Ex Parte MazzochetteDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJul 29, 201411445611 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 29, 2014) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte JOSEPH MAZZOCHETTE ____________________ Appeal 2012-007953 Application 11/445,611 Technology Center 2800 ____________________ Before DEBORAH KATZ, JOHN G. NEW, and HUNG H. BUI, Administrative Patent Judges. BUI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1-17 and 20-45.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE.3 1 The Real Party in Interest is Lighting Science Group Corporation. 2 Claims 18 and 19 have been withdrawn and are not on appeal. 3 Our decision refers to Appellant’s Appeal Brief filed September 15, 2011 (“App. Br.”); Reply Brief filed April 26, 2012 (“Reply Br.”); Examiner’s Answer mailed March 7, 2012 (“Ans.”); Final Office Action mailed September 30, 2010 (“Final Rej.”); and original Specification filed June 2, 2006 (“Spec.”). Appeal 2012-007953 Application 11/445,611 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant’s Invention Appellant’s invention relates to an assembly of light emitting diodes (LEDs) of different colors, and is a continuation-in-part (CIP) of U.S. Patent Application Serial No. 10/822,236 filed on April 9, 2004 entitled “Illumination Devices Comprising White Light Diodes and Diode Arrays and Method and Apparatus for Making Them,” now issued as U.S. Patent No. 7,157,745 to Blonder. Spec. ¶¶ [0001]-[0002] and Abstract. Claims on Appeal Claims 1, 23, 27, and 33 are independent claims. Claim 1 is representative of Appellant’s invention and is reproduced below with disputed limitations emphasized: 1. An assembly of colored light emitting diodes packaged for improved color mixing comprising: a thermally conductive mounting base; a plurality of LED dice mounted on the base, the plurality comprising one or more dies that emit light of a first color and one or more dies that emit light of a second color; and a transparent material overlying the LED dice, said material including light dispersing particles to randomly mix light emitted by the plurality of LED dies. Evidence Considered Mazzochette US 2004/0222433 A1 Nov. 11, 2004 Negley US 2007/0224716 A1 Sept. 27, 2007 Almasi US 3,679,996 July 25, 1972 Slayter US 2,311,613 Feb. 16, 1943 Land US 4,165,153 Aug. 21, 1979 Repetto US 2006/0238326 A1 Oct. 26, 2006 Appeal 2012-007953 Application 11/445,611 3 Ouderkirk US 2004/0150991 A1 Aug. 5, 2004 Basin US 2006/0105484 A1 May 18, 2006 Zhou US 5,444,106 Aug. 22, 1995 Blonder US 2005/0224830 A1 Oct. 13, 2005 Blonder US 7,157,745 B2 Jan. 2, 2007 Appellant’s Admitted Prior Art in FIG. 1 (AAPA) Examiner’s Rejections (1) Claims 1-3, 7, 11-17, 20-22, 27-33, 35-36, and 40-42 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over AAPA, Mazzochette and Negley. (2) Claims 4-6, 8-10, 23-26, and 43-45 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over AAPA, Mazzochette, Negley, and Repetto. (3) Claim 34 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over AAPA, Mazzochette, Negley, and Ouderkirk. (4) Claims 37-39 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over AAPA, Mazzochette, Negley, Zhou, and Basin. Issue on Appeal Based on Appellant’s arguments, the dispositive issue on appeal is whether the Examiner erred in rejecting: (1) claims 1-3, 7, 11-17, 20-22, 27- 33, 35-36, and 40-42 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Appellant’s Admitted Prior Art (AAPA), Mazzochette and Negley; and (2) claims 4-6, 8-10, 23-26, and 43-45 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over AAPA, Mazzochette, Negley, and Repetto. In particular, the appeal turns on: (1) whether Negley qualifies as prior art against Appeal 2012-007953 Application 11/445,611 4 Appellant’s claimed invention, and (2) whether Appellant’s parent application Blonder ’745 provides a written description of Appellant’s claimed “plurality of LED dice mounted on the base, the plurality comprising one or more dies that emit light of a first color and one or more dies that emit light of a second color” as recited in each of Appellant’s independent claims 1, 23, 27, and 32. App. Br. 4-8; Reply Br. 2-6. ANALYSIS Appellant does not dispute the Examiner’s factual findings regarding all cited prior art, including AAPA, Mazzochette, Negley and Repetto. Nor does Appellant challenge the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness against all pending claims 1-17 and 20-45. Instead, Appellant contends that the obviousness rejections of all pending claims 1-17 and 20-45 are improper because: (1) Appellant’s application is a Continuation-In-Part (CIP) of Application Serial No. 10/822,236, filed on April 9, 2004, now issued as U.S. Patent No. 7,157,745 to Blonder; (2) Blonder provides written description support for every feature of Appellant’s independent claims 1, 23, 27, and 32; (3) the effective filing date of Blonder ’745 of April 9, 2004 predates Negley with an effective filing date of September 21, 2004; and (4) as such, Negley is not available as prior art. App. Br. 4-8; Reply Br. 2-6. In particular, Appellant argues Blonder FIG. 2, col. 1, ll. 13-20 and col. 7, ll. 20-30 provide clear support for Appellant’s disputed limitation: “plurality of LED dice mounted on the base, the plurality comprising one or more dies that emit light of a first color and one or more dies that emit light of a second color” as recited in each of Appellant’s independent claims 1, 23, 27, and 32. Id. Appeal 2012-007953 Application 11/445,611 5 FIG. 2 of Blonder is reproduced below: FIG. 2 of Blonder is a cross sectional view of an array of LEDs. As shown in FIG. 2, a LED package 200 includes a substrate 203, a plurality of LEDs 201 attached to the package by conductive epoxy 204, and transparent material 205 deposited over the LEDs 201. Col. 1, ll. 13-20 of Blonder describes: [W]hite LEDs are important in a wide variety of direct and indirect illumination applications. A white LED typically comprises a blue or ultraviolet LED whose emitted light is passed through a phosphor that converts the emitted light to white light. Such LEDs individually or in arrays can be used for room and space illumination, vehicle headlights, signs, and indicators. The emission spectra and color temperature of white LEDs is closer to sunlight than many forms of conventional lighting. (Emphasis added.) Col. 7, ll. 20-30 of Blonder describes: [T]he blue LED approach is not limited to only one wavelength converting phosphor. It can be used with a two or three component phosphor system to generate high quality white. This option may use an ultra violet (“UV”) LED to excite several phosphors to simultaneously generate different Appeal 2012-007953 Application 11/445,611 6 colors. Multiple phosphors are preferred in order to increase the Color Rendering Index (“CRI”) of the light. Using such techniques, high color rendering indices similar to fluorescent lamps can be realized. The present invention can create a homogenous mix of the multiple phosphors by mechanically mixing phosphors at high speeds. (Emphasis added.) According to Appellant, Blonder FIG. 2 and the cited col. 7, ll. 20-30 of Blonder describe combining both blue (first color) and ultraviolet (second color) LEDs in an alternate form of the “‘Blue LED approach.’” App. Br. 7. The Examiner responds that: (1) the LEDs in Blonder FIG. 2 are all labeled with the same reference 201 and these LEDs 201 are described as having the same color (blue, specifically). Ans. 19 (citing Blonder FIG. 2, col. 6, l. 58; col. 7, ll. 6-8); and (2) the cited col. 7, ll. 20-30 of Blonder does not disclose or suggest using plural UV LEDs, alone or in combination with blue LED and, consequently, does not teach a plurality of LEDs that comprises “one or more dies that emit light of a first color [(blue, for example)] and one or more dies that emit light of a second LED of a second color [(UV, for example)]” as recited in each of Appellant’s independent claims 1, 23, 27, and 32. Id. at 20. According to the Examiner, the option as described in the cited col. 7, ll. 20-30 of Blonder refers to using a “two or three component phosphor system,” described in the second sentence, and not “the Blue LED approach’ described in the first sentence,” and, consequently, all embodiments of Blonder describe LEDs as either blue or UV, but not both or a mixture of blue and UV LEDs. Id. at 22-23. We do not agree with the Examiner’s characterization of Blonder FIG. 2 and the Examiner’s reading of the cited col. 7, ll. 20-30 of Blonder. Appeal 2012-007953 Application 11/445,611 7 Contrary to the Examiner’s characterization, Blonder FIG. 2 simply shows an example LED package 200 including a plurality of LEDs 201, but not limited to a specific type of LED used. Instead, the option of using “two or three component phosphor system” is described in connection with “[t]he blue LED approach” in order to generate different colors. Blonder, col. 7, ll. 20-30. In other words, both a blue LED (1st color) and a UV LED (2nd color) are used to excite multiple phosphors to simultaneously generate different colors. This reading is consistent with the disclosure of Blonder as a whole, including, for example, at col. 1, ll. 14-15, where Blonder describes “[a] white LED typically comprises a blue or ultraviolet LED,” and at col. 3, ll. 30-31, where Blonder describes “[a] panel will contain multiple cavities 202, each with one or more LED assemblies” as shown in FIG. 2, and recited in claims 7 and 10 where “one or more cavities” contain “one or more LEDs” and “at least one of the LEDs is a blue or ultraviolet LED.” Ans. 20; Reply Br. 2-4. Accordingly, we find the cited col. 7, ll. 20-23 of Blonder provides support for Appellant’s claimed “plurality of LED dice . . . the plurality comprising one or more dies that emit light of a first color and one or more dies that emit light of a second color,” as recited in each of Appellant’s independent claims 1, 23, 27, and 32. Because the record does not support the Examiner’s finding that Blonder fails to support the claim feature of “a plurality of LED dice mounted on the base, the plurality comprising one or more dies that emit light of a first color and one or more dies that emit light of a second color,” we agree with Appellant that the Examiner erred in not according the instant application the effective filing date of Blonder ’745. Appeal 2012-007953 Application 11/445,611 8 Accordingly, the Examiner has not made sufficient findings of fact to support the rejection over Negley as prior art. CONCLUSION On the record before us, we conclude that Negley does not qualify as prior art and the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 1-17 and 20-45 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Negley should be withdrawn. DECISION As such, we REVERSE the Examiner’s final rejections of claims 1-17 and 20-45. REVERSED cdc Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation