Ex Parte Akselrod et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 13, 201713783674 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 13, 2017) 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. 13/783,674 03/04/2013 Mark S. Akselrod 17313-000007-US 7898 28997 7590 02/21/2017 HARNESS, DICKEY, & PIERCE, P.L.C 7700 Bonhomme, Suite 400 ST. LOUIS, MO 63105 EXAMINER ALBRECHT, PETER M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2811 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/21/2017 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): stldocket@hdp.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte LAND AUER, INC. Appeal 2015-008282 Application 13/783,674 Technology Center 2800 Before LINDA M. GAUDETTE, WESLEY B. DERRICK, and JULIA HEANEY, Administrative Patent Judges. HEANEY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant1 seeks our review pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of a decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1—10 of Application 13/783,674. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. BACKGROUND The subject matter on appeal relates to a doped sapphire (AI2O3) light emitting diode that produces white light. Specification (“Spec.”) Tflf 3—5. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter: 1 Appellant is the real party in interest. App. Br. 1. The named inventors are Mark S. Akselrod and James Bartz. Appeal 2015-008282 Application 13/783,674 1. A device comprising: a light emitting structure for emitting a primary radiation when the light emitting structure is driven; and a light transmissive substrate comprising a base material of A1203, wherein the base material of A1203 is doped with two or more dopants, wherein the primary radiation is blue light, wherein when the primary radiation propagates into the light transmissive substrate, wherein at least a first portion of the primary radiation propagating into the light transmissive substrate is converted into a first secondary radiation emitted from the light transmissive substrate, wherein at least a second portion of the primary radiation propagating into the light transmissive substrate is converted into a second secondary radiation that is emitted from the light transmissive substrate, wherein the first secondary radiation comprises green light and the second secondary radiation comprises red light, wherein at least a third portion of the primary radiation that is emitted from the light emitting structure is unconverted primary radiation, and wherein the unconverted primary radiation, the first secondary radiation and the second secondary radiation combine to produce white light. App. Br. 25, Claims Appx. Claims 5 and 7, which depend from independent claims 1 and 6, respectively, additionally recite “wherein the two or more dopants comprise magnesium and chromium.” Id. at 26. 2 Appeal 2015-008282 Application 13/783,674 THE REJECTIONS 1. Claims 1 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Muth2 and Akselrod.3 2. Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Muth, Akselrod, and Mueller-Mach.4 3. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Muth, Akselrod, and Senda.5 4. Claims 6—10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Akselrod and Muth. DISCUSSION Rejections 1 and 4 Appellant presents argument with regard to Rejections 1 and 4 separately, although relying on substantially the same arguments for both rejections. App. Br. 12—14, 19-23. Accordingly, we limit our discussion to claims 1 and 5, which we choose as representative. We sustain the rejections for the reasons given by the Examiner in the Final Action and Answer, and adopt the Examiner’s findings and reasoning as our own, with the following discussion added primarily for emphasis. 2 John Muth (“Muth”), Final Progress Report: Integrated Optical Pumping of Cr& Ti-Doped Sapphire Substrates with III-VNitride Materials, ECE Dept., NC State University, muth@unity.ncsu.edu. 3 Akselrod , US 6,846,434 B2, iss. Jan. 25, 2005 (“Akselrod”). 4 Mueller-Mach et al., US 6,630,691 Bl, iss. Oct. 7, 2003 (“Mueller-Mach”). 5 Senda et al., US 2005/0056831 Al, pub. Mar. 17, 2005 (“Senda”). 3 Appeal 2015-008282 Application 13/783,674 The Examiner finds that Muth discloses an LED device comprising a doped sapphire material including all limitations of claim 1 except for doping with two or more dopants “wherein at least a first portion of the primary radiation propagating into the light transmissive substrate is converted into a first secondary radiation emitted from the light transmissive substrate, wherein the first secondary radiation comprises green light, and wherein the unconverted primary radiation, the first secondary radiation and the second secondary radiation combine to produce white light.” Final Act. 2—3, citing Muth Figs. 1—6a. The Examiner finds that Akselrod teaches an AI2O3 light transmissive substrate doped with magnesium and carbon, wherein the first secondary radiation emitted from the substrate is green light. Final Act. 3—4, citing Akselrod 2:22—27, 21:15—18, 22:64—67, Figs. 3 and 7. The Examiner determines it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Muth’s device by doping the AI2O3 base material with two or more dopants, as taught by Akselrod, in order to permit construction of white light LEDs made from nitride semiconductors grown on doped sapphire substrates. Final Act. 4, citing Muth, Abstract 11. 7—8; Akselrod 16:62—66. The Examiner provides a schematic illustration depicting the functions of Muth, Akselrod, and Muth as modified by Akselrod in the rejection. Final Act. 4. Appellant argues that neither Muth (Abstract, 11. 7—8) nor Akselrod (16:62—66) supports the Examiner’s explanation for why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the two references, and that the references do not teach, nor does the Examiner explain, “how to create the Final Action’s theoretical construct.” App. Br. 12—13. More particularly, Appellant argues that a person of ordinary skill would need further guidance regarding which dopants to add and how to do so, in order 4 Appeal 2015-008282 Application 13/783,674 to have a reasonable probability of success in combining Akselrod with Muth. App. Br. 7—8. Appellant’s argument is not persuasive of reversible error. The Examiner reasonably explains how the suggestion in Muth’s Abstract of constructing white light LEDs “utilizing the red emission from the Cr in the sapphire” (Muth Abstract 11. 7—8), together with the knowledge of a skilled artisan that red, green, and blue additively combine according to the laws of physics to produce white (Ans. 8—9), supports the legal conclusion of obviousness. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (requiring “some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.”). Appellant relies on attorney argument, and, therefore, has not provided persuasive evidentiary support to refute the Examiner’s explanation. See In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1471 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (argument by counsel cannot take the place of evidence). With respect to claim 5, Appellant argues that the rejection fails to provide evidence that it was known to use both magnesium and chromium as a dopant in AI2O3 for an LED, because neither reference teaches or suggests that both magnesium and chromium can be successfully used as dopants in an LED device. App. Br. 14. Appellant further argues that the rejection fails to explain “why the presence of carbon as a dopant would have no effect on the functioning of the chromium dopant in the proposed ‘combined device.’” Id. These arguments, lacking sufficient evidence of the purported potential difficulties, are not persuasive of reversible error. See, e.g., Geisler, 116 F.3d at 1471. As to the presence of carbon, claim 5 is open-ended and does not exclude additional dopants, such as carbon. Further, Appellant’s argument that neither reference teaches doping with both magnesium and chromium is not persuasive because the rejection is based on a combination 5 Appeal 2015-008282 Application 13/783,674 of the references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981) (nonobviousness cannot be shown by attacking references individually where the rejection is based on combination of the references). Rejections 2 and 3 Claims 2 and 3 depend from claim 1 and additionally recite inter alia “a reflective layer disposed on the light transmissive substrate” and “a reflective electrode disposed on a first surface of the light emitting structure” respectively. App. Br. 26, Claims Appx. The Examiner finds that Mueller- Mach teaches a reflective layer 32 disposed on a light transmissive substrate 10. Final Act. 6, citing Mueller-Mach Fig. 3, 6:37—39; 7:1. Claim 4 depends from claim 1 and additionally recites inter alia that the light transmissive substrate includes a patterned surface. App. Br. 26, Claims Appx. The Examiner finds that Senda teaches the additional recitations of claim 4. Appellant’s arguments against Rejections 2 and 3 essentially rely on its arguments against the combination of Muth and Akselrod in response to Rejection 1. Although Appellant further argues that the additional references, Mueller-Mach and Senda, fail to disclose or suggest the additional elements recited in the claims, those arguments attack the references individually and are not persuasive arguments against an obviousness rejection. In re Keller, 642 F.2d at 425. Accordingly, we affirm Rejections 2 and 3. 6 Appeal 2015-008282 Application 13/783,674 DECISION We affirm the rejections of claims 1—10. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation