Ex Parte GohDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 2, 201311439686 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 2, 2013) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte KEE SIANG GOH ____________ Appeal 2010-008760 Application 11/439,686 Technology Center 2800 ____________ Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD, JR., ERIC S. FRAHM and ANDREW J. DILLON, Administrative Patent Judges. WHITEHEAD, JR., Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-008760 Application 11/439,686 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant is appealing claims 6-9 and 36. Appeal Brief 3. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2012). We affirm. Introduction The invention is directed to a light-emitting device that includes a light source and a gradient index (GRIN) element. Specification 2. Illustrative Claim 6. A light-emitting device, comprising: a header comprising a threaded portion; a semiconductor light-emitting die mounted on the header; and a gradient index (GRIN) element having a cylindrical refractive index profile in which the refractive index varies radially and is substantially constant axially, the GRIN element comprising a cylindrical body having a length-to-pitch ratio that is selected to provide a desired radiation pattern of light from the light-emitting device, the GRIN element arranged with a planar end surface adjacent the light-emitting die to receive light therefrom and emit the light from an opposing planar end surface in the desired radiation pattern, the GRIN element further comprising a threaded portion whereby the threaded portion of the header is engaged with the threaded portion of the GRIN element. Appeal 2010-008760 Application 11/439,686 3 Rejections on Appeal Claims 6, 8, 9 and 36 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Bornzin (U.S. Patent Number 4,725,128; issued February 16, 1988) and Tymianski (U.S. Patent Number 6,571,482 B1; issued June 3, 2003). Answer 3-5. Claim 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Bornzin, Tymianski and Hamm (U.S. Patent Number 6,263,133 B1; issued July 17, 2001). Answer 5. ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellant’s conclusions. We concur with the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Answer in response to Appellant’s Appeal Brief. Therefore, we adopt the Examiner’s reasoning as our own in the disposition of this appeal. In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, it is incumbent upon the Examiner to establish a factual basis to support the legal conclusion of obviousness. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 1988). In so doing, the Examiner must make the factual determinations set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17 (1966). Once the Examiner has satisfied the burden of presenting a prima facie case of obviousness, the burden then shifts to Appellant to present evidence and/or arguments that persuasively rebut the Examiner's prima facie case. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Since Appeal 2010-008760 Application 11/439,686 4 Appellant did not particularly point out errors in the Examiner’s reasoning to persuasively rebut the Examiner's prima facie case of obviousness, the rejections are therefore sustained. See Appeal Brief 8-14. DECISION The rejections of claims 6-9 and 36 are 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). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f). AFFIRMED Vsh Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation