Ex Parte Sills

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 28, 2016

12855492 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 28, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/855,492 08/12/2010
46844 7590 11/01/2016
PERKINS COIE LLP - Micron
PATENT-SEA
PO BOX 1247
SEATTLE, WA 98111-1247
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Scott E. Sills
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
108299003US 1011
EXAMINER
SUFLETA II, GERALD J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2875
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/01/2016 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):
patentprocurement@perkinscoie.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SCOTT E. SILLS
Appeal2015-005435
Application 12/855,492
Technology Center 2800
Before MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, CHRISTOPHER L. OGDEN, and
JULIA HEANEY, Administrative Patent Judges.
HEANEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 requests review pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of a
decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-23 of Application 12/855,492.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm-in-part.
BACKGROUND
The subject matter on appeal relates to cooling of a solid state lighting
(SSL) device that includes one or more solid state emitters (SSEs) such as
1 Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Micron Technology, Inc.
App. Br. 1.
Appeal2015-005435
Application 12/855,492
light emitting diodes. Specification ("Spec.") 1. A housing for the device
defines an air channel having an inlet and an outlet at the ends of the housing
such that heat generated by S SEs causes air in the channel to rise and draw
cool air into the channel, to passively cool the device. App. Br. 2.
Representative claims 1, 11, and 17 are reproduced from the Claims
Appendix of the Appeal Brief as follows:
1. A solid state lighting device (SSL), comprising:
a housing having a front, a back, a chamber from which light
projects toward the front along a primary light direction, a side
portion outward of the chamber, and a channel along a portion
of the sidewall and outward of the chamber, wherein at least a
portion of the channel is inclined at an angle relative to
horizontal and has an inlet, and an outlet above the inlet; and
a solid state emitter (SSE) carried by the housing at the
sidewall, the SSE having an active portion and a back portion,
the active portion facing inwardly toward the chamber at an
acute angle relative to the primary light direction, and one of
the active portion and the back portion being exposed to the
channel.
11. A solid state lighting device (SSL), comprising:
a housing having a front, a back, a chamber, a side portion
between the front and the back, and a channel outward of the
central chamber and passing along the side portion from the
front to the back, wherein light exits the chamber along a
primary light direction of the SSL device; and
a solid state emitter (SSE) having a light-emitting active portion
facing inwardly toward the chamber at an angle with respect to
the primary light direction such that the SSE emits light toward
the back of the housing and a back portion facing toward the
sidewall portion, the SSE being carried by the housing at a
sufficient angle relative to horizontal such that air in the
channel is heated by the SSE, rises, and draws air into a lower
portion of the channel at the front of the housing to produce a
cooling flow of air across at least one of the active portion side
or the back portion of the SSE.
2
Appeal2015-005435
Application 12/855,492
17. A solid state lighting (SSL) device, comprising:
a housing having a front, a back and side section defining a
chamber, wherein light exits the chamber along a primary light
direction of the SSL device;
a plurality of solid state emitters (SSEs) at the side section and
having an active portion facing inwardly toward the chamber
and away from the front;
a channel in the housing passing along the side section from the
front of the housing to the back of the housing, the channel
being positioned outwardly of the chamber, wherein a portion
of individual SS Es is exposed to the channel, and wherein the
channel is oriented such that air in the channel heated by the
SSEs flows through the channel.
THE REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1-16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, as being indefinite.
2. Claims 1, 2, 4, 6-14, 16, 17, and 222 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by He. 3
3. Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over the combination of He and Bishop.4
4. Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over the combination of He and Helbing. 5
2 The Examiner withdrew this ground of rejection as applied to claims 15,
18, 19, and 21. Ans. 2.
3 US 2010/0020537 Al, published Jan. 28, 2010.
4 US 6,161,946, issued Dec. 19, 2000.
5 US 2010/0195306 Al, published Aug. 5, 2010.
3
Appeal2015-005435
Application 12/855,492
5. Claim 23 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over He.
DISCUSSION
Rejection 1
Appellant does not argue Rejection 1.7 Accordingly, we summarily
affirm the rejection of claims 1-16 on the grounds of indefiniteness under 3 5
U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. See Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075
(BP AI 2010) (precedential) ("If an appellant fails to present arguments on a
particular issue----or more broadly, on a particular rejection-the Board will
not, as a general matter, unilaterally review those uncontested aspects of the
rejection.").
Rejection 2
He discloses an LED lamp including a cooling module inside the lamp
housing and an airflow guidance passage for heat extraction which exhausts
hot air from the light projection end of the lamp housing. He, Abstract. He
further includes an LED lighting set 40 configured on the LED joint surface
332 of cooling base 33. He i-f 32. The Examiner finds that the LEDs have an
active portion emitting light into the chamber of the lamp housing. Final
Act. 4. We discuss below the specific claim language at issue in the
rejection.
6 The Examiner withdrew this ground of rejection as applied to claim 20.
Ans. 2.
7 Appellant's omission of Rejection 1 from the listing of grounds to be
reviewed on Appeal (App. Br. 5), does not negate the presumption that this
appeal is taken from the rejection of all pending claims. See 37 C.F.R.
41.31(c).
4
Appeal2015-005435
Application 12/855,492
"an inlet, and an outlet above the inlet"(claim 1)
Appellant argues that He does not anticipate claim 1 because it does
not disclose an airflow channel having "an inlet, and an outlet above the
inlet." App. Br. 8-9. Appellant notes that He's device as shown in Figure 6
has airflow W2 directed downwardly with outlet 220 positioned under inlet
24 (App. Br. 9, citing He Fig. 6), unlike Appellant's Figure 3A, which
shows "inlet 122 at the front 112 (i.e., bottom) and the outlet 124 at the back
114 (i.e., top) of the housing 110" so that heat from the SSEs 140 causes air
in the channel 120 to rise and draw cool air upward. App. Br. 8, citing Spec.
iT 20.
The Examiner responds that claim 1 does not contain language
"correlating front and back to above and below or further defining their
features." Ans. 3. The Examiner annotates He's Figure 6, as reproduced
below, to show how He's device has "an inlet, and an outlet above the inlet"
as recited in claim 1.
.·•···
·;,.<:·~ •• -.
k"
5
Appeal2015-005435
Application 12/855,492
Having considered Appellant's arguments and the Examiner's position
concerning interpretation of the claim language "an inlet, and an outlet
above the inlet," we find that a preponderance of the evidence supports the
Examiner's finding that He discloses an airflow channel that meets this
limitation of claim 1. Further, we note that Appellant does not respond to
this aspect of the Examiner's claim interpretation in the Reply Brief. Reply
Br. 1--4.
"[an] SSE having an active portion and a back portion ... and one of
the active portion and the back portion being exposed to the channel"
(claim 1)
The Examiner finds that He's cooling base 33 along with projections
333 form a back portion of He's LED lighting set, and therefore a portion of
the LED lighting set is exposed to airflow in the passage 60. Ans. 5---6.
Appellant argues that He does not anticipate claim 1 because He's
LED lighting set 40 does not have a back portion exposed to airflow in
guidance passage 60. App. Br. 11-12, citing He Fig. 6. Specifically,
Appellant argues that He's cooling base 33 does not form a back portion of
the LED lighting set 40 but rather is part of the separate cooling module 30.
Reply Br. 2. Thus, Appellant disputes the Examiner's interpretation of the
term "back portion" and its application to the He disclosure.
In determining an issue of claim construction, "the PTO must give
claims their broadest reasonable construction consistent with the
specification. . . . Therefore, we look to the specification to see if it provides
a definition for claim terms, but otherwise apply a broad interpretation." In
re ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
Under that standard, claim terms are given their ordinary and customary
meaning, as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the
6
Appeal2015-005435
Application 12/855,492
context of the entire disclosure. In re Trans logic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249,
1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Any special definition for a claim term must be set
forth in the specification with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and
precision. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
With respect to the claim language at issue, we note that the
Specification does not provide a special definition for the term "back
portion." Although Appellant argues that Figures 3A, 4A, 4B, 5, and 6 show
back portions 144 of SSEs exposed in channel 120 (Reply Br. 2-3, citing
Figures and Spec. i-fi-122 and 24), those parts of the Specification do not
provide a special definition for "back portion." Further, we note that other
embodiments show different configurations of Appellant's back portion 144
including projections 146 "that increase the thermally conductive surface
area of the back portion 144." Spec. i1 24, see also i-fi-1 25-26, describing
Figs. 3B-3D. The Specification further describes that the projections are
positioned in the airflow channel 120 according to known heat transfer
technologies. Spec. i124. Accordingly, we determine that the Examiner did
not reversibly err in finding that the "back portion" limitation of claim 1,
italicized above, encompasses the structure of He's LED lighting set and
cooling base.
Appellant does not separately argue the claims which depend from
claim 1, except for claims 2, 4, and 9. App. Br. 12. Appellant's argument
for patentability of claims 2 and 4 rests on the same construction of "back
portion" as discussed above, i.e., "He fins 333 cannot be part of an SSE as
proposed by the Examiner because the He fins 333 are part of the cooling
base 33 that defines the cited airflow guidance passage 60." Id. For the
reasons discussed above, Appellant's arguments as to claims 2 and 4 are not
persuasive of reversible error.
7
Appeal2015-005435
Application 12/855,492
With respect to claim 9, Appellant argues that He does not disclose an
"inlet and an outlet that are configured to provide an airflow through the
chamber that passes over the active portion of the SSE" because air does not
flow across an active portion of He's lighting set 40. Id. The Examiner does
not respond to Appellant's argument for patentability of claim 9 (see Ans.,
generally). Indeed, He's Figure 6 shows the dashed arrows W2 as flowing
along the backside of the LED light set 40, not over the LED light set 40
(i.e., the active portion). The Specification describes "active portion" as the
portion 142 that emits light toward reflector 119 with a back portion 144
mounted to the side section 116. Spec. i-f 20. Therefore, claim 9 requires
that the air be directed over the portion emitting LED light. The Examiner
has not identified where He teaches such an arrangement. Accordingly,
Appellant's argument is persuasive of reversible error with respect to the
rejection of claim 9.
"a portion of individual SSEs is exposed to the channel" (claim 17)
Appellant argues that this limitation of claim 1 7 is analogous to the
"back portion" limitation of claim 1 discussed above, and that claim 17 is
patentable over He for analogous reasons. App. Br. 17. As we determined
above, the Examiner did not reversibly err in finding that claim limitation
encompasses the structure of He's LED lighting set and cooling base. We
determine likewise for claim 1 7.
"a solid state emitter (SSE) having a light-emitting active portion
facing inwardly toward the chamber at an angle with respect to the
primary light direction such that the SSE emits light toward the back
of the housing" (claim 11)
8
Appeal2015-005435
Application 12/855,492
"a plurality of solid state emitters (SSEs) at the side section and
having an active portion facing inwardly toward the chamber and
away from the front" (claim 17)
Appellant argues that He does not anticipate claim 11 or 1 7 because
He's LEDs face toward the front of the device such that light from the LEDs
is directed toward the front. App. Br. 13-15. The Examiner responds that
claims 11 and 1 7 do not require a fixed orientation of "back" and "front"
(Ans. 3) and annotates He's Figure 6, as reproduced below, to show how
He's device reads on the italicized limitations of claims 11 and 17 (Ans. 4):
.......... ,, ..
. ~ '
''"·.;· :h::~ -;,~
: ... ·~: ·•";
~~:
Appellant argues in response that the terms "front" and "back" must
be interpreted consistent! y throughout the claim, and notes that claim 11
further recites that the SSE has "a back portion facing toward the sidewall
portion." Reply Br. 5. Appellant further argues that labeling of the socket
9
Appeal2015-005435
Application 12/855,492
end of He's lamp as the "front" is contrary to how a person of ordinary skill
in the art would understand that term relative to He's lamp. Id. at 7.
Appellant's arguments are persuasive of reversible error. The finding of
anticipation of claims 11 and 17 rests on a claim interpretation that does not
interpret the term "back" consistently throughout the claims themselves.
Further, absent a special definition for the claim terms "front" and "back,"
the terms are given their ordinary meaning as would be understood by a
person of skill in the art. In re Translogic Tech., 504 F.3d at 1257.
Accordingly, we reverse the anticipation rejection with respect to claims 11
and 17.
Because we find reversible error in the Examiner's finding of
anticipation as to independent claims 11 and 17, we need not address the
claims that depend respectively from claims 11 and 17 and are subject to the
anticipation rejection.
Rejections 3-5
The obviousness rejections are directed only to dependent claims 3, 5,
and 23. Claims 3 and 5 depend from claim 1; Appellant relies on the
arguments it presents against anticipation of claim 1. App. Br. 16.
Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of claims 3 and 5 as unpatentable under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Claim 23 depends from claim 1 7. Appellant relies on the arguments it
presents against anticipation of claim 17, which we find persuasive for the
reasons discussed above. The Examiner does not address claim 23 in the
Answer. Accordingly, we reverse the rejection of claim 23 as unpatentable
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
10
Appeal2015-005435
Application 12/855,492
SUMMARY
We affirm the rejection of claims 1-16 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, as indefinite.
We affirm the rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 6-8, and 10 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102( e) as anticipated.
We reverse the rejection of claims 9, 11-14, 16, 17, and 22 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated.
We affirm the rejection of claims 3 and 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable.
We reverse the rejection of claim 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable.
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
11