Cree, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 22, 2021

2020001987 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 22, 2021)

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.
15/493,735 04/21/2017 Michael John Bergmann 1194-358C 6167
27820 7590 03/22/2021
WITHROW & TERRANOVA, P.L.L.C.
106 Pinedale Springs Way
Cary, NC 27511
EXAMINER
HATZILAMBROU, MARK
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2891
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/22/2021 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):
patents@wt-ip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte MICHAEL JOHN BERGMANN,
KEVIN HABERERN, and ALAN WELLFORD DILLON
____________

Appeal 2020-001987
Application 15/493,735
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before JEFFREY T. SMITH, BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, and
MERRELL C. CASHION, JR., Administrative Patent Judges.

CASHION, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–17. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies “Cree, Inc.” as the real party. Appeal
Br. 1.
Appeal 2020-001987
Application 15/493,735

2
The invention “relates to light emitting devices and assemblies and
methods of manufacturing the same, and more particularly, to Light
Emitting Diodes (LEDs) and assemblies thereof.” Spec. ¶ 2. Claim 1
illustrates the invention:
1. A lighting device comprising:
a substrate comprising an inner face, an outer face
opposing the inner face, and a thickness;
an array of LEDs supported by the substrate proximate to
the inner face, wherein the array of LEDs comprises a plurality
of anode contacts and a plurality of cathode contacts in
conductive electrical communication with the array of LEDs,
and the array of LEDs is arranged to transmit LED emissions
through the substrate to exit the outer face;
a carrier comprising a plurality of anode pads in
conductive electrical communication with the plurality of anode
contacts, and comprising a plurality of cathode pads in
conductive electrical communication with the plurality of
cathode contacts; and
a plurality of reflective features;
wherein the array of LEDs is arranged between the
substrate and the carrier; and
wherein at least a portion of each reflective feature of the
plurality of reflective features is arranged between different
LEDs of the array of LEDs.

Appellant requests review of the following rejections from the
Examiner’s Final Office Action mailed March 22, 2019:
I. Claims 1–3, 10–12, 14, 15, and 17 rejected under pre-AIA 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Lee (US 2010/0244060 A1, published
September 30, 2010), Donofrio (US 2009/0283787 A1, published
November 19, 2009), and Kim (US 2013/0105845 A1, published May 2,
2013);

Appeal 2020-001987
Application 15/493,735

3
II. Claims 4 and 5 rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Lee, Donofrio, Kim, and Heremans (US 2003/0075723
A1, published April 24, 2003);

III. Claims 6 and 7 rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Lee, Donofrio, Kim, and Keller (US 2009/0321769 A1,
published December 31, 2009);

IV. Claims 8 and 9 rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Lee, Donofrio, Kim, and Seo (US 2012/0074441 A1,
published March 29, 2012);

V. Claim 13 rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Lee, Donofrio, Kim, and Hsu (US 2010/0244078 A1,
published September 30, 2010);

VI. Claim 16 rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Lee, Donofrio, Kim, and Wang (US 2011/0215360 A1,
published September 8, 2011).

Appellant presents arguments for only independent claim 1 and relies
on these arguments to address the rejections of the remaining claims. See
generally Appeal Br. We select claim 1 as representative of the subject
matter claimed and decide the appeal as to all grounds of rejection based on
the arguments Appellant makes in support of the patentability of claim 1.

OPINION
After review of the respective positions the Appellant provides in the
Appeal and Reply Briefs and the Examiner provides in the Final Action and
the Answer, we affirm the Examiner’s prior art rejections of claims 1–17
based on the fact-finding and the reasons the Examiner provides in the
record. We add the following for emphasis.

Appeal 2020-001987
Application 15/493,735

4
Independent claim 1
Claim 1 recites a lighting device comprising a plurality of reflective
features, wherein at least a portion of each reflective feature of the plurality
of reflective features is arranged between different LEDs of an array of
LEDs.
The Examiner finds Lee teaches a lighting device including a plurality
of reflective features that differs from the claimed invention in that Lee does
not teach arranging at least a portion of each reflective feature of the
plurality of reflective features between different LEDs of the array of LEDs.
Final Act. 3. The Examiner finds Donofrio and Kim disclose it is well
known to use a reflective layer material that provides step coverage across
trenches between LED regions of a monolithic device. Final Act. 4;
Donofrio Figure 2, ¶ 62; Kim Figures 1, 4, 6, 9, ¶¶ 43, 66, 83, 93, 101. The
Examiner determines that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art to use Donofrio’s reflective interconnection step coverage
layer in Lee’s device to provide arbitrary internal and external circuit
connectivity, as evidenced by Kim, to improve reflection and emission
efficiency of the LED array. Final Act. 4.
Appellant argues Lee teaches away from the claimed invention
because Lee discloses an alternative for interconnecting light emitting cells
that does not require precise alignment between the light emitting cells and
the electrode layers 230 of the submount substrate. Appeal Br. 9 (citing to
Lee’s Figures 8 and 9), 19–20. That is, Appellant argues that Lee’s Figure 9
embodiment highlights the disadvantages of Lee’s Figure 8 embodiment
and, therefore, Lee teaches away from the an arrangement that requires
precise alignment between the light emitting cells and the electrode layers.
Appeal 2020-001987
Application 15/493,735

5
Appellant’s argument does not identify error in the Examiner’s
determination of obviousness.
It is well settled that a reference may be relied upon for all that it
discloses and not merely the preferred embodiments as suggested by
Appellant. See Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 807 (Fed.
Cir. 1989) (“[A]ll disclosures of the prior art, including unpreferred
embodiments, must be considered.”) (quoting In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747,
750 (CCPA 1976)); see also In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792, 794 n.1 (CCPA
1982) (explaining that a prior art reference’s disclosure is not limited to its
examples). The disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not
constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or non-preferred
embodiments. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 446 n.3 (CCPA 1971).
The Examiner relies on Lee’s Figure 9 embodiment as disclosing an
alternate technique for interconnecting light emitting cells serially. Final
Act. 3; Ans. 7; Lee ¶ 103. While Lee discloses the Figure 9 embodiment as
possessing some advantages over the Figure 8 embodiment, this disclosure
only indicates that the Figure 8 embodiment is a less preferred embodiment
of Lee’s invention. Appellant has not explained adequately this disclosure
limits or teaches away from Lee’s broader disclosure encompassing both
embodiments.
Appellant argues Donofrio does not show multiple separate LED
regions of a monolithic (e.g., single chip) device because Donofrio refers to
light emitting diode of Figure 2 in the singular sense, as “an LED” and “a
diode region 110.” Appeal Br. 10–11; Donofrio Figures 2, 7A, 7B, ¶¶ 58–
59. In other words, Appellant asserts that Donofrio does not teach
connecting multiple separate LED regions using a reflective layer as
Appeal 2020-001987
Application 15/493,735

6
claimed.
Appellant’s arguments are unpersuasive of reversible error.
To establish a prima facie case of obviousness, the Examiner must
show that each and every limitation of the claim is described or suggested by
the prior art or would have been obvious based on the knowledge of those of
ordinary skill in the art or the inferences and creative steps a person of
ordinary skill in the art would have employed. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007); In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
Moreover, “the test for combining references is not what the individual
references themselves suggest but rather what the combination of disclosures
taken as a whole would suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art.” In re
McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395 (CCPA 1971). It is well established that
the obviousness inquiry does not ask “whether the references could be
physically combined but whether the claimed inventions are rendered
obvious by the teachings of the prior art as a whole.” In re Etter, 756 F.2d
852, 859 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc); see also In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425
(CCPA 1981) (stating “[t]he test for obviousness is not whether the features
of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the
primary reference”).
Appellant’s arguments do not address persuasively the rejection the
Examiner presents. The Examiner finds Lee teaches as desirable to use
electrodes to connect light emitting cells serially across a trench to form a
serial light emitting cell array. Final Act. 3; Lee Figure 9, ¶ 103. The
Examiner also finds Kim teaches patterning a connection electrode between
LEDs across trenches where the connection electrode is formed according to
the shape of the trench. Final Act. 3; Kim Figure 4 (connection electrode
Appeal 2020-001987
Application 15/493,735

7
160-4 connecting light emitting regions P4 and P5), ¶¶ 67, 82. The
Examiner relies on Donofrio as teaching an alternate technique of providing
a reflective interconnection layer that provides step coverage across trenches
between elements of a monolithic device as Kim teaches. Final Act. 3; Ans.
3–4; Donofrio Figure 2, ¶ 62. As the Examiner explains,
Donofrio's layer 150 does provide conductive connection both
vertically to cathode pad 170 and horizontally between different
regions of Donofrio's LED… [and] provides arbitrary contact to
n-type layer 112 where insulating layer 140 is absent, thus
providing both reflective function and conducting strapping
horizontally between regions of the n-type layer 112 to more
evenly distribute current.

Ans. 3–4. Moreover, a claim may be obvious if it results from the use of a
known technique to improve similar devices, methods or products in the
same way. KSR, 550 U.S. at 417. The Examiner’s rationale is based upon the
application of Donofrio’s known technique to improve Lee’s device which is
similar to Donofrio’s to the the extent that it seeks to ensure adequate
operation of an LED. Given that the combined teachings of Lee and Kim
teach the desirability of connecting regions separated by a trench with
connection electrodes formed within the outline of the trench, Appellant fails
to explain adequately why one skilled in the art, using no more than ordinary
creativity, would not have been able to use Donofrio’s known technique to
form connections across a trench in the Lee’s LED array. See KSR, 550 U.S.
at 421 (“A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not
an automaton.”); see also In re Sovish, 769 F.2d 738, 743 (Fed. Cir. 1985)
(presuming skill on the part of one of ordinary skill in the art). Thus,
Appellant fails to explain adequately why one skilled in the art would not
have been able to arrive at the claimed invention from the combined
Appeal 2020-001987
Application 15/493,735

8
teachings of the cited art. Further, Appellant does not direct us to evidence
showing unexpected results from the claimed internal interconnection layer.
Appellant argues Donofrio does not refer to cathode contact 150 as an
“internal interconnection layer” and Donofrio fails to disclose or provide any
derivative basis for "at least a portion of each reflective feature of the
plurality of reflective features is arranged between different LEDs of the
array of LEDs" as recited in claim 1. Appeal Br. 14, 16.
These arguments are also unavailing.
As the Examiner explains, “[Donofrio’s] combination of insulating
layer 140 and reflective aluminum layer 150 []provides arbitrary contact to
n-type layer 112 where insulating layer 140 is absent, thus providing both
reflective function and conducting strapping horizontally between regions of
the n-type layer 112 to more evenly distribute current.” Ans. 3–4; Donofrio
Figure 2, ¶ 62. Thus, Donofrio appears to teach an internal interconnection
layer as the Examiner asserts. Moreover, the Specification describes that the
internal interconnection layer comprises an insulating layer that forms the
plurality of LED die anode contacts and LED die cathode contacts on the
insulating layer. Spec. ¶ 30. We discern no difference between the internal
interconnection layer/insulation layer arrangement described in the
Specification and Donofrio’s internal interconnection layer/insulation layer
arrangement. Therefore, Appellant’s argument does not distinguish the
claimed invention from the teachings of the cited art.
Appellant argues Lee was mistranslated with respect to the term “air-
bridge or step cover.” Appeal Br. 16–18.
We have considered Appellant’s arguments with respect to the alleged
mistranslation of Lee. However, we are unpersuaded by these arguments
Appeal 2020-001987
Application 15/493,735

9
because Appellant has not provided evidence in declaration form. While
Appellant presents a number of documents in support of these arguments,
Appellant does not point to any specific portions of the documents or
provide explanation of how the cited documents support these arguments.
See Appeal Br. 17–18. The arguments are merely Attorney’s arguments that
cannot take the place of evidence. See In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705
(Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 315 (CCPA 1979).
Appellant contends that Kim’s connection electrodes are illustrated as
being external to the light emitting devices of FIGS. 1 and 9 and, thus, are
not internal. Appeal Br. 21. In addition, Appellant argues that the
Examiner’s finding that Kim's interconnections are reflective features to
some limited degree is unsupported given that Kim discloses the use of a
first distributed bragg reflector layer to prevent absorption and loss of light
into the second electrode unit and the connection electrodes. Appeal Br. 21;
Kim ¶¶ 61, 88,123. Thus, Appellant argues that Kim’s connection
electrodes are light-absorptive in character and not light reflective. Appeal
Br. 21.
These arguments do not persuade us of reversible error.
Appellant’s arguments attack Kim individually and, therefore, do not
address adequately the rejection the Examiner presents. It is well settled that
nonobviousness cannot be established by attacking the references
individually when the rejection is predicated upon a combination of prior art
disclosures. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re
Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425–26 (CCPA 1981) (citations omitted) (“The test
[for obviousness] is what the combined teachings of the references would
have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.”).
Appeal 2020-001987
Application 15/493,735

10
As we discuss above, Donofrio teaches using internal connection
layers to connect regions separated by a trench. See Donofrio Figure 2. In
addition, Donofrio teaches the use of reflective connection layers. Donofrio
¶ 48. The Examiner relies on Kim only to establish that connecting LEDs
using a connecting layer that spans across a trench is well known in the art.
Thus, Appellant’s arguments fail to address the Examiner’s reasons for
combining the teachings of the cited art.
Arguments not specifically addressed are deemed not persuasive for
the reasons the Examiner presents.
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s prior art rejection of claim 1
as well as the prior art rejections of claims 2–17 for the reasons the
Examiner presents and we give above.

DECISION SUMMARY

In summary:

Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–3, 10–12,
14, 15, 17
103(a) Lee, Donofrio, Kim 1–3, 10–12,
14, 15, 17

4, 5 103(a) Lee, Donofrio, Kim.
Heremans
4, 5
6, 7 103(a) Lee, Donofrio, Kim,
Keller
6, 7
8, 9 103(a) Lee, Donofrio, Kim,
Seo
8, 9
13 103(a) Lee, Donofrio, Kim,
Hsu
13
16 103(a) Lee, Donofrio, Kim,
Wang
16
Overall
Outcome
1–17
Appeal 2020-001987
Application 15/493,735

11

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED