Ex Parte Radkov et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 23, 201411810024 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 23, 2014) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE 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. 11/810,024 06/04/2007 Emil Vergilov Radkov GLOZ 200389US01/223739 1694 27885 7590 04/23/2014 FAY SHARPE LLP 1228 Euclid Avenue, 5th Floor The Halle Building Cleveland, OH 44115 EXAMINER RAABE, CHRISTOPHER M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2879 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/23/2014 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 EMIL VERGILOV RADKOV, ILONA ELISABETH HAUSMANN, and DEREK ALLEN PUBLICOVER ____________ Appeal 2012-006308 Application 11/810,024 Technology Center 2800 ____________ Before JEFFREY T. SMITH, BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, and CHRISTOPHER M. KAISER, Administrative Patent Judges. KAISER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2012-006308 Application 11/810,024 2 This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1-6, 8, 10, and 12-28. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. OPINION A. Introduction Appellants disclose “lighting devices with enhanced red-green color contrast” that use multiple phosphors having emission radiation peaks in different wavelength ranges. Spec. 4 at [0012]-[0013]. Claim 1, quoted below, is representative of the claimed invention: 1. A lighting apparatus for emitting white light having enhanced red-green color contrast and comprising: a light source emitting radiation having a peak emission in the range of from about 250 to 500 nm; a phosphor material radiationally coupled to said light source comprising a first phosphor having a peak emission between about 550 to 615 nm, a second phosphor being a red phosphor having a peak emission in the range of from about 615 nm to 670 nm, and a third phosphor being a blue phosphor having a peak emission the range of from about 450 to 550 nm; and a filter that prevents a portion of radiation emitted by the phosphor material from being emitted by the apparatus while substantially permitting the emission of radiation from the lighting apparatus in emission wavelengths other than between 550 and 615 nm. Claims App., Br. 11 (some paragraphing added). At the time of the Final Rejection, independent claims 1 and 24 and dependent claims 2-6, 8, 10, 12-23, and 25-28 were pending. Br. 11-16. Appeal 2012-006308 Application 11/810,024 3 The Examiner rejected claims 1-6, 8, 10, 13-25, and 27 as obvious over US Patent Publication No. 2004/01190861 (“Yano”). Final Rejection 2-7. The Examiner also rejected claims 12 and 26 as obvious over the combination of Yano and US Patent Publication No. 2005/0189863 (“Nagatomi”)2 and claim 28 as obvious over the combination of Yano and US Patent Publication No. 2004/0000862 (“Setlur”).3 Final Rejection 8. Appellants argue the first ground of rejection on claim 1, relying on the same arguments with respect to the other grounds. App. Br. 7-10. Thus, we decide this appeal based on claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). On appeal, Appellants present three arguments, each of which is applicable to each rejection. Br. 7-10. First, Appellants argue that, contrary to the Examiner’s finding, combining red and blue phosphors with yellow phosphors, as Appellants argue they have claimed, is not known in the prior art, which teaches only combining red and blue phosphors with green phosphors. Id. at 8. Second, Appellants argue that, contrary to the Examiner’s finding, Yano discloses only using a single phosphor with an LED light source, as opposed to the claimed multiple phosphors. Id. at 8. Finally, Appellants argue that the Examiner failed to provide a reason why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the disclosure of Yano with the previously-known use of additional blue and red phosphors. Id. at 9. We have considered these arguments and are not persuaded that a preponderance of the evidence shows that the Examiner’s rejection of Appellants’ claims is improper. 1 Yano et al., US 2004/0119086 A1, published June 24, 2004. 2 Nagatomi et al., US 2005/0189863 A1, published Sept. 1, 2005. 3 Setlur et al., US 2004/0000862 A1, published Jan. 1, 2004. Appeal 2012-006308 Application 11/810,024 4 B. Discussion In each rejection, the Examiner relied on the disclosure in Yano to establish that the prior art teaches, among other claim limitations, the limitation of “a phosphor material radiationally coupled to said light source comprising a first phosphor having a peak emission between about 550 to 615 nm.” Final Rejection 3. Acknowledging that Yano does not disclose combining a 550-to-615-nm phosphor with additional red and blue phosphors, the Examiner found that combining these three types of phosphors “was a practice well known to and widely used by those of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide more precise color tuning.” Id. Appellants challenge this rejection on three separate grounds. First, Appellants argue that, even if a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined multiple phosphors to produce white light, those phosphors would have been red, green, and blue, rather than “red, yellow, and blue as presently claimed.” Br. 8. This argument is not persuasive because it does not address the appealed subject matter. Appellants’ claims recite a phosphor “having a peak emission between about 550 to 615 nm.” Claims App., Br. 11. The claim does not identify this peak emission wavelength range as a “yellow phosphor”, nor does the claim otherwise require a yellow phosphor. Id. Although Appellants point to the prior-art Jüstel patent4 as disclosing the use of red, green, and blue phosphors, Reply Br. 1-2, in fact Jüstel describes combining red and blue phosphors with 4 Jüstel et al., US 6,084,250, issued July 4, 2000. Appeal 2012-006308 Application 11/810,024 5 phosphors having peak emission wavelengths between 525 and 570 nanometers, a range that overlaps Appellants’ claimed phosphor having a peak emission between about 550 to 615 nanometers. Jüstel, col. 2, ll. 5-7. Jüstel thus is not, as Appellants argue, evidence of an unwillingness to combine blue and red phosphors with phosphors having the range of wavelengths Appellants now describe as “yellow.” The Examiner has found that combining phosphors of this claimed range of wavelengths with red and blue phosphors was “well known to and widely used by those of ordinary skill in the art.” Final Rejection 3. Appellants have not directed us to evidence to contradict this finding. Second, Appellants argue that Yano does not disclose using multiple phosphors, as in the claimed invention, but is instead limited to using a single yellow phosphor. Br. 8. Appellants’ argument is not persuasive. Appellants have not disputed the Examiner’s finding that “providing additional blue . . . and red phosphors . . . was a practice well known to and widely used by those of ordinary skill in the art.” Final Rejection 3; see Br. 9 (“the use of multiple phosphors to produce white light was within the knowledge of Yano at the time of the invention”); see also Reply Br. 1 (“It is well known in the art that white light is generated by a UV LED in combination with red, blue and green phosphors.”). Appellants only challenge the disclosure of this well-known practice in Yano, a matter that is irrelevant to the issue of whether the Examiner properly rejected Appellants’ claims. Finally, Appellants argue that the Examiner failed to provide a reason why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the disclosure Appeal 2012-006308 Application 11/810,024 6 of Yano with the previously-known use of additional blue and red phosphors. Br. 9 (citing In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). The Examiner responds that such a reason was given in the Final Rejection. Ans. 12 (citing Final Rejection 3). We agree with the Examiner. The Final Rejection stated that “providing additional blue . . . and red phosphors . . . was a practice well known to and widely used by those of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide more precise color tuning.” Final Rejection 3. The Examiner did not state in a conclusory way that the combination of prior-art features would be obvious. Instead, the Examiner articulated a reason for combining Yano’s filter and 550-to-615-nanometer phosphor with the known use of additional blue and red phosphors: “to provide more precise color tuning.” Final Rejection 3. Appellants do not challenge the substance of this reason to combine the features of the prior art, nor do they present evidence that the Examiner’s articulated reason is wrong. Accordingly, we conclude that the preponderance of the evidence on this record supports the Examiner’s conclusion that “it would have been obvious to [one of ordinary skill in the art] to incorporate [additional blue and red phosphors] into the device of Yano.” Id. C. Order We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1-6, 8, 10, and 12-28 as obvious. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136. Appeal 2012-006308 Application 11/810,024 7 AFFIRMED bar Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation