Ex Parte Sugimori et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 31, 2016

13254822 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 31, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/254,822 09/07/2011 21839 7590 04/04/2016 BUCHANAN, INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC POST OFFICE BOX 1404 ALEXANDRIA, VA 22313-1404 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Shogo Sugimori 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. 0079558-000024 1281 EXAMINER BLUM, DAVIDS ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2813 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/04/2016 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): ADIPDOC 1@BIPC.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte SHOGO SUGIMORI and AKIHIRO NOMURA Appeal2014-006625 Application 13/254,822 Technology Center 2800 Before JEFFREYS. SMITH, JON M. JURGOV AN, and MICHAEL M. BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges. JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants seek review under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1, 3, 5, 10, 13, 20, 21, 23, 24, 26-28, 30, 31, 33, and 34. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We affirm. Appeal2014-006625 Application 13/254,822 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The claims are directed to light emitting modules and methods of their manufacture. (Spec. i-f 1.) Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A light emitting module comprising: a plate-shaped light wavelength conversion member configured to convert the wavelength of the light within a certain wavelength range and to emit the light; and a semiconductor layer that undergoes crystal growth on the light wavelength conversion member and is provided so as to emit the light containing at least part of the wavelength range by being applied with a voltage, wherein the light wavelength conversion member 1s fluorescent ceramic. REJECTIONS Claims 20, 21, 24, 28, and 31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 102(b) based on Noriya (JP 2003-204080, published July 18, 2003). (Final Act. 2- 3.) Claims 26 and 33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) based on Noriya and Masayuki (JP 08-255926, published Oct. 1, 1996). (Final Act. 4-5.) Claims 27 and 34 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) based on Noriya and Kunio (JP 2006-310527, published Oct. 1, 1996). (Final Act. 5- 6.) Claims 1, 3, and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) based on Noriya and Tsutsumi et al. (US 2010/0177527 Al, published July 15, 2010). (Final Act. 6-7.) 2 Appeal2014-006625 Application 13/254,822 Claims 5, 13, 23, and 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) based on Noriya, Tsutsumi, Hiroshi (JP 08-083929, published Mar. 26, 1996), and Nunoue et al. (US 5,905,275, issued May 18, 1999). (Final Act. 7-9.) ANALYSIS Claims 1, 3, 5, 10, and 13 For claim 1, Appellants argue a person of ordinary skill would understand that the claimed "plate-shaped light wavelength conversion member" is poly-crystalline, which is distinguishable from Noriya's yttrium- aluminum-gamet (YAG) mono-crystalline (111) substrate. (App. Br. 7; Reply Br. 1.) The Examiner notes that Appellants' Specification (i-f 77) describes that the "plate-shaped light wavelength conversion member" may be a fluorescent ceramic composed of YAG material. (Ans. 2.) Furthermore, the Examiner states claim 1 does not recite the "plate-shaped light wavelength conversion member" is poly-crystalline. (Id.) We agree with the Examiner. Appellant's Specification describes Y AG as a material for the "plate-shaped light wavelength conversion member" (i-f 50, not i177), the same material used in the reference. Furthermore, Appellants' Specification plainly states "[t]he present invention should not be limited to the above embodiments." (Spec. i-f 109.) Claim 1 makes no mention of the "plate-shaped light wavelength conversion member" being poly-crystalline, and under a broad but reasonable interpretation, there is no reason to so limit the claim. Thus, Appellants' argument is not commensurate in scope with the claim as written, as the Examiner noted. Moreover, Appellants provide no evidence that a person of 3 Appeal2014-006625 Application 13/254,822 ordinary skill in the art would consider the claimed "plate-shaped light wavelength conversion member" to be poly-crystalline. A lawyer's 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); In re Huang, 100 F.3d 135, 139-140 (Fed. Cir. 1996). Appellants next argue that a ceramic material containing a fluorescent material is not a fluorescent ceramic. (App. Br. 6.) To the contrary, the Examiner considers a ceramic containing a fluorescent material to be a fluorescent ceramic. (Ans. 3.). We agree with the Examiner. Claim 1 contains no limitation indicating the ceramic is intrinsically fluorescent or that the ceramic contains no additive including fluorescent material. Thus, we are not persuaded by Appellants' argument. Claim 10 also recites a "plate-shaped light wavelength conversion member," and Appellants argue the examiner errs for the identical reasons as for claim 1. See App. Br. 6-7. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1 and 10 underÂ§ 103(a) based on Noriya and Tsutsumi. No separate arguments are presented for dependent claims 3, 5, and 13. Accordingly, we sustain their rejection for the reasons stated with respect to independent claims 1 and 10. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 991 (Fed. Cir. 1983); 37 C.F.R. Â§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv). 4 Appeal2014-006625 Application 13/254,822 Claims 20, 21, 23, 24, 26-28, 30, 31, 33, and 34 For claim 20, Appellants argue the Noriya's buffer layer 2 is not disclosed to be electrically conductive, and that known prior art buffer layers are non-doped semiconductor layers configured as a film having extremely large resistance so that no current flows in the buffer layer. (App. Br. 7-10; Reply Br. 1-2). The Examiner finds Noriya's buffer layer 2, composed of indium-aluminum-gallium-nitride (In Al Ga N), is electrically conductive. (Ans. 4--7.) We agree with the Examiner's finding and conclusion of anticipation for claims 20, 24, 28, and 31. Noriya's buffer layer 2 is composed of an InAlGaN nitride semiconductor. Appellants have not provided persuasive evidence or argument to rebut the Examiner's finding that the buffer layer of Noriya is electrically conductive. Moreover, as Appellants note, it is well- known to dope semiconductors in order to achieve desired electrical conductivity. (App. Br. 7-8.) Thus, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in the rejection of claim 20. For independent claim 28, Appellants present the same arguments as for claim 20, which we find unpersuasive for the same reasons. No separate arguments are presented for dependent claims 21, 23, 24, 26, 27, 30, 31, 33, and 34. 1 Accordingly, we sustain their rejections on respective anticipation or obviousness grounds for the reasons stated with respect to independent claims 20 and 28. See King, Sernaker, supra; 37 C.F.R. Â§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv). 1 For claims 24 and 31, Appellants' contentions of Examiner error simply refer to the arguments for claims 20 and 28, respectively. App. Br. 9-10. 5 Appeal2014-006625 Application 13/254,822 DECISION For the above reasons, the Examiner's Decision to reject claims 1, 3, 5, 10, 13, 20, 21, 23, 24, 26-28, 30, 31, 33, and 34, is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 6