Ex Parte Mazzochette

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 29, 2014

11445611 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 29, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte JOSEPH MAZZOCHETTE
____________________

Appeal 2012-007953
Application 11/445,611
Technology Center 2800
____________________

Before DEBORAH KATZ, JOHN G. NEW, and HUNG H. BUI,
Administrative Patent Judges.

BUI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1-17 and 20-45.2 We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.3

1 The Real Party in Interest is Lighting Science Group Corporation.
2 Claims 18 and 19 have been withdrawn and are not on appeal.
3 Our decision refers to Appellant’s Appeal Brief filed September 15, 2011
(“App. Br.”); Reply Brief filed April 26, 2012 (“Reply Br.”); Examiner’s
Answer mailed March 7, 2012 (“Ans.”); Final Office Action mailed
September 30, 2010 (“Final Rej.”); and original Specification filed June 2,
2006 (“Spec.”).
Appeal 2012-007953
Application 11/445,611

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s Invention
Appellant’s invention relates to an assembly of light emitting diodes
(LEDs) of different colors, and is a continuation-in-part (CIP) of U.S. Patent
Application Serial No. 10/822,236 filed on April 9, 2004 entitled
“Illumination Devices Comprising White Light Diodes and Diode Arrays
and Method and Apparatus for Making Them,” now issued as U.S. Patent
No. 7,157,745 to Blonder. Spec. ¶¶ [0001]-[0002] and Abstract.

Claims on Appeal
Claims 1, 23, 27, and 33 are independent claims. Claim 1 is
representative of Appellant’s invention and is reproduced below with
disputed limitations emphasized:
1. An assembly of colored light emitting diodes
packaged for improved color mixing comprising:
a thermally conductive mounting base;
a plurality of LED dice mounted on the base, the
plurality comprising one or more dies that emit light of a first
color and one or more dies that emit light of a second color;
and
a transparent material overlying the LED dice, said
material including light dispersing particles to randomly mix
light emitted by the plurality of LED dies.

Evidence Considered
Mazzochette US 2004/0222433 A1 Nov. 11, 2004
Negley US 2007/0224716 A1 Sept. 27, 2007
Almasi US 3,679,996 July 25, 1972
Slayter US 2,311,613 Feb. 16, 1943
Land US 4,165,153 Aug. 21, 1979
Repetto US 2006/0238326 A1 Oct. 26, 2006
Appeal 2012-007953
Application 11/445,611

3

Ouderkirk US 2004/0150991 A1 Aug. 5, 2004
Basin US 2006/0105484 A1 May 18, 2006
Zhou US 5,444,106 Aug. 22, 1995
Blonder US 2005/0224830 A1 Oct. 13, 2005
Blonder US 7,157,745 B2 Jan. 2, 2007

Appellant’s Admitted Prior Art in FIG. 1 (AAPA)

Examiner’s Rejections
(1) Claims 1-3, 7, 11-17, 20-22, 27-33, 35-36, and 40-42 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over AAPA,
Mazzochette and Negley.
(2) Claims 4-6, 8-10, 23-26, and 43-45 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over AAPA, Mazzochette, Negley,
and Repetto.
(3) Claim 34 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over AAPA, Mazzochette, Negley, and Ouderkirk.
(4) Claims 37-39 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over AAPA, Mazzochette, Negley, Zhou, and Basin.

Issue on Appeal
Based on Appellant’s arguments, the dispositive issue on appeal is
whether the Examiner erred in rejecting: (1) claims 1-3, 7, 11-17, 20-22, 27-
33, 35-36, and 40-42 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Appellant’s Admitted Prior Art (AAPA), Mazzochette and Negley; and (2)
claims 4-6, 8-10, 23-26, and 43-45 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over AAPA, Mazzochette, Negley, and Repetto. In particular,
the appeal turns on: (1) whether Negley qualifies as prior art against
Appeal 2012-007953
Application 11/445,611

4

Appellant’s claimed invention, and (2) whether Appellant’s parent
application Blonder ’745 provides a written description of Appellant’s
claimed “plurality of LED dice mounted on the base, the plurality
comprising one or more dies that emit light of a first color and one or more
dies that emit light of a second color” as recited in each of Appellant’s
independent claims 1, 23, 27, and 32. App. Br. 4-8; Reply Br. 2-6.

ANALYSIS
Appellant does not dispute the Examiner’s factual findings regarding
all cited prior art, including AAPA, Mazzochette, Negley and Repetto. Nor
does Appellant challenge the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness against
all pending claims 1-17 and 20-45. Instead, Appellant contends that the
obviousness rejections of all pending claims 1-17 and 20-45 are improper
because: (1) Appellant’s application is a Continuation-In-Part (CIP) of
Application Serial No. 10/822,236, filed on April 9, 2004, now issued as
U.S. Patent No. 7,157,745 to Blonder; (2) Blonder provides written
description support for every feature of Appellant’s independent claims 1,
23, 27, and 32; (3) the effective filing date of Blonder ’745 of April 9, 2004
predates Negley with an effective filing date of September 21, 2004; and (4)
as such, Negley is not available as prior art. App. Br. 4-8; Reply Br. 2-6. In
particular, Appellant argues Blonder FIG. 2, col. 1, ll. 13-20 and col. 7, ll.
20-30 provide clear support for Appellant’s disputed limitation: “plurality of
LED dice mounted on the base, the plurality comprising one or more dies
that emit light of a first color and one or more dies that emit light of a second
color” as recited in each of Appellant’s independent claims 1, 23, 27, and 32.
Id.
Appeal 2012-007953
Application 11/445,611

5

FIG. 2 of Blonder is reproduced below:

FIG. 2 of Blonder is a cross sectional view of an array of LEDs.
As shown in FIG. 2, a LED package 200 includes a substrate 203, a
plurality of LEDs 201 attached to the package by conductive epoxy 204, and
transparent material 205 deposited over the LEDs 201.
Col. 1, ll. 13-20 of Blonder describes:
[W]hite LEDs are important in a wide variety of direct
and indirect illumination applications. A white LED typically
comprises a blue or ultraviolet LED whose emitted light is
passed through a phosphor that converts the emitted light to
white light. Such LEDs individually or in arrays can be used
for room and space illumination, vehicle headlights, signs, and
indicators. The emission spectra and color temperature of white
LEDs is closer to sunlight than many forms of conventional
lighting.

(Emphasis added.)
Col. 7, ll. 20-30 of Blonder describes:
[T]he blue LED approach is not limited to only one
wavelength converting phosphor. It can be used with a two or
three component phosphor system to generate high quality
white. This option may use an ultra violet (“UV”) LED to
excite several phosphors to simultaneously generate different
Appeal 2012-007953
Application 11/445,611

6

colors. Multiple phosphors are preferred in order to increase
the Color Rendering Index (“CRI”) of the light. Using such
techniques, high color rendering indices similar to fluorescent
lamps can be realized. The present invention can create a
homogenous mix of the multiple phosphors by mechanically
mixing phosphors at high speeds.

(Emphasis added.)
According to Appellant, Blonder FIG. 2 and the cited col. 7, ll. 20-30
of Blonder describe combining both blue (first color) and ultraviolet (second
color) LEDs in an alternate form of the “‘Blue LED approach.’” App. Br. 7.
The Examiner responds that: (1) the LEDs in Blonder FIG. 2 are all
labeled with the same reference 201 and these LEDs 201 are described as
having the same color (blue, specifically). Ans. 19 (citing Blonder FIG. 2,
col. 6, l. 58; col. 7, ll. 6-8); and (2) the cited col. 7, ll. 20-30 of Blonder does
not disclose or suggest using plural UV LEDs, alone or in combination with
blue LED and, consequently, does not teach a plurality of LEDs that
comprises “one or more dies that emit light of a first color [(blue, for
example)] and one or more dies that emit light of a second LED of a second
color [(UV, for example)]” as recited in each of Appellant’s independent
claims 1, 23, 27, and 32. Id. at 20. According to the Examiner, the option as
described in the cited col. 7, ll. 20-30 of Blonder refers to using a “two or
three component phosphor system,” described in the second sentence, and
not “the Blue LED approach’ described in the first sentence,” and,
consequently, all embodiments of Blonder describe LEDs as either blue or
UV, but not both or a mixture of blue and UV LEDs. Id. at 22-23.
We do not agree with the Examiner’s characterization of Blonder FIG.
2 and the Examiner’s reading of the cited col. 7, ll. 20-30 of Blonder.
Appeal 2012-007953
Application 11/445,611

7

Contrary to the Examiner’s characterization, Blonder FIG. 2 simply shows
an example LED package 200 including a plurality of LEDs 201, but not
limited to a specific type of LED used. Instead, the option of using “two or
three component phosphor system” is described in connection with “[t]he
blue LED approach” in order to generate different colors. Blonder, col. 7, ll.
20-30. In other words, both a blue LED (1st color) and a UV LED (2nd color)
are used to excite multiple phosphors to simultaneously generate different
colors. This reading is consistent with the disclosure of Blonder as a whole,
including, for example, at col. 1, ll. 14-15, where Blonder describes “[a]
white LED typically comprises a blue or ultraviolet LED,” and at col. 3, ll.
30-31, where Blonder describes “[a] panel will contain multiple cavities 202,
each with one or more LED assemblies” as shown in FIG. 2, and recited in
claims 7 and 10 where “one or more cavities” contain “one or more LEDs”
and “at least one of the LEDs is a blue or ultraviolet LED.” Ans. 20; Reply
Br. 2-4.
Accordingly, we find the cited col. 7, ll. 20-23 of Blonder provides
support for Appellant’s claimed “plurality of LED dice . . . the plurality
comprising one or more dies that emit light of a first color and one or more
dies that emit light of a second color,” as recited in each of Appellant’s
independent claims 1, 23, 27, and 32. Because the record does not support
the Examiner’s finding that Blonder fails to support the claim feature of “a
plurality of LED dice mounted on the base, the plurality comprising one or
more dies that emit light of a first color and one or more dies that emit light
of a second color,” we agree with Appellant that the Examiner erred in not
according the instant application the effective filing date of Blonder ’745.
Appeal 2012-007953
Application 11/445,611

8

Accordingly, the Examiner has not made sufficient findings of fact to
support the rejection over Negley as prior art.

CONCLUSION
On the record before us, we conclude that Negley does not qualify as
prior art and the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 1-17 and 20-45
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Negley should be withdrawn.

DECISION
As such, we REVERSE the Examiner’s final rejections of claims 1-17
and 20-45.

REVERSED

cdc