Ex Parte Goh

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 2, 2013

11439686 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 2, 2013)

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