Ex Parte Yu et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 9, 2013

11255915 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 9, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte CHIH-KUANG YU, CHUN-KAI LIU, RA-
MIN TAIN, and JEN-HAU CHENG
1

____________________

Appeal 2011-000991
Application 11/255,915
Technology Center 2800
____________________

Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, JOSEPH L. DIXON, and
LARRY J. HUME, Administrative Patent Judges.

PER CURIAM

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Final
Rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 11-14, and 16, all pending claims in the
application. Appellants have previously canceled claims 2, 5, 6, 9, 10, and
15. App. Br. 3. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1
The Real Party in Interest is INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY
RESEARCH INSTITUTE. (App. Br. 3.)
Appeal 2011-000991
Application 11/255,915

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
2

The Invention
Appellants’ invention relates to a light-emitting-diode (LED)
packaging structure used for packaging an LED by means of flip-chip
technology, and in particular to an LED packaging structure having
thermoelectric elements capable of enhancing the heat dissipation capability
of the LED packing structure. Spec. 1:8-11 (“Field of the Invention”).
Exemplary Claims
Claims 1 and 7 are exemplary claims representing aspects of the
invention which are reproduced below:
1. A light-emitting-diode (LED) packaging structure
having thermoelectric device, comprising:
a light-emitting-diode unit;
a substrate;
a plurality of solder bumps disposed between said light-
emitting-diode unit and said substrate to electrically connect
said light-emitting-diode unit and said substrate;
a thermoelectric device including at least a pair of
thermoelectric elements and disposed between said light-
emitting-diode unit and said substrate, said thermoelectric
device being electrically connected to form a cold end on a side
of said light-emitting-diode unit, and a hot end on a side of said

2
Our decision refers to Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,” filed
Mar. 3, 2010); Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Aug. 19, 2010); Examiner’s
Answer (“Ans.,” mailed June 22, 2010); Final Office Action (“FOA,”
mailed Mar. 5, 2009); and the original Specification (“Spec.,” filed
Oct. 24, 2005).
Appeal 2011-000991
Application 11/255,915

3
substrate, the thermoelectric device having an n-type
thermoelectric material element and a p-type thermoelectric
material element; and
an electric circuit layer disposed between said light-
emitting-diode unit and said substrate so that said light-
emitting-diode unit is electrically connected to said substrate
through a solder bump layer; said p-type thermoelectric
material element of said thermoelectric device is electrically
connected to said n-type thermoelectric material element; and
said p-type thermoelectric material element and said n-type
thermoelectric material element are electrically connected to
said light-emitting-diode unit and said substrate respectively, as
such forming said cold end and said hot end.

7. A light-emitting-diode (LED) packaging structure
having thermoelectric device, comprising:
a light-emitting-diode unit;
a heat dissipation module;
a circuit layer, disposed between said light-emitting-
diode unit and said heat dissipation module;
a plurality of solder bumps disposed between said light-
emitting-diode unit and said circuit layer to electrically connect
said light-emitting-diode unit and said circuit layer; and
a thermoelectric device including at least a pair of
thermoelectric elements and disposed between said light-
emitting-diode unit and said circuit layer, said thermoelectric
device being electrically connected to form a cold end on a side
of said light-emitting-diode unit, and a hot end on a side of said
heat dissipation module.
Appeal 2011-000991
Application 11/255,915

4
Prior Art
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art in rejecting the
claims on appeal:
Fuschetti US 5,429,680 Jul. 4, 1995
Steigerwald US 6,573,537 B1 Jun. 3, 2003
Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 11-14, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Steigerwald and
Fuschetti. Ans. 3.
Appellants suggest two claim groupings – Group I, including claims
1, 3, and 4 for which claim 1 is asserted as being representative, and Group
II, including claims 7, 8, 11-14, and 16, for which claim 7 is asserted as
being representative. App. Br. 5. Appellants appear to provide separate
arguments for patentability for the claims of Group II. App. Br. 13.
However, we note that the issues presented by Appellants in the
purported separate arguments with respect to Group II and claim 7 (id.) are
essentially identical to the issues presented concerning claim 1. App. Br. 6.
In addition, Appellants have not presented any separate arguments with
respect to patentability of any of the dependent claims on appeal.
DISCUSSION
On the record before us, including Appellants’ Reply Brief, we
conclude that the preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner’s
finding that the combined teachings of Steigerwald and Fuschetti would
Appeal 2011-000991
Application 11/255,915

5
have suggested the subject matter of representative claims 1 and 7.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 11-
14, and 16 for the reasons set forth in the Answer, which we incorporate
herein by reference. (Ans. 1 et seq.).
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 11-14,
and 16 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)(1)(iv) (2011).
AFFIRMED

ELD