Ex Parte Fukai et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 23, 201713297008 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 23, 2017) Copy Citation 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. 13/297,008 11/15/2011 Yasuo Fukai 514242034200 8924 25227 7590 01/25/2017 MORRTSON fr FOFRSTFR T T P EXAMINER 1650 TYSONS BOULEVARD GARLEN, ALEXANDER K SUITE 400 MCLEAN, VA 22102 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2875 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/25/2017 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): EOfficeVA @ mofo.com PatentDocket @ mofo. com pair_mofo @ firsttofile. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte YASUO FUKAI, YOSHIYUKI TAKAHIRA, KOJI TAKAHASHI, YOSUKE MAEMURA, and YOSHITAKA TOMOMURA Appeal 2016-001429 Application 13/297,008 Technology Center 2800 Before ROMULO H. DELMENDO, MONTE T. SQUIRE, and BRIAN D. RANGE, Administrative Patent Judges. RANGE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL SUMMARY Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1 and 3—20. We have jurisdiction. 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 According to the Appellants, the real party in interest is Sharp Kabushiki Kaisha. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2016-001429 Application 13/297,008 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants describe the invention as a headlamp having a laser element and light emitting section for emitting fluorescence upon receiving the laser beam. Spec., Abstract. The headlamp could be used for a vehicle. Spec. 3:17—24. Claim 1, reproduced below with emphases added to certain key recitations, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A light emitting device comprising: an excitation light source for emitting excitation light; a light emitting section, including a sealing material made from an inorganic material, for emitting fluorescence upon receiving the excitation light emitted from the excitation light source; and a heat releasing section having a contact surface and a bottom surface opposite from the contact surface, the contact surface of the heat releasing section being in contact with the light emitting section for releasing heat generated in the light emitting section in response to the excitation light emitted onto the light emitting section, wherein the light emitting section and the heat releasing section are provided so that the light emitting section is located entirely within a range of 0.2 mm or less from the contact surface, the excitation light source is a semiconductor laser and provided on a side of the bottom surface with respect to the heat releasing section, the heat releasing section is made of a rigid transparent material, the excitation light passes through the heat releasing section so that the light emitting section is irradiated with the excitation light, and the heat releasing section is placed between the excitation light source and the light emitting section so that the excitation light enters a light incident surface of the light emitting section and fluorescent light is released from a 2 Appeal 2016-001429 Application 13/297,008 surface of the light emitting section, which is opposite from the light incident surface. Appeal Br.2 11 (Claims App’x). REJECTION ON REFERENCES On appeal, the Examiner maintains the rejection of claims 1 and 3—20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Takeda et al., US 7,165,871 B2, Jan. 23, 2007 (hereinafter “Takeda”) in view of Suenaga, US 2004/0120155 Al, June 24, 2004, and further in view of Ouderkirk et al., US 2004/0145895 Al, July 29, 2004 (hereinafter “Ouderkirk”). Ans. 2. ANALYSIS The Examiner finds that Takeda discloses a vehicle headlamp with a light emitting section and most other recited elements of claim 1. Final Act. 3. The Examiner finds, however, that Takeda fails to disclose or suggest a heat releasing section as recited by claim 1. Id. The Examiner finds that Ouderkirk teaches a transparent sapphire heat releasing section as recited by claim 1 and concludes that it would have been obvious to provide the Ouderkirk heat sink on the light emitting section of Takeda “to provide adequate heat dissipation for such light emitting section while not blocking the light into or out of such section.” Id. at 7; see also id. at 4—5 (discussing Ouderkirk); Ans. 4—5 (providing same explanation for motivation to combine Ouderkirk and Takeda). Appellants contend that a person of ordinary skill would have had no reason to combine Ouderkirk’s heat sink with Takeda. Appeal Br. 6—9. In 2 In this decision, we refer to the Final Office Action mailed April 15, 2015 (“Final Act.”), the Appeal Brief filed July 16, 2015 (“Appeal Br.”), the Examiner’s Answer mailed October 1, 2015 (“Ans.”), and the Reply Brief filed November 16, 2015 (“Reply Br.”). 3 Appeal 2016-001429 Application 13/297,008 particular, Appellants argue that the purpose of Ouderkirk’s transparent heat sink is to prevent deterioration of polymeric SP and LP filters3 that are not a part of the Takeda apparatus. Id. at 6—7; 9. A preponderance of the evidence supports Appellants’ position. Ouderkirk describes its transparent heat sink as being between the phosphor layer (i.e., the light emitting section) and the interference filter (i.e., the polymeric LP filter). Ouderkirk 1 80. Ouderkirk explains that overheating may degrade its polymeric filters (id. at | 84) and that placement of the transparent heat sink on the filter can improve the filter’s lifetime (id. at | 85). In the Appeal Brief, Appellants further contend Takeda’s device would be inoperable if Ouderkirk’s SP reflector were added to it. Appeal Br. 7—8. The Examiner responds by stating that the proposed modification of Takeda would only add the transparent heat sink and not the polymeric SP or LP filter/reflectors. Ans. 3^4. Thus, the Examiner’s position is that even without adding the SP or LP filters, it would have been obvious to add the transparent heat sink to Takeda “in order to provide adequate heat dissipation for [Takeda’s] light emitting section while not blocking the light into or out of such section” and to allow cooling of Takeda’s reflector. Ans. 3. As explained above, however, a preponderance of the evidence suggests that the purpose of Ouderkirk’s heat sink is to prevent overheating of the polymeric SP and LP 3 Ouderkirk refers to the LP and SP filters as both filters and reflectors. See, e.g., Ouderkirk || 36 (referring to LP reflector 24 and SP reflector 26), 68 (referring to LP and SP filters). Both terms appear to refer to the same aspect. See, e.g., Ouderkirk || 9 (explaining that LP reflector reflects UV light not absorbed by phosphor layer), 72 (explaining that LP filter does not reflect shortwave light). 4 Appeal 2016-001429 Application 13/297,008 filters. A preponderance of evidence in the present record does not establish that Takeda (which lacks the SP and LP filters) would benefit from Ouderkirk’s heat sink or that reflector 1144 of Takeda would be an inadequate heat sink for Takeda’s purposes. Appeal Br. 8—9; Reply Br. 2—3. The Examiner has therefore not adequately established a reason why a person of skill would have add Ouderkirk’s heat sink to Takeda. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (“a patent composed of several elements is not proved obvious merely by demonstrating that each of its elements was, independently, known in the art.”). Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 or of claims that depend from claim 1. Independent claim 20 includes the same recitations concerning a heat releasing section as claim 1. Thus, for the reasons explained above, we also do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 20. We likewise do not sustain the rejection of claims depending from claim 1 or claim 20. DECISION For the above reasons, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 3—20. REVERSED 4 Appellants assert that Takeda’s reflector 114 would be an adequate heat sink for fluorescent material 112 because it is metal. Appeal Br. 8—9. The Examiner appears to concede that reflector 114 is metal. Ans. 4 (referring to “metal reflector 114 of Takeda”). Moreover, in an earlier Office Action, the Examiner took the position that reflector 114 could be a heat releasing section. August 7, 2014, Office Action 3. We have not, however, identified a teaching of Takeda expressly stating whether or not reflector 114 is metal. In any event, our opinion does not rely on this particular fact. 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation