Ex Parte Reeh et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 31, 2017

13462952 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 31, 2017)

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.
13/462,952 05/03/2012 Ulrike Reeh 12406-0003011/ 3779
1996P1650
26161 7590 09/05/2017
FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. (BO)
P.O. BOX 1022
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55440-1022
EXAMINER
PARKER, KENNETH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2815
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/05/2017 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):
PATDOCTC@fr.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ULRIKE REEH, KLAUS HOHN, NORBERT STATH,
GUNTER WAITL, PETER SCHLOTTER, JURGEN SCHNEIDER, and
RALF SCHMIDT
Appeal 2015-006146
Application 13/462,9521
Technology Center 2800
Before JUSTIN BUSCH, JAMES W. DEJMEK, and
JOHN R. KENNY, Administrative Patent Judges.
DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 34—71. Appellants have canceled claims 1—33. See Amend. 3, filed
May 3, 2012. Oral arguments were heard on August 17, 2017. A transcript
of the hearing will be placed in the record in due course. We have
jurisdiction over the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify Osram GmbH as the real party in interest. App. Br. 1.
Appeal 2015-006146
Application 13/462,952
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants’ disclosed invention is directed to a light-radiating
semiconductor component. Spec. 1. In a disclosed embodiment, a
semiconductor body having a layered sequence comprising layers based on
GaN (gallium nitride) emits polychromatic radiation. Spec. 5. A
luminescence conversion element may be used to absorb part of the emitted
radiation and convert the wavelength of the emitted radiation to a second
(different) wavelength. Spec. 5.
Claim 34 is representative of the subject matter on appeal and is
reproduced below with the disputed limitations emphasized in italics'.
34. A light-radiating semiconductor component comprising
a semiconductor body having a semiconductor layer
sequence comprising layers based on GaN and configured to
emit electromagnetic radiation of a first wavelength range during
operation of the semiconductor component; and
a luminescence conversion element comprising at least
one luminescent material, wherein the luminescence conversion
element is operable to convert at least some electromagnetic
radiation from the first wavelength range emitted by the
semiconductor body into light of at least one second wavelength
range, different from the first wavelength range, and
the luminescence conversion element comprises particles
of at least one inorganic luminescent material embedded in a
light transmitting inorganic material.
The Examiner’s Rejections
1. Claims 34, 37, 42, 43, 51—54, 56—58, 60, and 66 stand rejected
over the lost count of Patent Interference No. 104,846, mailed Dec. 16, 2002
2
Appeal 2015-006146
Application 13/462,952
(“the Count”); Nakamura (US 5,290,393; Mar. 1, 1994); and RCA Corp.
(UK 1 332 462; publ. Oct. 3, 1973) (“UK ’462”). Final Act. 9-15.
2. Claims 35 and 36 stand rejected over the Count, Nakamura,
UK ’462, and Asano et al. (US 5,175,199; Dec. 29, 1992) (“Asano”). Final
Act. 12.
3. Claims 38, 41, and 61 stand rejected over the Count, Nakamura,
UK ’462, and Yoshiaki et al. (JP05-152609A; publ. June 18, 1993)
(“Yoshiaki”). Final Act. 12, 13, 15.
4. Claims 39, 40, 62, and 64 stand rejected over the Count,
Nakamura, UK ’462, and Yoshinori (JP07-176794; publ. Dec. 17, 1993).
Final Act. 13, 15.
5. Claim 44 stands rejected over the Count, Nakamura, UK ’462,
and Thillays et al. (US 4,387,385; June 7, 1983) (“Thillays”). Final Act. 13.
6. Claims 45 and 46 stand rejected over the Count, Nakamura,
UK ’462, and Geusic et al. (US 3,593,055; July 13, 1971) (“Geusic”). Final
Act. 13.
7. Claims 47 49 stand rejected over the Count, Nakamura,
UK ’462, and Vantol et al. (GB 2 000 173 A; publ. Jan. 4, 1979) (“Vantol”).
Final Act. 14.
8. Claim 50 stands rejected over the Count, Nakamura, UK ’462,
and Mita et al. (US 3,932,881; Jan. 13, 1976) (“Mita”). Final Act. 14.
9. Claims 55, 58, and 59 stand rejected over the Count, Nakamura,
UK ’462, and B.M.J. Smets, Phosphors Based on Rare-Earths, A New Era
In Fluorescent Lighting, Materials Chemistry and Physics, vol. 16, 283—99
(1987). Final Act. 14-15.
3
Appeal 2015-006146
Application 13/462,952
10. Claims 63 and 64 stand rejected over the Count, Nakamura,
UK ’462, and Dolgoff (US 5,012,274; Apr. 30, 1991). Final Act. 15.
11. Claim 65 stands rejected over the Count, Nakamura, UK ’462,
and Ashley et al. (US 5,137,659; Aug. 11, 1992) (“Ashley”). Final Act. 15.
12. Claims 67—71 stand rejected over the Count, Nakamura,
UK ’462, Yoshiaki, and Asano. Final Act. 15—16.
ANALYSIS2
Procedural History, Interference Estoppel, and the Count
The present application and Application No. 09/828,727 (“the ‘’727
application”) each claim benefit to common earlier filed applications. The
’727 application was subject to an interference proceeding, Interference No.
104,846, with U.S. Patent No. 6,069,440 (“the ’440 patent”). On
December 16, 2002, the Board entered an adverse judgment against the ’727
application.
Once an adverse judgement has been entered against a party in an
interference proceeding, interference estoppel attaches.
If a party loses on an issue, it may not re-litigate the issue before
the examiner or in a subsequent Board of Patent Appeals and
Interferences (Board) proceeding. The time for the party to make
all pertinent arguments is during the interference, unless the
Board expressly prevented the party from litigating the issue
during the interference.
MPEP § 2308.03.
2 Throughout this Decision we have considered the Appeal Brief, filed
November 12, 2014 (“App. Br.”); the Reply Brief, filed June 1, 2015
(“Reply Br.”); the Examiner’s Answer, mailed on April 1, 2015 (“Ans.”);
the Final Office Action, mailed May 14, 2014 (“Final Act.”), from which
this Appeal is taken; and Appellants’ arguments made during the Oral
Hearing held August 17, 2017.
4
Appeal 2015-006146
Application 13/462,952
The doctrine of interference estoppel “bar[s] the assertion of claims
for inventions that are patentably indistinct from those in an interference that
the applicant had lost.” In re Decider, 977 F.2d 1449, 1452 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
See also 37 C.F.R. § 1.658(c). In other words, under the doctrine of
interference estoppel, Appellants are barred on the merits from seeking a
claim that would have been anticipated or rendered obvious by the subject
matter of the lost count. Decider, 977 F.2d at 1452 (finding this proscription
“a permissible application of settled principles of res judicata and collateral
estoppel”).
Claim 34 of the ’727 application is the lost count from the interference
proceeding and is reproduced below:
Count. A light emitting device comprising: a light emitting
component capable of emitting blue light, and a coating member
covering said light emitting component and containing a
phosphor capable of absorbing a part of blue light emitted by said
light emitting component and emitting light of wavelength
different from that of the absorbed light, wherein the color of said
phosphor is yellow and said coating member is colored opal by
containing a dispersant.
Claims 34—36 and 43—65
Appellants assert there are at least three differences between the
limitations of independent claim 34 and the Count. App. Br. 6. In
particular, Appellants contend: (i) the “light emitting component capable of
emitting blue light” in the Count does not disclose “a semiconductor body
having a semiconductor layer sequence comprising layers based on GaN;”
(ii) the “coating member . . . containing a phosphor” in the Count does not
disclose that “the luminescent conversion element comprises particles of at
least one inorganic luminescent material;” and (iii) the “coating member” in
5
Appeal 2015-006146
Application 13/462,952
the Count does not disclose that the “inorganic luminescent material [is]
embedded in a light transmitting inorganic material.” App. Br. 6. We
address Appellants’ arguments seriatim.
Appellants assert the Examiner improperly relied on the disclosure
from the ’440 patent to add limitations to the Count. App. Br. 6—8.
Specifically, Appellants contend the Examiner relied on the ‘440 patent as
disclosing a semiconductor layer sequence comprising layers based on GaN.
App. Br. 6. Additionally, Appellants argue the Examiner’s proposed
combination of the Count and Nakamura lacks the requisite articulated
reasoning to support a conclusion of obviousness. App. Br. 8.
As an initial matter, the Examiner did not rely on disclosures from the
’440 patent in rejecting claim 34. See Final Act. 9—12. Thus, to the extent
Appellants’ arguments contend the Examiner did rely on disclosures from
the ’440 patent, they are unpersuasive of Examiner error at least because
they are not responsive to the rejection as articulated by the Examiner. See
Ans. 3 (stating the ’440 patent was not used in the rejection of, inter alia,
claim 34).
Further, the Examiner finds, and we agree, Nakamura discloses a
layered GaN blue light emitting device. Final Act. 10. Nakamura is
directed to growing a p- or n-type semiconductor layer “to allow formation
of an excellent p-n junction in a GaAIN for use in a light-emitting device.”
Nakamura, col. 2,11. 62—65; see also Nakamura, col. 1,11. 12—14 (growing
an epitaxial layer of a gallium nitride-based compound semiconductor). As
the Examiner explains, there is ample suggestion from Nakamura to modify
the blue emitter from the Count with Nakamura’s blue solid state p-n
junction layered emitter “because Nakamura has invented a practical and
6
Appeal 2015-006146
Application 13/462,952
efficient solid state diode blue emitter.” Ans. 5. The Examiner’s findings
are supported by the disclosure of Nakamura. See Nakamura, col. 12,11. 46—
51 (“[T]he use of the technique of the present invention makes it possible to
utilize crystals of an epitaxial layer of a gallium nitride-based compound
over a wide range of applications from a blue light-emitting diode to a
semiconductor laser at practical levels.”). Contrary to Appellants’
assertions, we find the Examiner has set forth “some articulated reasoning
with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness.” In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (cited with
approval in KSRInt’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007)).
Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that modifying the “light
emitting component capable of emitting blue light” as recited in the Count
with the epitaxial layer of a GaN-based semiconductor component that can
emit blue light, as disclosed by Nakamura, teaches the claimed
“semiconductor body having a semiconductor layer sequence comprising
layers based on GaN.” Because we agree with the Examiner’s conclusion
that the combined teachings of the Count and Nakamura render obvious the
semiconductor body having a semiconductor layer sequence comprising
layers based on GaN, we do not address the Examiner’s cumulative findings
for this limitation.
Appellants argue a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have
looked to UK ’462, as the Examiner suggests, for a teaching of a
luminescent conversion element comprising particles of at least one
inorganic luminescent material. App. Br. 8—10; Reply Br. 3—5. First,
Appellants assert UK ’462 does not disclose “a light emitting component
7
Appeal 2015-006146
Application 13/462,952
capable of emitting blue light” or “a semiconductor layer sequence
comprising layers based on GaN.” App. Br. 9.
This argument is not persuasive of Examiner error because it is not
responsive to the rejection as articulated by the Examiner. The Examiner
relies on the combined teachings of the Count and Nakamura, as discussed
supra, to teach the claimed “semiconductor body having a semiconductor
layer sequence comprising layers based on GaN.” Additionally, non­
obviousness cannot be established by attacking references individually
where, as here, the ground of unpatentability is based upon the teachings of a
combination of references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981).
As the Examiner explains, UK ’462 was relied upon for disclosing “that
combining a solid state emitter with inorganic phosphors embedded in
transparent inorganic material was known.” Ans. 5—6.
Appellants also contend UK ’462 is directed to producing radiation
outside the visible range rather than producing visible blue light. App.
Br. 9-10 (citing UK ’462, 1:12—17, 1:89-96); Reply Br. 3—5. As such, the
luminescence conversion element of UK ’462 is used to convert radiation
outside the visible range to radiation (i.e., wavelengths) within the visible
range. App. Br. 9-10. Accordingly, Appellants argue it would not have
been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the Count,
which is directed to a light component capable of emitting blue (i.e., visible)
light, with the luminescent materials of UK ’462. App. Br. 9—10.
Appellants contend the luminescent material (i.e., inorganic phosphors) of
UK ’462, if combined with the Count as proposed by the Examiner, would
result in an emission at wavelengths below the visible range—contrary to the
purpose of UK ’462. App. Br. 10.
8
Appeal 2015-006146
Application 13/462,952
As an initial matter, claim 34 merely requires the luminescence
conversion element (comprising at least one luminescent material) is
operable to convert the emitted radiation from a first wavelength to a second
wavelength. Claim 34 requires only that the second wavelength is different
from the first wavelength. We do not find Appellants’ arguments persuasive
of Examiner error at least because they are not commensurate in scope to the
language of claim 34. See In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982)
(limitations not appearing in the claims cannot be relied upon for
patentability).
Here, the Examiner finds, and we agree, UK ’462 describes using
inorganic luminescent material (e.g., phosphors including “ions of rare earth
crystals such as ytterbium and erbium or ytterbium and holmium, in a host
material such as LaF3, Y3OCI7, BaYU, or BaLuFf’) to convert the
wavelength of the emitted radiation to a second (different) wavelength.
Ans. 5-6; UK ’462, 2:53-56.
Additionally, we disagree with Appellants’ assertion that UK ’462
teaches away from the proposed modification with the Count because
UK ’462 is directed to producing radiation outside the visible spectrum
whereas the Count is directed to a light-emitting component capable of
emitting blue (i.e., visible) light. See App. Br. 9.
“A reference may be said to teach away when a person of ordinary
skill, upon reading the reference, would be discouraged from following the
path set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from
the path that was taken by the applicant.” In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553
(Fed. Cir. 1994). But “the mere disclosure of alternative designs does not
teach away .... just because better alternatives exist in the prior art does
9
Appeal 2015-006146
Application 13/462,952
not mean that an inferior combination is inapt for obviousness purposes.” In
re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quotation marks and
citations omitted). As explained in the Manual of Patent Examining
Procedure, “[disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not
constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred
embodiments.” MPEP § 2123 (II) (citing In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442 (CCPA
1971)).
Contrary to Appellants’ contentions, UK ’462 is particularly directed
to converting emitted radiation into the visible spectrum. See, e.g., UK ’462,
1:51—74 (describing an encapsulating means as transparent to radiation
emitted by the semiconductor element “and to radiation within the visible
spectrum” and “a phosphor material for converting the emitted radiation to
radiation within the visible spectrum and for emitting such radiation within
the visible spectrum”).
UK ’462’s use of phosphor particles to convert the emitted radiation
from the semiconductor component to visible light is consistent with
Appellants’ claimed invention. In particular, we note claim 61, which
depends from independent claim 34 (and is narrower in scope than claim
34), claims a similar feature to that disclosed in UK ’462. Specifically,
claim 61 requires the semiconductor body to radiate ultraviolet light and
uses the luminescence conversion element to convert a portion of the emitted
ultraviolet light into visible light.
Additionally, Appellants do not identify specific teachings or
disclosures in UK ’462 that would discourage or divert a person of ordinary
skill in the art from combining the teachings of UK ’462 with those of the
Count, or other identified references. Accordingly, we do not find that a
10
Appeal 2015-006146
Application 13/462,952
skilled artisan would be led away from combining the references as
articulated by the Examiner. See In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed.
Cir. 2004) (“The prior art’s mere disclosure of more than one alternative
does not constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives because
such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the
solution claimed”).
Appellants also argue UK ’462 fails to teach the luminescence
conversion element comprises particles of at least one inorganic material
embedded in a light transmitting inorganic material. App. Br. 10—12; Reply
Br. 4—6. Appellants acknowledge UK ’462 discloses the encapsulation
dome may be formed from low melting glasses, but contend there is no
reason why a person of ordinary skill in the art would select this material
when UK ’462 also suggests that the encapsulation dome may be made from
various (organic) plastic materials. App. Br. 10—11; Reply Br. 4—6.
The sole figure from UK ’462 is illustrative and is reproduced below:
The figure from UK ’462 illustrates the claimed electroluminescent device
(10). UK ’462, 1:78—80. As shown, the device (10) comprises a support
substrate (12), a p-n junction electroluminescent semiconductor element
11
Appeal 2015-006146
Application 13/462,952
(14), an encapsulation dome (30)—which is mounted to the support (12) and
“extends over” the electroluminescent element (14),—and phosphor
particles (32). UK ’462, 1:78-89, 2:23-30, 2:87-94. UK ’462 further
discloses an embodiment in which the encapsulation dome (30) is hollow
and “the phosphor particles 32 can be either embedded in the wall of the
dome or coated on the inner surface of the dome.” UK ’462, 2:87—94.
Additionally, UK ’462 describes the encapsulation dome as being
“transparent to the radiation emitted by the electroluminescent element” and
may be formed from “[pjlastics, such as the epoxy, acrylic, polyester or
glycol phthalate plastics, and low melting glasses.” UK ’462, 2:23 40
(emphasis added).
Precedent does not require that the motivation or selection of an
available option be the best option, only that it be a suitable option from
which the prior art did not teach away. See Galderma Labs., L.P. v. Tolmar,
Inc., 737 F.3d 731, 738 (Fed. Cir. 2013); Bayer Healthcare Pharm., Inc. v.
Watson Pharm., Inc., 713 F.3d 1369, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2013).
Appellants do not provide persuasive argument or evidence that the
use of low melting (inorganic) glass is not a suitable option. Further, the
disclosure in UK ’462 of possible materials for the encapsulation dome is
similar to the available possible materials identified in Appellants’
Specification. Cf. Spec. 31 (“The transparent encapsulation ... is
composed, for example of an epoxy, silicone or acrylate resin . . . [or]
inorganic glass.”). Thus, as the Examiner explains, although UK ’462 may
prefer plastics, the use of glass material for the encapsulation dome was also
disclosed as an option. Ans. 6. Accordingly, we find the use of the low
melting glass for the encapsulation dome to be a suitable option.
12
Appeal 2015-006146
Application 13/462,952
The Examiner finds, and we agree, “UK ’462 practices inorganic
phosphor and inorganic (glass) embedding material.” Ans. 7. Specifically,
UK ’462 teaches the phosphor particles may be embedded in a light
transmitting inorganic material (i.e., the encapsulation dome). See UK ’462,
2:87-94.
For the reasons discussed supra, we are unpersuaded of Examiner
error. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claim 34. For similar reasons, we also sustain the Examiner’s rejections of
claims 35, 36, and 43—65, which depend therefrom and were not argued
separately. See App. Br. 16—17.
Claims 3 7—42
Claim 37 depends from claim 34 and further recites “wherein the
luminescence conversion element is a luminescence conversion layer which
is arranged on or above the semiconductor body.” In rejecting claim 37, the
Examiner finds this limitation is met by the Count’s disclosure of “a coating
member covering said light emitting component and containing a phosphor
capable of absorbing a part of blue light by said light emitting component
and emitting light of wavelength different from that of the absorbed light.”
Final Act. 12. In other words, the coating member of the Count is arranged
on or above (i.e., covers) the semiconductor body and the phosphors
contained within the coating member serve to convert the wavelength of the
radiation emitted from the light emitting component to a different
wavelength (i.e., a luminescence conversion). In addition, the Examiner
finds UK ’462 also discloses “a glass/phosphor coating on and over (above)
13
Appeal 2015-006146
Application 13/462,952
the diode light emitting component,” which teaches, or reasonably suggests,
the claimed luminescence conversion layer. Final Act. 12.
Appellants contend the Examiner relied on an overly broad
construction for the claimed luminescence conversion layer. App. Br. 12;
Reply Br. 6. Specifically, Appellants argue the Examiner is construing the
claimed layer to cover any encapsulation that covers the primary emitter and
contains phosphors, including the encapsulating dome from UK ’462. App.
Br. 13. Appellants assert a layer “implies some degree of uniformity in the
thickness of the material considered to form the layer” and suggest such a
construction stands in contrast to “the widely varying thickness of the
encapsulating dome.” App. Br. 14.
As an initial matter, Appellants do not persuasively rebut the
Examiner’s findings that the coating member of the Count discloses the
claimed luminescence conversion layer. Accordingly, we are not apprised
of Examiner error.
Additionally, we note, as does the Examiner (Ans. 8), claim 37 is
silent regarding the thickness (or uniformity thereof) of the luminescence
conversion layer. When construing claim terminology during prosecution
before the Office, claims are to be given their broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the Specification, reading claim language in
light of the Specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill
in the art. In re Am. Acad. ofSci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir.
2004). We are mindful, however, that limitations are not to be read into the
claims from the Specification. In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed.
Cir. 1993).
14
Appeal 2015-006146
Application 13/462,952
In the Specification, Appellants disclose that “the luminescence
conversion layer is advantageously designed in such a way that it has a
constant thickness throughout.” Spec. 7—8. Thus, a uniformity in the
thickness of the layer is a preferred embodiment but non-uniform
thicknesses are also contemplated. Accordingly, we decline to import a
limitation that the luminescence conversion layer is of uniform thickness
into the language of claim 37.
Further, Appellants do not provide persuasive evidence or explanation
in support of the allegation of “the wildly varying thickness of the
encapsulating dome” of UK ’462. It is well settled that mere attorney
arguments and conclusory statements, which are unsupported by factual
evidence, are entitled to little probative value. In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465,
1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997); see also In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA
1974) (attorney argument is not evidence).
As the Examiner finds, the encapsulation dome of UK ’462, which is
either embedded with phosphor particles or has phosphor particles coated
thereon, and is mounted over the electroluminescent element also meets the
claim limitation of a “luminescence conversion layer which is arranged . . .
above the semiconductor body.”
For the reasons discussed supra, we are unpersuaded of Examiner
error. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 37. For
similar reasons, we also sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 38-42,
which depend therefrom and were not argued separately. See App. Br. lb-
17.
15
Appeal 2015-006146
Application 13/462,952
Claims 66—71
Appellants assert the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim
66 for at least the same reasons advanced regarding the rejection of claims
34 and 37, discussed supra. For similar reasons, we do not find those
arguments persuasive of Examiner error.
Additionally, Appellants argue the cited prior art fails to teach or
suggest “a transparent encapsulation” or that “the luminescence conversion
layer is applied to the transparent encapsulation.” App. Br. 16. Appellants
contend UK ’462 only teaches “dispersing the phosphor particles 32 in the
encapsulation dome.” App. Br. 16 (citing UK ’462, 2:41—46).
As previously discussed, UK ’462 discloses the encapsulation dome is
transparent to the radiation being emitted from the electroluminescent
element and to radiation within the visible spectrum. See UK ’462, 1:58—61;
see also UK ’462, 2:30-34 (“The dome is of a material which is transparent
to the radiation emitted by the electroluminescent element 14, radiation
outside the visible spectrum, and to radiation within the visible spectrum.”).
Additionally, UK ’462 discloses an embodiment wherein the encapsulation
dome is a hollow cupshaped member and the phosphor particles are “coated
on the inner surface of the dome.” UK ’462, 2:87—94; see also Ans. 8.
Coating the inner surface of the dome with the phosphor particles (i.e., a
luminescence conversion layer), as disclosed by UK ’462, teaches a
luminescence conversion layer is applied to a transparent encapsulation.
For the reasons discussed supra, we are unpersuaded of Examiner
error. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claim 66. For similar reasons, we also sustain the Examiner’s rejections of
16
Appeal 2015-006146
Application 13/462,952
claims 67—71, which depend therefrom and were not argued separately. See
App. Br. 17.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 34—71.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED
17