Ex Parte Harada

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 28, 2014

11102929 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 28, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE 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. 11/102,929 04/11/2005 Mitsunori Harada ST3001-0062 6513 39083 7590 02/28/2014 KENEALY VAIDYA LLP 515 EAST BRADDOCK RD SUITE B Alexandria, VA 22314 EXAMINER RAO, SHRINIVAS H ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2814 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/28/2014 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 MITSUNORI HARADA __________ Appeal 2011-012969 Application 11/102,929 Technology Center 2800 ____________ Before MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, JAMES C. HOUSEL, and N. WHITNEY WILSON, Administrative Patent Judges. COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 the final rejection of claims 1-3, 8-15, 18, and 21-24. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. Appellant’s invention is directed to a light emitting diode (LED) lamp that includes a LED chip capable of emitting blue light (Spec. para. [0002]). A fluorescent material can be disposed on or adjacent to an optical path of Appeal 2011-012969 Application 11/102,929 2 the light emitted from the LED chip to emit a yellow light when excited by the blue light. Id. The blue light from the LED chip and the yellow light from the fluorescent material are mixed to yield a white light, which is then emitted. Id. Appellant’s alleged invention includes a radiation mesh 7 or radiation wire 5 above the transparent resin spacer 4 contained in a base 2 with a conical recess 2a (Spec. para. [0021]; Figs. 4 & 5). Above the transparent resin spacer 4 is a fluorescent material 6a. Id. The radiation wire 5 or radiation mesh 7 is described as being part of the LED structure and the mesh or wire is used to conduct heat to the base 2 and thereby cool the wavelength conversion spacer 6 (Spec. paras. [0025], [0031], [0036]- [0038]). The addition of the radiation mesh 7 or radiation wire 5 cools the wavelength conversion spacer 6 containing the fluorescent material 6a thereby producing no variation in light emission from the LED (Spec. para. [0037]). Claim 1 is illustrative: 1. A semiconductor light emitting device, comprising: a base having a cavity provided therein; an LED chip located adjacent the base; a spacer located adjacent the base, the spacer including at least two layers in the cavity, including a transparent resin spacer in a first portion of the cavity, and a wavelength conversion spacer in a second portion of the cavity and including a fluorescent material and having a substantially constant thickness, wherein the wavelength conversion spacer includes one of a metallic radiation mesh and a radiation wire. Appeal 2011-012969 Application 11/102,929 3 Appellant appeals the following rejections: 1. Claims 1-3 and 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Doxsee (US 6,936,857 B2 issued Aug. 30, 2005) in view of Lee (US 6,819,845 B2 issued Nov. 16, 2004). 2. Claims 13-15, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Doxsee in view of Lee and Bulovic (US 5,834,893 issued Nov. 10, 1998). 3. Claims 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Doxsee in view of Lee and Noguchi (US 7,180,240 B2 issued Feb. 20, 2007). ISSUES Did the Examiner reversibly err in concluding that the combined teachings of Doxsee and Lee1 would have suggested the subject matter of claims 1, 13, and 21 that include the following limitations: “a wavelength conversion spacer includes one of a metallic radiation mesh and a radiation wire” as recited in claim 1; “one of a metallic radiation mesh and a radiation wire spanning the cavity of the base” as recited in claim 13; and “the wavelength conversion spacer is embedded with one of a metallic radiation mesh and a radiation wire” as recited in claim 21? We decide this issue in the affirmative. 1 The Examiner relies solely on the combination of Doxsee and Lee to teach the disputed radiation mesh or radiation wire limitation (Ans. 5, 7-8, 10-11). Accordingly, we need not address the teachings of Bulovic or Noguchi relied upon by the Examiner. Appeal 2011-012969 Application 11/102,929 4 FINDINGS OF FACT & ANALYSIS The Examiner’s findings and conclusions regarding Doxsee and Lee are located on pages 4-5, 7-8, and 9-11 of the Answer. The Examiner finds that Doxsee teaches most of the limitations recited in claims 1, 13, and 21, except for, in relevant part, a wavelength conversion spacer including one of a metallic radiation mesh and a radiation wire and wherein the radiation mesh or wire is located adjacent the cavity of the base (Ans. 4-5, 7, 10-11). The Examiner finds that Lee describes at column 45, line 14 a wavelength conversion spacer including one of a metallic radiation mesh or wire to provide greater area upon which the light source can be configured to irradiate the film with the activation light using a predetermined illumination pattern (Ans. 5, 7-8, 11). The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to include Lee’s mesh in Doxsee’s device to provide greater area upon which the light source can be configured to irradiate the film with the activation light using a predetermined illumination pattern (Ans. 5, 7-8, 11). Appellant argues that neither Doxsee nor Lee teaches a wavelength conversion spacer including one of a metallic radiation mesh and a radiation wire (App. Br. 11). Appellant contends that Lee teaches at the column 45 disclosure relied upon by the Examiner that the “mesh” is used as a reducing agent in forming the quantum dots of Lee (App. Br. 12). Appellant contends that Lee’s disclosure at column 45 is directed to a “bottoms-up” synthesis method for forming the quantum dots that employs a metallic mesh as a reducing agent (App. Br. 12). Appellant contends that the product of the chemical synthesis involving the reducing agent is formed into a quantum dot powder (App. Br. 13). Appellant contends that Lee’s disclosure that the Appeal 2011-012969 Application 11/102,929 5 quantum dots may be dispersed in a matrix material or formed into a matrix is not equivalent to the claimed metallic radiation mesh. (App. Br. 12). We agree with Appellant. Lee discloses starting at column 42, line 18 that a second “bottoms up” approach may be used to synthesize the quantum dots. Lee describes that the “bottoms up” approach involves reacting a metallic reducing agent and chemical precursors to assemble the quantum dots atom-by-atom through chemical synthesis (col. 42, lines 18-50). Lee at column 45, lines 5-15 discloses that the metallic reducing agent may take various forms such as a mesh, ribbons, rods, etc. Lee discloses that the product of the “bottoms up” reaction is a “quantum dot powder” (col. 42, l. 18; col. 46, ll. 4-11). Based upon Lee’s disclosures above, we find that Lee discloses that the metallic, mesh reducing agent is used as part of the reaction sequence in making the quantum dots, but the mesh is not present in the quantum dot powder end product. Indeed, at column 42, lines 18-67, Lee discloses where the reducing agent is used as part of the reaction in the reaction sequence of the “bottoms up” method, but is not present in the product resulting from the reaction. Therefore, the Examiner’s apparent finding that Lee discloses a wavelength conversion spacer including a metallic radiation mesh is not supported by the Lee’s teachings. We find that no prima facie case obviousness has been established by the Examiner because the Examiner has not established that a wavelength conversion spacer including a metallic radiation mesh is taught or would have been suggested by Doxsee and Lee. On this record, we reverse the Examiner’s § 103 rejections. Appeal 2011-012969 Application 11/102,929 6 DECISION The Examiner’s decision is reversed. ORDER REVERSED kmm