Ex Parte Sills et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 14, 2016

12853105 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 14, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/853, 105 08/09/2010
46844 7590 06/16/2016
PERKINS COIE LLP - Micron
PATENT-SEA
PO BOX 1247
SEATTLE, WA 98111-1247
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Scott E. Sills
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
108299006US 5184
EXAMINER
YECHURI, SITARAMARAO S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2818
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/16/2016 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):
patentprocurement@perkinscoie.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SCOTT E. SILLS, DAVID R. JENKINS, and
DAVID R. HEMBREE
Appeal2014-008692
Application 12/853, 1051
Technology Center 2800
Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, CATHERINE Q. TIMM, and
JAMES C. HOUSEL, Administrative Patent Judges.
PER CURIAM.
DECISION ON APPEAL
A. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants filed an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's
decision finally rejecting claims 1-5, 7, 10-16, 18, and 19.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).2
We REVERSE.
The subject matter on appeal is directed to solid state lights and solid state
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Micron Technology. Appeal
Br. 1.
2 Our decision refers to Appellants' Specification filed December 17, 2012 (Spec.),
the Final Office Action mailed February 1, 2013 (Final Act.), Appellants' Appeal
Brief filed February 28, 2014 (Appeal Br.), the Examiner's Answer mailed June 5,
2014 (Ans.), and Appellants' Reply Brief filed August 5, 2014 (Reply Br.).
Appeal2014-008692
Application 12/853, 105
emitters (see, e.g., claims 1 and 16). Appellants disclose solid state lights are
sensitive to heat, such as heat generated during the use of solid state lights, which
causes the solid state lights to deteriorate and fail. Spec. i-f 5. In view of this,
conventional lights have used active temperature control systems, which are
complex and costly, or passive control systems to control the temperature of solid
state lights. Spec. i-f 6. An exemplary passive temperature control system includes
a positive temperature coefficient thermistor having a resistance that increases as
temperature increases, which in tum limits the light output and heat generation of a
solid state light. Spec. i-f 6. However, Appellants disclose that existing passive
temperature control systems are relatively slow to respond due to their lateral
positioning from a solid state light. Spec. i-f 7. To address this, Appellants disclose
solid state emitters having integral temperature control elements, which provide
faster response times and improved temperature control. Spec. i-f 27.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the claims on appeal and is reproduced below from
the Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief. 3 The limitations at issue are italicized.
1. A solid state light ("SSL"), comprising:
a packaging substrate having an electrical contact;
a light emitting structure having -
a first semiconductor material and a second semiconductor
material with an active region therebetween;
a reflective material proximate the second semiconductor
material; and
a temperature control element positioned between the
light emitting structure and the electrical contact of the
packaging substrate, wherein the temperature control element
comprises a positive temperature coefficient ("PTC") material
3 Appeal Br. 15. Appellants filed an After-Final claim amendment on February 27,
2014. The Examiner approved entry of the claim amendment in an Advisory
Action mailed March 11, 2014. The claims in the Claims Appendix correspond to
the claims amended by the After-Final claim amendment.
2
Appeal2014-008692
Application 12/853, 105
contacting the reflective material such that the temperature
control element is integrated directly with the light emitting
structure.
The claims on appeal stand rejected as follows:
(1) claims 1-5, 7, 10, 13, 14, 16, 18, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over the combination of Okazaki4 and Wang;5
(2) claims 11 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
the combination of Okazaki and Wang and further in view ofMenzer;6 and
(3) claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the
combination of Okazaki and Wang and further in view ofMoos.7
B. DISCUSSION
Rejections (1) and (4)
Claims 1-5, 7, 10, 13, 14, 16, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over the combination of Okazaki and Wang. Appellants do
not argue independent claim 16 or dependent claims 2-5, 7, 10, 13, 14, 18, and 19
separately from claim 1. Appeal Br. 12-13. Therefore, we select claim 1 as
representative for resolving the issues on appeal.
The dispositive issue on appeal is whether Appellants have shown reversible
error in the Examiner's conclusion that it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to replace the barrier layer and overcoat electrode layer of
Okazaki with the barium titanate and electrode layers of Wang in Okazaki' s light
emitting element.
4 Okazaki et al., US 2005/0218419 Al, published Oct. 6, 2005 ("Okazaki").
5 Wang et al., US 5,316,973 A, issued May 31, 1994 ("Wang").
6 Menzer et al., US 2002/0043943 Al, published Apr. 18, 2002 ("Menzer").
7 Moos et al., US 6,144,286 A, issued Nov. 7, 2000 ("Moos").
3
Appeal2014-008692
Application 12/853,105
We determine that Appellants have identified such an error.
The Examiner finds Okazaki discloses a solid state light including a
packaging substrate and a light emitting structure having a first semiconductor
material, a second semiconductor material, and a reflective material. Final Act. 2-
3. Figure 8 of Okazaki is reproduced below.
Fl G. 8
Figure 8 is a side sectional view of an embodiment of a light emitting element.
Figure 8 depicts the structure of a light emitting element, according to an
embodiment disclosed by Okazaki. The light emitting element includes an n-side
electrode 25 and a p-side electrode 26. Okazaki i-f 96. The p-side electrode 26 has
a five-layered structure including a Ni layer 32, a Mo layer 33, an Al layer 34, a Ti
layer 35, and an Au layer 36. Okazaki i-f 97. Okazaki discloses that interdiffusion
of metal atoms between the Ni layer 32 and the Al layer 34, or between the Al
4
Appeal2014-008692
Application 12/853, 105
layer 34 and the Au layer 36, leads to diminished bonding between layers or to
formation of a high-resistance layer, which raises the voltage needed to produce
light with the light emitting element. Okazaki i-fi-f 122, 137, and 138. Okazaki
discloses that the Mo layer 33 functions as a barrier layer between the Ni layer 32
and the Al layer 34 (a reflective layer for light) to prevent the interdiffusion of
metal atoms between the Ni layer 32 and the Al layer 34. Okazaki i-f 122.
Similarly, the Ti layer 35 between the reflective Al layer 34 and the Au layer 36
functions as a barrier layer to prevent interdiffusion of metal atoms between the Al
layer 34 and the Au layer 36. Okazaki i-fi-f 136 and 139.
The Examiner finds Okazaki does not disclose the temperature control
element recited in claim 1. Final Act. 3. The Examiner finds Wang discloses a
positive temperature coefficient resistant device including a barium titanate layer
and an electrode layer. Final Act. 3. The Examiner concludes it would have been
obvious to substitute the barium titanate and electrode layers of Wang for barrier
layer 35 and electrode layer 36 of Okazaki to stabilize current through the light of
Okazaki. Final Act. 3--4; Ans. 3.
Appellants argue one of ordinary skill in the art would not have modified the
light emitting element of Okazaki in view of Wang, as proposed by the Examiner.
Appeal Br. 8. In particular, Appellants assert Okazaki discloses a five-layered
electrode including barrier layers to prevent diffusion of metal atoms. Appeal Br.
8-9. Appellants contend the barium titanate layer of Wang differs from the barrier
layer materials in Okazaki and would not function as a barrier layer to prevent
interdiffusion of metal atoms between electrode layer 36 and reflective layer 34.
Appeal Br. 9-12.
In response, the Examiner finds the electrode of Okazaki, as modified by
Wang, would no longer have an overcoat electrode layer 3 6 because the electrode
5
Appeal2014-008692
Application 12/853, 105
layer 36 and barrier layer 35 would be respectively replaced by the electrode and
barium titanate layers of Wang. Ans. 3. The Examiner finds "[t]he Electrode 10
of Wang does not create the problems which the overcoat layer 36 causes, thus
there is no need for the barrier layer (Ti layer 35)" (emphasis changed to italics).
Ans. 3.
Appellants contend there would still be a need for a buffer layer material in
Okazaki' s light emitting element because interdiffusion would still occur when the
overcoat electrode layer 36 is replaced with electrode 10 of Wang. Reply Br. 2. In
that regard, the electrode layers of Wang and Okazaki are both comprised of metal,
such as gold. See Okazaki, col. 8, 1. 34 (describing layer 36 as a gold layer);
Wang, col. 3, 11. 37-38 (describing the electrode as a layer of silver or gold).
On this record, the Examiner does not appear to recognize that replacing
Okazaki's overcoat electrode layer with Wang's electrode is merely replacing one
metal layer with another metal layer and does not address Appellants' argument
that the problem of interdiffusion between the metal electrode layer of Wang and
the reflective layer 34 of Okazaki would still exist in Okazaki' s modified light
emitting element. Moreover, the Examiner has failed to show that the barium
titanate material of Wang would have been expected to function as a barrier layer
material to prevent interdiffusion between the electrode layer of Wang and the
reflective layer 34 in Okazaki' s modified light emitting element.
Based on the foregoing, Appellants' arguments are persuasive that the
Examiner reversibly erred in the rejection of claim 1 by concluding it would have
been obvious to replace the barrier layer and overcoat electrode layer of Okazaki
with the barium titanate and electrode layers of Wang in Okazaki's light emitting
element. For the reasons discussed above, the rejections of claims 1-5, 7, 10, 13,
6
Appeal2014-008692
Application 12/853, 105
14, 16, 18, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination
of Okazaki and Wang are not sustained.
Rejections (2) and (3)
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over the combination of Okazaki and Wang and further in view of Menzer and
claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the
combination of Okazaki and Wang and further in view of Moos. Claims 11, 12,
and 15 depend from claim 1. The Examiner's reliance on Menzer and Moos does
not cure the deficiencies discussed above. Therefore, we do not sustain the § 103
rejections over the combination of Okazaki, Wang, and Menzer and the
combination of Okazaki, Wang, and Moos.
C. DECISION
The decision of the Examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
7