Ex Parte Wilm

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 25, 2018

14848720 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 25, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/848,720 09/09/2015
35811 7590 09/27/2018
IP GROUP OF DLA PIPER LLP (US)
ONE LIBERTY PLACE
1650 MARKET ST, SUITE 4900
PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103
UNITED ST A TES OF AMERICA
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Alexander Wilm
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.
EHF-13-1062CON 1787
EXAMINER
ZHU, SHENG-BAI
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2892
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/27/2018 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):
pto. phil@dlapiper.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ALEXANDER WILM
Appeal2018-000986
Application 14/848, 720 1
Technology Center 2800
Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, DONNA M. PRAISS, and
WESLEY B. DERRICK, Administrative Patent Judges.
HANLON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
A. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellant filed an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from an
Examiner's decision finally rejecting claims 1-11. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
The Appellant's invention is directed to a method of combining LEDs
in a packaging unit and a packaging unit having a multiplicity of LEDs.
1 The real party in interest, and the Applicant, is said to be OSRAM OPTO
SEMICONDUCTORS GMBH. Appeal Brief dated April 18, 2017 ("App.
Br."), at 1.
Appeal2018-000986
Application 14/848, 720
Representative claim 1 is reproduced below from the Claims
Appendix to the Appeal Brief. The limitation at issue is italicized.
1. A method of combining LEDs in a packaging unit
compnsmg:
determining a color locus of a multiplicity of LEDs,
classifying the LEDs into a plurality of different color
locus ranges, each LED classified into a color locus range
comprising the determined color locus of the respective LED,
and
arranging the LEDs in the packaging unit such that the
packaging unit contains a plurality of successive sequences
respectively of a plurality of LEDs, wherein each sequence
respectively has exactly one LED from each of the color locus
ranges, and the LEDs of the different color locus ranges are
respectively arranged in the same order within the sequences,
wherein the LEDs are arranged in the packaging unit such that
they are removable from the packaging unit.
App. Br. 7.
The Examiner maintains the following grounds of rejection on appeal:
(1) claims 1-3, 6, 9, and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Doi et al. 2 in view of Yoon et al.; 3
(2) claims 4 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over
Doi in view of Yoon, and further in view of J off er et al.; 4 and
(3) claims 5, 7, and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable
over Doi in view of Yoon, and further in view of Daniels et al. 5
2 US 2006/0250085 Al, published November 9, 2006 ("Doi").
3 US 2008/0180948 Al, published July 31, 2008 ("Yoon").
4 US 2008/0225143 Al, published September 18, 2008 ("Joffer").
5 US 7,259,030 B2, issued August 21, 2007 ("Daniels").
2
Appeal2018-000986
Application 14/848, 720
B. DISCUSSION
The sole issue on appeal is whether the Examiner reversibly erred in
finding that Doi' s light emitting devices 121 are removable from a
packaging unit as recited in claim 1. 6
Doi discloses a display apparatus including a plurality of light
emitting devices mounted in an orderly arranged state. Doi ,r 7. Doi Figures
2 through 14 show a method of mounting the light emitting devices. Doi
,r,r 13-25, 40. As shown in Doi Figure 2, a release layer 211 is formed on
substrate 210. Doi ,r 40. Next, as shown in Doi Figure 3, resin layer 213 is
formed on release layer 211. Doi ,r 41. Light emitting devices 121 are
subsequently embedded in resin layer 213, as shown in Doi Figure 4, and
resin layer 213 is cured by irradiation with UV rays. Doi ,r 42. Doi
discloses that the step of embedding light emitting devices 121 in resin layer
213, as shown in Doi Figure 4, is described with reference to the
manufacturing step diagrams shown in Doi Figure 16. Doi ,r 56.
After light emitting devices 121 are embedded in resin layer 213, Doi
Figure 7 shows that substrate 210 and resin layer 213 are separated. Doi
,r 45. In that regard, the Examiner finds that Doi Figure 7 shows light
emitting devices 121 removed from substrate 210 as recited in claim 1,
wherein substrate 210 corresponds to the claimed packaging unit. Ans. 5. 7
6 The Appellant argues the patentability of claims 1-3, 6, 9, and 10 as a
group and does not present arguments in support of the separate patentability
of any of claims 4, 5, 7, 8, and 11. App. Br. 6. Therefore, we select claim 1
as representative of the issue on appeal. 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv) (2016).
7 Examiner's Answer dated June 28, 2017.
3
Appeal2018-000986
Application 14/848, 720
The Appellant argues that "the LEDs are not removed from a
packaging unit in Fig. 7, but remain fixed in the resin layer [213]. Fig. 7
merely shows removing the intermediate substrate 210 from the display
device after attaching the display substrate 217." Reply Br. 3. 8
We recognize that light emitting devices 121 are embedded in resin
layer 213 when they are removed from substrate 210. However, the claims
on appeal do not recite that the LEDs are individually removable from the
packaging unit. Thus, contrary to the Appellant's argument, the separation
or removal of light emitting devices 121, embedded in resin 213, from
substrate 210 is encompassed by the language of claim 1 (i.e., "the LEDs are
arranged in the packaging unit such that they are removable from the
packaging unit"). App. Br. 7.
As for the claimed "packaging unit," the Appellant does not direct us
to any definition of the term "packaging unit" in the Specification or any
structural limitation in claim 1 that excludes Doi' s substrate 210.
For the reasons set forth above, the Examiner did not reversibly err in
finding that Doi' s light emitting devices 121 are removable from a
packaging unit as recited in claim 1. Therefore, the obviousness rejections
on appeal are 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)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
8 Reply Brief dated July 28, 2017.
4