Andrey Zykin et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 2, 2019

14076711 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 2, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO.
14/076,711
7590
Alcinda Miller
PO Box 584
Victor, MT 59875
FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
11/11/2013 Andrey Zykin
08/06/2019
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.
LF13-LEDC-48 7751
EXAMINER
ROJAS CADIMA, OMAR
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2875
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/06/2019 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ANDREY ZYKIN and ALCINDA MILLER
Appeal2018-008704
Application 14/07 6,711
Technology Center 2800
Before JEFFREY B. ROBERTSON, JAMES C. HOUSEL, and
GEORGIANNA W. BRADEN, Administrative Patent Judges.
ROBERTSON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL 1
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants2 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1, 4-16, 18, 20, and 22. (Appeal Br. 5.) We have
jurisdiction pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 This Decision includes citations to the following documents:
Specification filed November 11, 2013 ("Spec."); Final Office Action
mailed April 14, 2017 ("Final Act."); Appeal Brief filed March 19, 2018
("Appeal Br."); Examiner's Answer mailed July 2, 2018 ("Ans."); and Reply
Brief filed August 30, 2018 ("Reply Br.").
2 Appellants identify Andrey Zykin, an inventor, as the real party in interest.
(Appeal Br. 3.)
Appeal2018-008704
Application 14/07 6,711
THE INVENTION
Appellants state the invention relates to Light Emitting Diode (LED)
mounting within electrical and mechanical structures. (Spec. ,i 3.)
Claim 1 is representative and reproduced below from the Claims
Appendix to the Appeal Brief:
1. An LED light source system comprising;
an LED chain formed of series of pairs of LED packages,
each said LED package mounted on each side of a single
continuous sheet of metal, each said sheet forming an electrical
and mechanical link between the sides of each said LED
package, so that each said linked pair of LED packages
represents an LED package connected in series within said LED
chain;
wherein one or more of said LED packages forming said
LED chain has one or more LED package holders, each said
LED package holder formed as a continuous singular piece
formed from original metal frame in which said LED package
was mounted, said LED holders being in thermal contact with
said LED chip within said LED package; and
wherein one of the LED packages located at said LED
chain near end, and the other of the LED packages located at
said LED chain distal end are connectable to a polarity of a
power source.
(Appeal Br. 17, Claims Appendix.)
REJECTIONS
1. The Examiner rejected claims 1, 4-16, 18, 20, and 22 under 35 U.S.C.
§ l 12(b) or 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being
indefinite.
2
Appeal2018-008704
Application 14/07 6,711
2. The Examiner rejected claims 1, 7, 11, 16, and 22 under pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Hung et al. (US 2011/0211339
Al, published September 1, 2011, "Hung").
3. The Examiner rejected claims 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, and 18 under pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Hung in view of Homan
(US 2005/0024866 Al, published February 3, 2005).
4. The Examiner rejected claims 5, 9, and 20 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over Hung in view of Homan, further in view of
Moon et al. (US 2011/0267814 Al, published November 3, 2011,
"Moon").
5. The Examiner rejected claims 13 and 14 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over Hung in view of Ruskouski (US 5,655,830,
issued August 12, 1997).
6. The Examiner rejected claim 15 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Hung in view of Ruskouski, further in view of Moon.
(Final Act. 4-25; Ans. 3.)3
Appellants do not present arguments for any particular claim on
appeal. (See Appeal Br. 11-16.) Accordingly, we select claim 1 as
representative for disposition of this appeal. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
3 Although the Examiner's Answer does not repeat the rejection of claim 15
(Rejection 6), we observe that the Examiner does not indicate that such
rejection has been withdrawn. Accordingly, we understand the omission of
Rejection 6 as the grounds applied in the Answer to be inadvertent.
3
Appeal2018-008704
Application 14/07 6,711
Rejection 1
The Examiner determined several similar limitations of independent
claims 1, 11, and 16 rendered the claims indefinite. (Final Act. 4-9.) In
doing so, the Examiner set forth interpretations of the claims in order to
conduct examination. Taking claim 1 as representative, the Examiner
determined the recitation in lines 2-5 of "each said LED package mounted
on each side of a single continuous sheet of metal, each said sheet forming
an electrical and mechanical link between the sides of each said LED
package" was unclear. (Final Act. 4.) The Examiner interpreted this
recitation, for purposes of examination, to mean: "each side of said LED
package mounted on single continuous sheets of metal, each sheet of metal
forming an electrical and mechanical link between the sides of each said
LED package." (Id. at 5.)
The Examiner also determined the recitation "LED packages
represents an LED package connected in series within said LED chain;
wherein one or more of said LED packages forming said LED chain has one
or more LED package holders" in claim 1 is confusing. (Id.) The Examiner
interpreted this recitation, for purposes of examination, to mean: "LED
packages represent an LED package pair connected in series within said
chain; wherein one or more of said LED package pairs forming said LED
chain has one or more LED package pair holders." (Id.)
The Examiner further determined the recitation "said LED holders
being in thermal contact with said LED chip within said LED package" in
claim 1 is confusing because it is not clear if the claim refers to a single LED
package or to the pair of LED packages. (Id. at 6.) The Examiner
interpreted this recitation, for purposes of examination, to mean: "said LED
4
Appeal2018-008704
Application 14/07 6,711
package pair holders being in thermal contact with LED package within said
LED package pairs." (Id. at 6.)
In the Appeal Brief, Appellants accept the Examiner's interpretation
of the claims, and although generally referring to "clarifications," Appellants
do not provide any meaningful discussion of the limitations identified by the
Examiner as indefinite in the rejection. (See generally Appeal Br. 11-16.)
Accordingly, we summarily sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1,
4-16, 18, 20, and 22 as indefinite.4
Although we affirm the rejection of the claims as being indefinite, in
view of Appellants' acceptance of the claim interpretation set forth by the
Examiner for the purposes of examination, we tum to the Examiner's
rejection of the claims as interpreted by the Examiner in view of the prior
art.
Rejection 2
ISSUE
The Examiner found Hung discloses an LED chain formed of a series
of LED package pairs. (Final Act. 10.) The Examiner found Hung discloses
each LED package is mounted on each side of a single continuous sheet of
metal, where each sheet forms an electrical and mechanical link used to
carry electricity and one or more of the LED packages has one or more LED
package holders formed as a continuous singular piece. (Final Act. 10-11,
4 We observe, as does the Examiner, that Appellants consistently refer to the
incorrect section of the statute, citing 35 U.S.C. § l 12(a) rather than 35
U.S.C. § l 12(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. (Appeal
Br. 11; Reply Br. 3; Ans. 4.)
5
Appeal2018-008704
Application 14/07 6,711
citing Hung Fig. 7, ,i,i 11, 12, 23, 24.) In particular, the Examiner found the
LED package holders correspond to power connected frame 11 OA and
ground connected frame 11 OB disclosed in Hung. (Id. at 11.)
Appellants argue Hung does not disclose a "single continuous sheet,"
because Hung discloses at least two separate subcarriers on which the LEDs
are mounted. (Appeal Br. 12, citing subcarriers 120A/120B in Fig. 3 of
Hung.) Appellants argue when LED heat is generated in Hung, it does not
have a thermal way to travel to the power frames disclosed in Hung, which
act as thermal radiators. (Id., referring to power frames 11 OA/11 OB in
Fig. 3.) Appellants argue in contrast, the claimed arrangement contains a
single frame with voltages running along the length of the strip, where the
strip is cut so the LED chips are linked in series length-wise. (Appeal Br.
13-14.)
The issue with respect to this rejection is whether Appellants have
demonstrated reversible error in the Examiner's position that Hung discloses
a single continuous sheet and LED package holders as recited in claim 1 and
interpreted by the Examiner.
DISCUSSION
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments. Regarding the
presence of a "single continuous sheet," as the Examiner points out,
Appellants acknowledged and accepted the Examiner's interpretation of the
claims for the purpose of examination. (Ans. 4.) As discussed above, and
emphasized by the Examiner in the Answer, the Examiner's interpretation of
claim 1 is the LED package is mounted on single continuous sheets of metal,
6
Appeal2018-008704
Application 14/07 6,711
where each sheet of metal forms an electrical mechanical link between the
sides of each LED package. (Id. at 4-5.)
Figure 7 of Hung is reproduced below:
FIG. 7
Figure 7 depicts a preferred embodiment of the LED module
including a metal frame (100), power frame (l lOA), ground frame (l lOB),
first sub-carrier (120A), second sub-carrier (120B), and groups of three LED
chips connected in series (125, 125A). (Hung ,i,i 21, 23, 26, 27, 32.)
Hung discloses the LED chips are housed in reflectors 130, which are
formed across sub-carriers 120A, 120B, and power frame l lOA and ground
frame llOB. (Final Act. 11; Ans. 5; Hung Fig. 7, ,i,i 23, 26, 27.) In view of
this interpretation of the claims and the disclosure in Hung, we are
unpersuaded by Appellants' argument that Hung does not disclose a single
continuous sheet of metal.
In arguing there is no thermal way for LED heat to travel, Appellants
do not address the Examiner's findings with respect to power frame 11 OA
and ground frame 11 OB as being in thermal contact with the LED chips.
(Final Act. 11; Ans. 5.) As the Examiner also explains, Hung discloses that
the LED chips on sub-carriers 120A and 120B are electrically connected to
7
Appeal2018-008704
Application 14/07 6,711
metal frame 100, such that heat is directly transferred via the LED chip
contacts. (Ans. 5; Hung Fig. 7.) In addition, the Examiner explained that by
virtue of the close proximity of the LED chips to metal sheets surrounding
the chips, heat is dissipated from the LED chips to frame 100 such that the
LED chips are in thermal contact with the LED package holders. (Ans. 5.)
Appellants have not sufficiently pointed out any deficiencies in the
Examiner's findings. As a result, we are not persuaded by Appellants'
arguments.
Therefore, we affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 7, 11, 16,
and 22 as anticipated by Hung.
Re} ections 3-6
In arguing Rejections 3-6, Appellants essentially rely on the
dependency of these claims from independent claims 1, 11, and 16 in order
to overcome the rejections. (Appeal Br. 14-16.) We are not persuaded by
Appellants' arguments for the reasons set forth above with respect to
Rejection 1. To the extent Appellants argue the Examiner's rejections
cannot be maintained because they are based on having the "benefit of
applicant's disclosure" (Appeal Br. 15-16), Appellants' arguments are not
sufficiently explained and amount to no more than mere allegations, which
we find to be unpersuasive.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 4-16, 18, 20,
and 22.
8
Appeal2018-008704
Application 14/07 6,711
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § l .136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
9