Ex Parte Harada

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 28, 2014

11102929 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 28, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
11/102,929 04/11/2005 Mitsunori Harada ST3001-0062 6513
39083 7590 02/28/2014
KENEALY VAIDYA LLP
515 EAST BRADDOCK RD SUITE B
Alexandria, VA 22314
EXAMINER
RAO, SHRINIVAS H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2814
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/28/2014 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 MITSUNORI HARADA
__________

Appeal 2011-012969
Application 11/102,929
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, JAMES C. HOUSEL, and
N. WHITNEY WILSON, Administrative Patent Judges.

COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 the final rejection of claims
1-3, 8-15, 18, and 21-24. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Appellant’s invention is directed to a light emitting diode (LED) lamp
that includes a LED chip capable of emitting blue light (Spec. para. [0002]).
A fluorescent material can be disposed on or adjacent to an optical path of
Appeal 2011-012969
Application 11/102,929

2
the light emitted from the LED chip to emit a yellow light when excited by
the blue light. Id. The blue light from the LED chip and the yellow light
from the fluorescent material are mixed to yield a white light, which is then
emitted. Id. Appellant’s alleged invention includes a radiation mesh 7 or
radiation wire 5 above the transparent resin spacer 4 contained in a base 2
with a conical recess 2a (Spec. para. [0021]; Figs. 4 & 5). Above the
transparent resin spacer 4 is a fluorescent material 6a. Id. The radiation
wire 5 or radiation mesh 7 is described as being part of the LED structure
and the mesh or wire is used to conduct heat to the base 2 and thereby cool
the wavelength conversion spacer 6 (Spec. paras. [0025], [0031], [0036]-
[0038]). The addition of the radiation mesh 7 or radiation wire 5 cools the
wavelength conversion spacer 6 containing the fluorescent material 6a
thereby producing no variation in light emission from the LED (Spec. para.
[0037]).

Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A semiconductor light emitting device, comprising:
a base having a cavity provided therein;
an LED chip located adjacent the base;
a spacer located adjacent the base, the spacer including at
least two layers in the cavity, including
a transparent resin spacer in a first portion of the cavity,
and
a wavelength conversion spacer in a second portion of
the cavity and including a fluorescent material and having a
substantially constant thickness, wherein the wavelength
conversion spacer includes one of a metallic radiation mesh and
a radiation wire.

Appeal 2011-012969
Application 11/102,929

3
Appellant appeals the following rejections:
1. Claims 1-3 and 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Doxsee (US 6,936,857 B2 issued Aug. 30, 2005) in
view of Lee (US 6,819,845 B2 issued Nov. 16, 2004).
2. Claims 13-15, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Doxsee in view of Lee and Bulovic (US 5,834,893
issued Nov. 10, 1998).
3. Claims 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Doxsee in view of Lee and Noguchi (US 7,180,240
B2 issued Feb. 20, 2007).

ISSUES
Did the Examiner reversibly err in concluding that the combined
teachings of Doxsee and Lee1 would have suggested the subject matter of
claims 1, 13, and 21 that include the following limitations: “a wavelength
conversion spacer includes one of a metallic radiation mesh and a radiation
wire” as recited in claim 1; “one of a metallic radiation mesh and a radiation
wire spanning the cavity of the base” as recited in claim 13; and “the
wavelength conversion spacer is embedded with one of a metallic radiation
mesh and a radiation wire” as recited in claim 21? We decide this issue in
the affirmative.

1 The Examiner relies solely on the combination of Doxsee and Lee to teach
the disputed radiation mesh or radiation wire limitation (Ans. 5, 7-8, 10-11).
Accordingly, we need not address the teachings of Bulovic or Noguchi
relied upon by the Examiner.
Appeal 2011-012969
Application 11/102,929

4
FINDINGS OF FACT & ANALYSIS
The Examiner’s findings and conclusions regarding Doxsee and Lee
are located on pages 4-5, 7-8, and 9-11 of the Answer. The Examiner finds
that Doxsee teaches most of the limitations recited in claims 1, 13, and 21,
except for, in relevant part, a wavelength conversion spacer including one of
a metallic radiation mesh and a radiation wire and wherein the radiation
mesh or wire is located adjacent the cavity of the base (Ans. 4-5, 7, 10-11).
The Examiner finds that Lee describes at column 45, line 14 a wavelength
conversion spacer including one of a metallic radiation mesh or wire to
provide greater area upon which the light source can be configured to
irradiate the film with the activation light using a predetermined illumination
pattern (Ans. 5, 7-8, 11). The Examiner concludes that it would have been
obvious to include Lee’s mesh in Doxsee’s device to provide greater area
upon which the light source can be configured to irradiate the film with the
activation light using a predetermined illumination pattern (Ans. 5, 7-8, 11).
Appellant argues that neither Doxsee nor Lee teaches a wavelength
conversion spacer including one of a metallic radiation mesh and a radiation
wire (App. Br. 11). Appellant contends that Lee teaches at the column 45
disclosure relied upon by the Examiner that the “mesh” is used as a reducing
agent in forming the quantum dots of Lee (App. Br. 12). Appellant contends
that Lee’s disclosure at column 45 is directed to a “bottoms-up” synthesis
method for forming the quantum dots that employs a metallic mesh as a
reducing agent (App. Br. 12). Appellant contends that the product of the
chemical synthesis involving the reducing agent is formed into a quantum
dot powder (App. Br. 13). Appellant contends that Lee’s disclosure that the
Appeal 2011-012969
Application 11/102,929

5
quantum dots may be dispersed in a matrix material or formed into a matrix
is not equivalent to the claimed metallic radiation mesh. (App. Br. 12).
We agree with Appellant. Lee discloses starting at column 42, line 18
that a second “bottoms up” approach may be used to synthesize the quantum
dots. Lee describes that the “bottoms up” approach involves reacting a
metallic reducing agent and chemical precursors to assemble the quantum
dots atom-by-atom through chemical synthesis (col. 42, lines 18-50). Lee at
column 45, lines 5-15 discloses that the metallic reducing agent may take
various forms such as a mesh, ribbons, rods, etc. Lee discloses that the
product of the “bottoms up” reaction is a “quantum dot powder” (col. 42, l.
18; col. 46, ll. 4-11).
Based upon Lee’s disclosures above, we find that Lee discloses that
the metallic, mesh reducing agent is used as part of the reaction sequence in
making the quantum dots, but the mesh is not present in the quantum dot
powder end product. Indeed, at column 42, lines 18-67, Lee discloses where
the reducing agent is used as part of the reaction in the reaction sequence of
the “bottoms up” method, but is not present in the product resulting from the
reaction. Therefore, the Examiner’s apparent finding that Lee discloses a
wavelength conversion spacer including a metallic radiation mesh is not
supported by the Lee’s teachings.
We find that no prima facie case obviousness has been established by
the Examiner because the Examiner has not established that a wavelength
conversion spacer including a metallic radiation mesh is taught or would
have been suggested by Doxsee and Lee. On this record, we reverse the
Examiner’s § 103 rejections.

Appeal 2011-012969
Application 11/102,929

6
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision is reversed.

ORDER
REVERSED

kmm