13432571 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 27, 2016)

Ex Parte Leising

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 27, 2016

13432571 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 27, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/432,571 03/28/2012 5514 7590 01/27/2016 FITZPATRICK CELLA HARPER & SCINTO 1290 A venue of the Americas NEW YORK, NY 10104-3800 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Gunther Leising 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 00366.000213.1 1011 EXAMINER HUBER, ROBERT T ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2892 MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE 01127/2016 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 GUNTHER LEISING Appeal2014-003054 Application 13/432,571 Technology Center 2800 Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, CATHERINE Q. TIMM, and JAMES C. HOUSEL, Administrative Patent Judges. HOUSEL, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL 1 A. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the Examiner's decision finally rejecting claims 14--19 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) 1 Our decision refers to the Specification (Spec.) filed March 28, 2012, the Examiner's Final Office Action (Final) mailed March 4, 2013, Appellant's Appeal Brief (Appeal Br.) filed September 3, 2013, the Examiner's Answer (Ans.) mailed October 24, 2013, and Appellant's Reply Brief (Reply Br.) filed December 20, 2013. 2 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Tridonic Optoelectronics GmbH. Appeal Br. 5. Appeal2014-003054 Application 13/432,571 as unpatentable over Huang3 in view ofMueller-Mach. 4 We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We REVERSE. The subject matter on appeal relates to a white LED light source, having a plurality of blue or UV LEDs, over each of which a conversion layer is applied. Claim 14, reproduced below from the Claims Appendix to Appellant's Appeal Brief, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal. The limitation at issue is italicized. 14. A white LED light source, comprising: a plurality of blue LEDs or UV LEDs; and plurality of conversion layers, each one of the layers disposed only above a corresponding one of the LEDs, wherein each conversion layer is comprised of only a single layer and not plural sub-layers, and wherein a particular one of the conversion layers has a thickness, above a particuiar one of the biue or UV LEDs, which is proportional to a measured wavelength of that particular blue or UV LED, where the thickness of the conversion layer is constructed to be larger for a respective longer measured wavelength and is constructed to be thinner for a respective shorter measured wavelength. App. Br. 31 (Claims Appendix). B. DISCUSSION There is no dispute that Huang discloses the invention as claimed except the claimed relationship between the thickness of the conversion 3 US 6,395,564 Bl, issued May 28, 2002. 4 US 2002/0003233 Al, issued January 10, 2002. 2 Appeal2014-003054 Application 13/432,571 layer and the measured wavelength. Compare Final 3 with Appeal Br. 14. Huang teaches the conversion layer is thicker over LEDs with shorter measured wavelengths and thinner over LEDs with longer measured wavelengths. Huang, Fig. 4, and 3:46-64. As Appellant notes, Huang's disclosed relationship between conversion layer thickness and measured LED wavelength is the opposite or inverse of that claimed. Appeal Br. 14. However, the Examiner found Mueller-Mach discloses a white LED source, wherein the conversion layer is thicker for longer measured wavelengths and thinner for shorter measured wavelengths. Final 3 (citing Mueller-Mach i-f 38). The Examiner concluded [i]t would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the device of Huang such that the thickness of the conversion layer is constructed to be larger for a respective longer measured wavelength and is constructed to be thinner for a respective shorter measured wavelength since Huang discloses the conversion layer to be adjusted to form uniform emission of the LED wavelengths (e.g. coi. 1, lines 53 - 63), and Mueller-Mach discloses that one of ordinary skill in the art may adjust the thicknesses of the conversion layer to achieve desired colors (i-![0031]) such that the thickness of the conversion layer is constructed to be larger for a respective longer wavelength and is constructed to be thinner for a respective shorter wavelength. Final 3--4. The Examiner further determined the ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Huang to form thicker conversion layers over LEDs with longer wavelengths and thinner conversion layers over LEDs with shorter wavelengths "in order to properly obtain a desired light output wavelength based on the conversion layer thicknesses, as discussed by Mueller-Mach (i-f [0031] and [0038])." Final 4. 3 Appeal2014-003054 Application 13/432,571 The problem the Examiner's proposed modification of Huang presents is that the modification must achieve the same result Huang discloses: It must disclose white light of the same temperature from each of the blue or UV LEDs, using a relationship between conversion layer thickness and measured LED wavelength that is opposite to that taught by Huang. We note the Examiner does not find that the conversion layer of Huang must be replaced with that of Mueller-Mach. The Examiner does not explain clearly how one would achieve the same result using an opposite relationship. The Examiner does not direct our attention to any evidence suggesting Huang's teaching is in error. Thus, as Appellant contends, the Examiner's proposed modification would change Huang's principle of operation and render it unsuitable for its intended purpose. Although the Examiner relies on Mueller-Mach to remedy this deficiency in Huang, as Appellant argues, Mueller-Mach does not suggest a different reiationship to Huang for producing white iight from a piuraiity of blue or UV LEDs. Indeed, as Appellant contends, even if one were to substitute Mueller-Mach's conversion layers for Huang's, as Appellant's argue, the result would be colored light emitting from each of the LED's, rather than white light as claim 14 requires. Mueller-Mach's conversion layers individually generate bluish, greenish, and reddish light, which are combined to produce white light. Mueller-Mach i-f 35. We note the Examiner premised the obviousness of the proposed modification of Huang on the principle that, when the prior art discloses the general conditions of the claimed invention, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only ordinary skill in the art. Ans. 3 (citing MPEP 2144.05). However, the Examiner has not established that this principle 4 Appeal2014-003054 Application 13/432,571 applies to the facts of this case. As we have noted above, Huang's relationship is opposite to that claimed. The only evidence the Examiner provides for "optimizing" Huang's thicknesses toward the claimed relationship is Mueller-Mach which, as discussed above, does not suggest optimizing in the opposite manner to Huang to produce white light from a plurality of blue or UV LEDs. It follows, therefore, that we will not sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of claim 14, or of dependent claims 15-19. C. DECISION Upon consideration of the record, and for the reasons given above and in the Appeal and Reply Briefs, the decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 14--19 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Huang and Mueller-Mach is reversed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l ). REVERSED KRH 5