
Examiner that Inoue discloses the disputed limitation of claim 1 and
conclude that the Examiner did not err in so finding.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 6-8, 13, 20, 22-26, and 28
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is affirmed.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 3-5, 9-12, 14-19, 21, 27, and 29
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is affirmed.

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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2011).

AFFIRMED
Appeal 2011-005272
Application 11/242,300

7

msc