Ex Parte Lee

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 10, 2013

11997287 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 10, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte JAE HO LEE
___________

Appeal 2011-000866
Application 11/997,287
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD, JR., ERIC S. FRAHM and
ANDREW J. DILLON, Administrative Patent Judges.

WHITEHEAD, JR., Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING
Appeal 2011-000866
Application 11/997,287

2
Appellants have filed a Requested for Rehearing under 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.52 on November 19, 2013 (“Request”) from our Decision on Appeal
mailed September 20, 2013 (“Decision”), wherein we affirmed the
anticipation rejection of claims 1-6, 13, 15, 17, 18, 21, 23 and 25. See
Decision 4.
Appellants argue the Board misapprehended the meaning of
independent claims 1 and 18 and therefore the Board’s
interpretation of the claims constitutes reversible error. Request 1.
Appellants contend, “According to claim 1, ‘the wiring
means includes a plurality of metal wires connecting an electrode
of one of the light emitting cells with electrodes of other light
emitting cells adjacent to the one of the light emitting cells.’
([C]laim 1, lines 7-9; emphasis added).” Appellants further
contend, “‘[A]n electrode’ is one electrode with a plurality of metal
wires connected thereto.” Request 2.
Appellants conclude:

Appellants believe the Board may have interpreted “an
electrode” to mean “more than one electrode.” But in the
context of the subject claim limitation -- a plurality of
metal wires connecting an electrode of one of the light
emitting cells -- this is an unreasonably broad
interpretation. The Decision, therefore, misapprehended
Appellants' claim 1 and reversibly erred by affirming the
Examiner's rejections.

Request 3.
We do not find Appellants’ arguments to be persuasive. The claim
language of claims 1 and 18 does not preclude the manifestation of multiple
Appeal 2011-000866
Application 11/997,287

3
electrodes because the claims clearly recite multiple electrodes. Further, the
claim limitation or language in question does not require multiple wires to
be connected to only one electrode. Appellants had ample opportunity
during prosecution to amend their claims to recite “only one electrode” if
they believed that feature to provide patentable distinction. The instant
claim language can be reasonably interpreted as having an accumulation of
multiple wires (wiring) and electrodes establishing electrical communication
between the device and peripheral components. See Decision 3-4.
Appellants’ Request for Rehearing has been granted to the extent that
our decision has been reconsidered, but such request is denied with respect
to making any modifications to the decision.
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).

REHEARING
DENIED

tj