Ex Parte in et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 24, 2017

13425156 (P.T.A.B. May. 24, 2017)

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.
13/425,156 03/20/2012 Chi Hyun IN P4422US00 1066
58027 7590 05/26/2017
H.C. PARK & ASSOCIATES, PLC
1894 PRESTON WHITE DRIVE
RESTON, VA 20191
EXAMINER
CARPENTER, ROBERT K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2896
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/26/2017 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):
PATENT@PARK-LAW.COM
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CHI HYUN IN, JUN YONG PARK, KYU HO LEE,
DAE WOONG SUH, JONG HYEON CHAE, CHANG HOON KIM,
and SUNG HYUN LEE
Appeal 2016-001772
Application 13/425,156
Technology Center 2800
Before TERRY J. OWENS, PETER F. KRATZ and MICHAEL G.
McMANUS, Administrative Patent Judges.
McMANUS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
The Examiner finally rejected claims 1—15 of Application 13/425,156
(“the ’156 Application”) under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated or, in the
alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious. Final Act. 4—9 (Nov. 10,
2014). Appellants1 seek reversal of these rejections pursuant to 35 U.S.C.
§ 134(a). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.
For the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM.
1 Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd., is identified as the real party in interest. Appeal
Br. 3.
Appeal 2016-001772
Application 13/425,156
BACKGROUND
The ‘156 Application describes a light emitting diode package and a
method of manufacturing the same.
Claim 1 is representative of the pending claims and is reproduced
below (with certain language relevant to the present appeal bolded for
emphasis):
1. A light emitting diode package, comprising:
a first substrate;
semiconductor structure layers disposed on a first surface of the
first substrate, each semiconductor structure layer comprising a
first type semiconductor layer, an active layer, and a second
type semiconductor layer;
a first bump disposed on a first semiconductor structure layer
and a second bump disposed on a second semiconductor
structure layer;
a protective layer disposed on the first and second bumps
and covering portions of the semiconductor structure layers
and extending to side surfaces of the first substrate; and
a first contact part and a second contact part disposed on the
protective layer and connected to the first bump and the second
bump, respectively.
Appeal Br. 9 (Claims App.) (emphasis added).
REJECTIONS
On appeal, the Examiner maintains the following rejection:
Claims 1—15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by
Shelton et al. (US 7,179,670 B2, iss. Feb. 20, 2007) (hereinafter “Shelton”)
or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Shelton.
Final Act. 4—9.
2
Appeal 2016-001772
Application 13/425,156
DISCUSSION
In rejecting the claims at issue, the Examiner found that Shelton
teaches a protective layer as required by claim 1. Id. at 5. Shelton generally
teaches a light emitting diode with at least one “fanning layer.” In this
context, a fanning layer is a dielectric layer situated on top of a light emitting
diode. Shelton 2:20-35. A fanning layer includes vias filled with
electrically conductive material to permit electrical communication between
the electrode (below the fanning layer) and the bonding pad (above the
fanning layer). Id. Shelton teaches that “[e]ach additional layer provides
additional fanning to increase the minimum separation between the n-type
and p-type pads. Each additional layer provides additional flexibility in
arranging the topmost exposed bonding pads.” Id. at 10:25—28.
Shelton further teaches that the LEDs are separated by a dicing
process “using a diamond scribe, laser cutting, or the like.” Id. at 11:15—18.
After dicing, “an encapsulant 122 such as an epoxy is applied to the
backside of the dice, and also flows into the separations S.” Id. at 11:21—22.
The Examiner determined that dielectric layer 92 (fanning layer) in
conjunction with encapsulant layer 122 form a “protective layer” as required
by claim 1. Final Act. 5. Appellants argue that this is in error as the fanning
(dielectric) layer and the encapsulant layer are made of different materials
and are formed during different manufacturing steps. Appeal Br. 5—8.
During examination, claim terms must be given their broadest
reasonable construction consistent with the specification. In re ICON Health
and Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007). The Specification
uses the term “layer” to encompass multilayer structures. For example, the
Specification teaches “a light-emitting layer disposed on a surface of the
first substrate and including a first type semiconductor layer, an active
3
Appeal 2016-001772
Application 13/425,156
layer, and a second type semiconductor layer.” Spec. 120 (emphasis
added).
In addition, Shelton teaches that the fanning layer should hermetically
seal the front (where the bonding pads are located) of the LED:
It will be appreciated that the processing sequences of FIGS. 15
and 16 are enabled by the hermetic sealing of the front-side of
the light emitting diode 10 by the encapsulant 32, and more
generally by the bonding pad layer or layers 30, 50, 90. By
forming the bonding pads including hermetic sealing of the front­
side before performing the end processing sequences of FIGS. 15
and 16, wafer-level the end processing can be performed without
additional intervening processes for protecting the relatively
delicate front surface.
Shelton 12:4—13. Thus, Shelton teaches that layer 90, which includes
dielectric layer 92, serves a protective function. See Shelton 9:58—60
(“Formation of the third layer 90 includes depositing a third dielectric
layer 92”).
According the term “protective layer” its broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the Specification, and giving due regard to
Shelton’s teaching that dielectric layer 92 has a protective function, we find
no error in the Examiner’s determination that Shelton teaches the “protective
layer” of claim 1.
Appellants seek reversal of the rejection of dependent claims 2—15 but
do not present unique argument in support of such reversal. Rather,
Appellants assert that as these claims depend from a claim shown to be
nonobvious, they are also nonobvious. Appeal Br. 8. Accordingly, the
rejection of these claims will be sustained for the reasons set forth above. In
re Dance, 160 F.3d 1339, 1340 n.2 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (where dependent
4
Appeal 2016-001772
Application 13/425,156
claims are mentioned but not argued separately from the claims from which
they depend “all claims stand or fall together”).
CONCLUSION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—15 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b).
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
5