SemiLEDS Optoelectronics Co., Ltd.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardMay 27, 202013869218 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 27, 2020) Copy Citation 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. 13/869,218 04/24/2013 WEN-HUANG LIU SEMI/2009-018USC1 7229 22823 7590 05/27/2020 STEPHEN A GRATTON THE LAW OFFICE OF STEVE GRATTON 2764 SOUTH BRAUN WAY LAKEWOOD, CO 80228 EXAMINER KALAM, ABUL ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2829 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/27/2020 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 WEN-HUANG LIU, LI-WEI SHAN, and CHEN-FU CHU __________________ Appeal 2019-003074 Application 13/869,218 Technology Center 2800 ____________________ Before DONNA M. PRAISS, MICHELLE N. ANKENBRAND, and JEFFREY R. SNAY, Administrative Patent Judges. SNAY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL1 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant2 filed an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 7–10, 14–16, 19, and 20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. The subject matter on appeal relates to light emitting diodes (LEDs). 1 Our Decision refers to the Specification filed Apr. 24, 2013 (“Spec.”); Final Office Action dated May 30, 2018 (“Final Act.”); Appellant’s Appeal Brief filed Aug. 13, 2018 (“Br.”), and the Examiner’s Answer dated Jan. 8, 2019 (“Ans.”). 2 Appellant is the Applicant, SemiLEDs Optoelectronics Co., Ltd., which, according to the Appeal Brief, is the real party in interest. Br. 2. Appeal 2019-003074 Application 13/869,218 2 Spec. ¶ 8. According to the Specification, increasing LED size improves power and luminous flux, but also can produce a high electric current density phenomenon. Id. ¶ 4. Configuring the metal electrode on top of a vertical LED to increase current spreading performance counters this phenomenon. Id. ¶ 7. However, such an arrangement may result in the sides of the metal electrode absorbing emitted light, which decreases LED brightness. Id. ¶ 7. The Specification describes a vertical LED device that includes, among other things, a second metal electrode having a high illumination side and a low illumination side, wherein the low illumination side is located beyond the width scope of a reflective mirror layer of the LED device. Id. ¶ 10. The Specification states that such an LED device has higher output brightness and efficiency in comparison to conventional LED devices, without increased production costs, and has improved current spreading performance and reduced light absorption by a metal electrode. Id. ¶¶ 8, 9. Independent claim 1 is illustrative and is reproduced below from the Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief. Limitations at issue are italicized. 1. A light emitting diode device comprising: a conductive base having a first electrode; a reflective mirror layer on the conductive base having a width scope W, a first conductivity type semiconductor layer on the reflective mirror layer, an active layer on the first conductivity type semiconductor layer configured to produce emission light, a second conductivity type semiconductor layer on the active layer having a surface, an outline, a surface area and an edge, and a second electrode comprising a wire on the surface of the second conductivity type semiconductor layer having a width Appeal 2019-003074 Application 13/869,218 3 and a surface area, the wire within the outline of the second conductivity type semiconductor layer and with the surface area of the wire selected relative to the surface area of the second conductivity type semiconductor layer to provide a desired current spreading across the active layer, the wire having a low illumination side located outside of the width scope W of the reflective mirror layer and formed along the edge of the second conductivity type semiconductor layer, and a high illumination side spaced from the low illumination side by the width of the wire, the high illumination side configured to receive at least some of the emission light reflected from the reflective mirror layer, the low illumination side configured to reduce light absorption of the second electrode. REJECTION ON APPEAL Claims 1, 2, 7–10, 14–16, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the Admitted Prior Art3 in view of Park4 and Kim.5 DISCUSSION The Examiner finds the Admitted Prior Art discloses a light emitting diode including a conductive base, a first electrode, a reflective mirror layer, a first conductivity type semiconductor layer, an active layer, a second conductivity type semiconductor layer, and a second electrode comprising a wire having a high illumination side. Final Act. 2–4. The Examiner finds the Admitted Prior Art does not disclose or suggest the second electrode has “a low illumination side located outside of the width scope W of the 3 The Examiner cites Figures 1–3 and paragraph 5–7 of Applicant’s disclosure as the Admitted Prior Art. Final Act. 2. Appellant does not dispute whether this portion of the disclosure is Admitted Prior Art. 4 US 2009/0273003 A1, published Nov. 5, 1999 (“Park”). 5 US 2006/0202227 A1, published Sept. 14, 2006 (“Kim”). Appeal 2019-003074 Application 13/869,218 4 reflective mirror layer” as independent claims 1, 9, and 16 recite. Id. at 4. The Examiner also finds the Admitted Prior Art does not disclose or suggest: (1) the low illumination side is formed along the edge of a second conductivity type semiconductor layer, (2) the low illumination side is configured to reduce light absorption of the second electrode, and (3) the low illumination side absorbs less reflected emission light from the reflective mirror layer than the high illumination side. Id. The Examiner finds Park discloses an LED device including, among other things, a reflective layer and a second electrode having a low illumination side and a high illumination side. Id. The Examiner finds Park’s low illumination side is formed outside the width scope of the reflective layer and is not covered by the reflective mirror layer. Id. at 4–5. The Examiner finds Kim discloses an LED device including, among other things, a second electrode having a low illumination side formed along an edge of a second conductivity type semiconductor layer. Id. at 6. The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Admitted Prior Art in view of Park and Kim to: reduce the width scope of the reflective mirror layer, and form the second electrode having a low illumination side located outside the width scope of the reflective mirror layer, and along the edge of the second conductivity type semiconductor layer, for the purpose of reducing current concentration, improving current spreading and increasing light emission efficiency. Id. (citing Park ¶¶ 6, 32; Kim ¶¶ 42, 59, 60). Appellant contends, among other things, that the Examiner’s rationale to modify the Admitted Prior Art in view of Park and Kim is insufficient. Appeal 2019-003074 Application 13/869,218 5 Br. 11. The Examiner responds by repeating the rationale and the prior art citations, including paragraphs 6 and 32 of Park. Ans. 8–9. Park’s paragraphs 6 and 32 regard improving an LED’s light emission efficiency. Particularly, Park teaches emission efficiency results from using a current blocking layer 70. Id. ¶¶ 31, 32. The current blocking layer 70 prevents current flowing through Park’s LED from concentrating on the lower side of Park’s first electrode layer 100. Park ¶ 31. According to Park, this prevents the current concentration phenomenon. Id. ¶ 32. Thus, Park’s LED “can operate at a stable operating voltage and the light emission efficiency can be improved.” Id. Accordingly, Park’s disclosure does not support the Examiner’s finding that Park would have provided a reason to modify the second electrode’s position relative to the reflective layer in the Admitted Prior Art. The Examiner’s reliance on Kim does not remedy the deficiency discussed above. For the foregoing reasons, we are persuaded the Examiner failed to identify evidence sufficient to support the articulated obviousness determination. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s § 103(a) rejection of claims 1, 2, 7–10, 14–16, 19, and 20 over Park and Kim. DECISION On the record before us and for the reasons given in Appellant’s Appeal Brief and above, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection. Appeal 2019-003074 Application 13/869,218 6 In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § References/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 2, 7–10, 14–16, 19, 20 103(a) Admitted Prior Art, Park, Kim 1, 2, 7–10, 14–16, 19, 20 Overall Outcome 1, 2, 7–10, 14–16, 19, 20 REVERSED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation