Cree, Inc.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardMar 22, 20212020001987 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 22, 2021) 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. 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation