KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 25, 2021

2020001669 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 25, 2021)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
15/552,584 08/22/2017 Mark Steltenpool 2014P01783WOUS 2068
136186 7590 01/25/2021
Innovation Counsel LLP (former PLG)
attn: Mark Schmidt
2890 Zanker Road
Suite 200
San Jose, CA 95134
EXAMINER
LIU, XIAOMING
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2812
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/25/2021 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):
IPG_Docketing@lumileds.com
docket@innovationcounsel.com
lumileds@maxval.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MARK STELTENPOOL, HUGO JOHAN CORNELISSEN,
SÉBASTIEN PAUL RENÉ LIBON, PASCAL JEAN HENRI BLOEMEN,
RICK GERHARDUS NIJKAMP, and MAARTEN VAN LIEROP
Appeal 2020-001669
Application 15/552,584
Technology Center 2800
Before JEFFREY T. SMITH, CHRISTOPHER C. KENNEDY, and
JENNIFER R. GUPTA, Administrative Patent Judges.
GUPTA, Administrative Patent Judge.
Appeal 2020-001669
Application 15/552,584

2
DECISION ON APPEAL1
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the
Examiner’s final decision to reject claims 1–9.3 We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The Claims Appendix included with the Supplemental Appeal Brief
filed June 18, 2019 incorrectly lists the claims as including amendments
proposed in the Response to Final Office Action filed January 15, 2019.
Compare Appeal Br. 7–8 (Claims App.), with Jan. 15, 2019 Resp. 2–3.
Those amendments were not entered by the Examiner, and therefore are not
properly on appeal. Advisory Act. 2. Rather, the claims on appeal are those
pending as of the Final Office Action dated December 20, 2018, which are
reflected in the amendments in the Response to NonFinal Office Action filed
September 26, 2018. Sept. 26, 2018 Resp. 2–4. Any arguments made in the

1 The Decision includes citations to the following documents: Specification
filed August 22, 2017 (“Spec.”), Non-Final Office Action dated July 26,
2018 (“Non-Final Act.); Response to NonFinal Office Action filed
September 26, 2018 (“Sept. 26, 2018 Resp.”); Final Office Action dated
December 20, 2018 (“Final Act.”); Response to Final Office Action filed
January 15, 2019 (“Jan. 15, 2019 Resp.”), Advisory Action dated February
8, 2019 (“Advisory Act.”); Supplemental Appeal Brief filed June 18, 2019
(“Appeal Br.”); Examiner’s Answer dated December 10, 2019 (“Ans.”); and
Reply Brief filed December 16, 2019 (“Reply Br.”).
2 The word Appellant refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Koninklijke
Philips N.V. Appeal Br. 1.
3 Claims 10–12 are withdrawn from consideration by the Examiner as drawn
to a non-elected invention. Non-Final Act. 2.
Appeal 2020-001669
Application 15/552,584

3
Appeal Brief and the Reply Brief as submitted that are based solely on the
changes that were proposed, but not entered, WILL NOT be considered by
the Board on appeal. 37 CFR § 41.30.
The claims are directed to a light source assembly with improved
color uniformity. Spec. 1. Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A light source assembly comprising:
a solid state lighting device;
a wavelength converting element arranged to receive
light emitted by the solid state lighting device and adapted to
convert some of the received light to a different wavelength;
and
a scattering layer overlying a light emitting surface of the
wavelength converting element, the scattering layer including
scattering elements that scatter light without wavelength
conversion, wherein some of the light is backscattered into the
wavelength conversing element,
wherein a backscattering strength of the scattering layer
varies over said light emitting surface so as to reduce variations
in the color of the light emitted from the light emitting surface.
Sept. 26, 2018 Resp. 2.
REJECTION ON APPEAL
The Examiner maintains the rejection of claims 1–9 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 over Yokoyama4 in view of Liao5. Advisory Act. 1; Final Act. 2.

4 Yokoyama et al., US 2009/0236967, published Sept. 24, 2009.
5 Liao et al., US 2011/0266574, published Nov. 3, 2011.
Appeal 2020-001669
Application 15/552,584

4
DISCUSSION
In the Reply Brief, Appellant argues that the amendment to claim 1
proposed in the Response to Final Office Action filed January 15, 2019
should have been entered since it did not raise any new issues. Reply Br. 1.
The decision of an Examiner to decline to enter an amendment is a
petitionable matter, not an appealable matter, and is not within the
jurisdiction of the Board. See In re Berger, 279 F.3d 975, 984 (Fed. Cir.
2002) (citing In re Mindick, 371 F.2d 892, 894 (CCPA 1967) (stating that
the predecessor to the PTAB “does not consider the issue of whether the
examiner’s refusal to enter the proposed amendment after final rejection
constituted an abuse of discretion”)); see also 37 C.F.R. § 1.181 2018); The
Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) § 1002.02(c)(3) (9th ed.
rev. 10.2019, June 2020).
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103
We have carefully considered Appellant’s arguments, but we are not
persuaded of reversible error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–9. See
In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[I]t has long been the
Board’s practice to require an applicant to identify the alleged error in the
examiner’s rejections . . . .”).
Appellant’s arguments focus on claim 1. Appeal Br. 4–6. We address
those arguments below. The remaining claims will stand or fall with claim 1,
from which they depend.
Yokoyama teaches a light emitting diode (LED) light source.
Yokoyama, code (57). The Examiner finds that Yokoyama’s Figures 1 and 6
teach LED light source 10 (“A light source assembly”) with LED device 1
(“a solid state lighting device”), and transparent resin 2 with phosphors 3
Appeal 2020-001669
Application 15/552,584

5
uniformly mixed therein that receives light emitted in all directions (6a, 6b)
from LED device 1 (“wavelength converting element arranged to receive
light emitted by the solid state lighting device”). Final Act. 2; Yokoyama
¶¶ 43, 69, 70; Figs. 1, 6). The Examiner finds that Yokoyama’s Figures 1
and 6 also include an ink coating layer (8a, 8b, 8c (Fig. 1); 9a, 9b, 9c (Fig.
6)) with varying thickness (e.g., in Figure 6, a single coating layer (9b) is
applied over region 7b, and two coating layers (9a, 9b) are formed in region
7a), overlying the surface of transparent resin 2 (“the wavelength converting
element”). Final Act. 3 (citing Yokoyama ¶¶ 45, 55, 70, 80; Figs. 1, 6);
Advisory Act. 2 (Continuation Sheet) (“center part with 7a is thicker than
region 7b”). The Examiner finds, however, that Yokoyama fails to teach or
disclose the coating layer includes “scattering elements that scatter light
without wavelength conversion.” Final Act. 3. The Examiner relies on Liao
for this recitation. Id.
Liao teaches an LED package that includes a substrate, an LED die,
and an encapsulating layer. Liao, code (57). The Examiner finds that Liao
teaches an LED package with substrate 51, LED die 52, and encapsulating
layer 53 (scattering layer) that includes light scattering particles 56
(scattering elements) that scatter light without wavelength conversion. Final
Act. 3; Yokoyama ¶¶ 20, 23, 26; Fig. 1. The Examiner finds that Liao
teaches that the density of light scattering particles 56 affects the intensity
and uniformity of the light illuminated on encapsulated layer 53 from LED
die 52. Final Act. 3; Advisory Act. 2 (Continuation Sheet); Yokoyama
¶¶ 23–26). Based on Liao’s teachings, the Examiner determines that one of
ordinary skill in the art would have added light scattering particles to
Appeal 2020-001669
Application 15/552,584

6
Yokoyama’s coating layer to achieve higher uniformity of light intensity.
Final Act. 3.
Appellant argues that Yokoyama does not teach or suggest that its ink
coating layer backscatters light into transparent resin 2 (wavelength
converting element). Appeal Br. 4–5.
Appellant’s argument is not persuasive of reversible error because
Appellant is attacking the references individually when the rejection is based
upon a combination of prior art disclosures. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426
(CCPA 1981) (“[O]ne cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references
individually where, as here, the rejections are based on combinations of
references”). The Examiner finds that Liao, not Yokoyama, teaches a
scattering layer that backscatters light. Final Act. 3. The Examiner finds that
Liao teaches an encapsulating layer 53 (“scattering layer”) including light
scattering particles 56 (“scattering elements”) “that scatter light without
wavelength conversion, wherein some of the light is backscattered into the
wavelength conversing element.” Id.; Liao ¶ 24; Fig. 1. Like the scattering
elements described in Appellant’s Specification, Liao teaches light scattering
particles 56 can be titanium dioxide. Compare Liao ¶ 24, with Spec. 3, ll. 3–
5 (“[T]he scattering layer comprises scattering elements chosen from the
group consisting of gas bubbles, titanium oxide particles, phosphor particles,
metallic flakes, polymer beads and glass beads.” (emphasis added)).
Appellant’s argument fails to identify or explain why the Examiner’s finding
that Liao teaches a scattering layer including scattering elements that
backscatters light is erroneous.
Appellant argues that neither Yokoyama nor Liao teach or suggest
“[varying] the thickness of a backscattering layer (which does not
Appeal 2020-001669
Application 15/552,584

7
wavelength convert light) over a wavelength converting element to improve
color vs. angle uniformity.” Appeal Br. 6.
Appellant’s argument is not persuasive because it focuses on
limitations not recited in claim 1. In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA
1982) (“[A]ppellant’s arguments fail from the outset because . . . they are
not based on limitations appearing in the claims.”). As discussed above,
pending claim 1 does not recite “a thickness of the scattering layer . . . varies
across the wavelength converting element.” To the extent Appellant is
arguing that neither Yokoyama and Liao teach or suggest “a backscattering
strength of the scattering layer varies over said light emitting surface so as to
reduce variations in the color of the light emitted from the light emitting
surface,” as recited in pending claim 1, this argument is also unpersuasive.
Yokoyama teaches coating layer 9a, 9b varies across a surface of transparent
resin 2 with phosphors 3 (which the Examiner equates to “a wavelength
converting element”). Final Act. 2 (citing Yokoyama ¶¶ 70, 80; Fig. 6);
Advisory Act. 2 (Continuation Sheet) (“center part with 7a is thicker than
region 7b”). As discussed above, Liao teaches an LED package that includes
a scattering layer that backscatters light. Liao ¶ 23; Fig. 1. Liao teaches that
the density of light scattering particles 56 affects intensity and uniformity of
the light illuminated on encapsulated layer 53 from the LED die 52. Based
on Yokoyama and Liao’s teachings, we are not persuaded of reversible error
in the Examiner’s finding that, based on Liao’s teachings, one of ordinary
skill in the art would have added scattering elements to Yokoyama’s coating
layer (e.g., 9a, 9b (Fig. 6)) “to reduce variations in the color of the light
emitted from the light emitting surface (achieve color (Yokoyama, [73]) and
intensity uniformity (Liao, [26])).” Advisory Act. 2.
Appeal 2020-001669
Application 15/552,584

8
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–9 103 Yokoyama, Liao 1–9

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