Ex Parte Ng et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 23, 2016

13047293 (P.T.A.B. May. 23, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/047,293 03/14/2011
23373 7590 05/25/2016
SUGHRUE MION, PLLC
2100 PENNSYLVANIA A VENUE, N.W.
SUITE 800
WASHINGTON, DC 20037
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Keat Chuan Ng
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.
Q225810 6558
EXAMINER
PIZARRO CRESPO, MARCOS D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2814
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/25/2016 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):
PPROCESSING@SUGHRUE.COM
sughrue@sughrue.com
USPTO@sughrue.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KEAT CHUAN NG,
NORFIDATHUL AIZAR ABDUL KARIM, and
CHIAU JIN LEE
Appeal2014-009868
Application 13/047,293
Technology Center 2800
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and
JON M. JURGOV AN, Administrative Patent Judges.
KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection
of claims 1-19, which are all the claims pending in this application.2 We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Intellectual Discovery
Co., Ltd. (App. Br. 2).
2 Claim 20 was withdrawn.
Appeal2014-009868
Application 13/047,293
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants' invention relates to a light emitting diode that improves
the contrast ratio in display systems (Spec. iii! 24-27). Exemplary claims 1
and 11 under appeal read as follows (with the disputed limitations in Italics):
1. A light-emitting device, comprising:
a plurality of leads, the leads being bent such that each
lead comprises a substantially horizontal portion and a
substantially vertical portion;
a light source die attached to one of the plurality of leads;
an inner reflective body having an inner reflective
surface, a bottom reflective surface and an outer reflective
surface, the inner reflective body formed from a first
encapsulant, encapsulating the substantially horizontal portion
of the leads;
a reflector defined by the inner reflective surface and the
bottom reflective surface;
an outer non-reflective body formed from a second
encapsulant encapsulating substantially at least the substantially
vertical portion of the leads and the outer reflective surface
surrounding the reflector of the inner reflective body; and
a third encapsulant encapsulating the light source die, the
inner reflective surface, and the bottom reflective surface.
11. A light source packaging, comprising:
a plurality of leads;
at least one light source die attached on one of the
plurality of leads;
a first encapsulant, encapsulating a first portion of the
leads defining an inner reflective body, the first encapsulant
having an inner reflective surface, a bottom reflective surface
and an outer reflective surface;
2
Appeal2014-009868
Application 13/047,293
a reflector defined by at least the inner reflective surface;
second encapsulant encapsulating substantially a second
portion of the leads and the outer reflective surface surrounding
the reflector of the inner reflective body defining an outer non-
reflective body; and
a third encapsulant encapsulating the light source die and
the inner reflective surface.
The Examiner's Rejection
Claims 1-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Mok (US 7,385,227 B2; June 10, 2008) and Noma (US
8,188,497 B2; May 29, 2012) (see Final Act. 2-3).
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments (App. Br. 7-10; Reply Br. 2---6) that the Examiner erred. We
disagree with Appellants' contentions. We adopt as our own ( 1) the findings
and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is
taken (Final Act. 2-3) and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the
Examiner's Answer (Ans. 3---6) in response to Appellants' Appeal Brief. We
concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner. We highlight and
address specific findings and arguments for emphasis as follows.
Appellants did not challenge the Examiner's factual findings about
Noma, and thus we take those findings as being conceded by Appellants.
3
Appeal2014-009868
Application 13/047,293
Independent Claim 1
First Issue - Inner Reflective Surface
The Examiner finds Mok' s structural body 112 teaches an inner
reflective body formed from an encapsulant, and finds the reflector cup 110
teaches an inner reflective surface of the inner reflective body (Final Act. 2-
3; Ans. 3--4; citing Mok col. 4, 11. 34--41). Appellants contend Mok does not
teach "an inner reflective body having an inner reflective surface ... the
inner reflective body formed from a first encapsulant," because the reflector
cup 110 is a separate part that is formed on structural body 112 and is not
formed integral to the body, thus the reflector cup cannot be considered the
inner surface of body 112 (App. Br. 7-9; Reply Br. 2-5).
Appellants' contentions do not persuade us of Examiner error in the
rejection. Claim 1 requires the inner reflective body to be "formed from a
first encapsulant," and the broadest reasonable interpretation of "formed
from'' that is consistent with Appellants' disclosure does not preclude the
inner reflective body from being formed from additional parts. See In re
Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Therefore, we agree with the
Examiner's finding that Mok's structural body 112 and reflector cup 110, as
a whole, teach the "inner reflective body," with reflector cup 110 being the
"inner reflective surface" of the inner reflective body 112 (Final Act. 2-3;
Ans. 3--4).
Second Issue - Bottom Reflective Surface
Appellants contend Mok' s metal leadframe surface 202 does not teach
"a bottom reflective surface" of the inner reflective body (App. Br. 7-8;
Reply Br. 3-5). We are not persuaded of Examiner error, because as
4
Appeal2014-009868
Application 13/047,293
discussed supra, the inner reflective body can be formed from additional
parts beyond a first encapsulant. Further, Appellants' Specification
discloses the bottom reflective surface may include the reflective surface of
metal leads within the inner reflective body (Spec. if 32). Thus, we agree
with the Examiner's finding that Mok's leadframe surface 202 teaches "a
bottom reflective surface" of the inner reflective body (Final Act. 2-3; Ans.
3-5).
Third Issue - Outer Reflective Surface
Appellants contend Mok's structural body 112 does not teach "an
outer reflective surface," because one of ordinary skill in the art would not
be motivated to make body 112 using the reflective plastic material of
reflector cup 110, other than by impermissible hindsight using information
gleaned solely from Appellants' disclosure (App. Br. 8-10; Reply Br. 5---6).
We have considered Appellants; arguments but are unpersuaded of
Examiner error in the rejection. The "outer reflective surface" of the inner
reflective body is claimed only by its structural relationship to the outer non-
reflective body, where the outer reflective surface is encapsulated by a
second encapsulant to form the outer non-reflective body. There are no
further structural or functional limitations in the claims regarding the outer
reflective surface. Based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of "outer
reflective surface," we find Mok's outer wall of body 112 meets the claimed
outer reflective surface, regardless of whether body 112 is made of the same
material or different material as reflector 110, because it is the outer wall
where the second encapsulant of Noma is formed (Final Act. 2-3). See In re
Morris, supra.
5
Appeal2014-009868
Application 13/047,293
Independent Claim 11
First Issue - Inner Reflective Surface
Appellants contend Mok' s reflector cup 110 is a separate part that is
not formed integral to structural body 112, thus Mok does not teach a "first
encapsulant having an inner reflective surface" (App. Br. 7-9; Reply Br. 2-
5). We are not persuaded of Examiner error in the rejection, because the
broadest reasonable interpretation of a "first encapsulant having an inner
reflective surface" does not preclude the first encapsulant from having an
additional part formed on its surface that makes the surface reflective. See
In re Morris, supra. Thus, we agree with the Examiner's finding that Mok
teaches the first encapsulant 112 has a reflective surface 110 (Final Act. 2-3;
Ans. 3--4; citing Mok col. 4, 11. 34--41 ).
Second Issue - Bottom Reflective Surface
Appellants contend Mok; s structural body 112 and leadframe surface
202 do not teach a "first encapsulant having ... a bottom reflective surface,"
because leadframe surface 202 is formed from metal, not an encapsulant
(App. Br. 7-8; Reply Br. 3-5). We have considered Appellants' arguments
but are unpersuaded of Examiner error in the rejection. Claim 11 does not
require any specific structure for the bottom reflective surface in relation to
the other elements of the claim, beyond the first encapsulant "having" a
bottom reflective surface. We find the broadest reasonable interpretation of
the encapsulant "having a bottom reflective surface" does not preclude the
bottom reflective surface from being the underside of the encapsulant, away
from the opening for the light emitting diode, where the encapsulant attaches
to the leadframe surface. Thus, we find the bottom surface of Mok's
6
Appeal2014-009868
Application 13/047,293
encapsulant body 112, connected to leadframe surface 202, teaches the
"bottom reflective surface" of the claimed encapsulant (Final Act. 2-3; Ans.
3--4). See In re Morris, supra.
Third Issue - Outer Reflective Surface
Appellants contend Mok' s structural body 112 does not teach a "first
encapsulant having ... an outer reflective surface" (App. Br. 8-1 O; Reply
Br. 5---6). For the same reasons discussed with respect to the outer reflective
surface of claim 1, supra, we are not persuaded by Appellants' contention,
and we find the outer wall of body 112 teaches the "outer reflective surface"
of claim 11.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated herein, we are unpersuaded by Appellants'
arguments that the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Mok and
Noma teaches the disputed limitations of independent claims 1 and 11.
Accordingly, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 1 and 11,
as well as the remaining dependent claims 2-10 and 12-19, which are not
argued separately (see App. Br. 7-10).
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-19 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
7