Ex Parte West

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 17, 2016

13284835 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 17, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/284,835 10/28/2011 R. Scott West
47713 7590 08/17/2016
IMPERIUM PATENT WORKS
P.O. BOX607
Pleasanton, CA 94566
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.
BRI-019(BLl10027) 4560
EXAMINER
TRAN, TONY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2894
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
08/17/2016 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 R. SCOTT WEST
Appeal2015-003932
Application 13/284,835
Technology Center 2800
Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, LINDA M. GAUDETTE, and
CHRISTOPHER C. KENNEDY, Administrative Patent Judges.
GAUDETTE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2015-003932
Application 13/284,835
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's decision2
twice rejecting claims 2, 3, 5-13, and 17-24. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
The invention relates to methods of making Light Emitting Diode ("LED")
devices and assemblies. Specification filed October 28, 2011 ("Spec.") i-f 1. The
Specification describes a known method of manufacturing an LED assembly as
including a step of depositing a layer of a highly reflective ("HR") material on an
upper surface of a metal core printed circuit board ("MCPCB") using a screen
printing mask to form openings in the HR material layer. Id. i-f 5. The openings
are sized slightly larger than LED dice that subsequently are attached to the
MCPCB upper surface through the openings. Id. Following the step of mounting
the LED dice, wire bonds extending between dice and a conductive upper layer of
the MCPCB are attached. Id.
In operation, light emitted by the LED dice may be absorbed by phosphor
particles above the MCPCB surface that fluoresce and re-emit light in a downward
direction, rather than the desired upward direction. Id. i-f 4. The HR material layer
reflects these downward-directed light rays so that they can pass upward and out of
the LED assembly as light rays. Id.; see Fig. 2. Thus, it is desirable to maximize
coverage of the upper surface of the MCPCB with the HR material layer to reduce
the reabsorption of light. See id. i-f 50.
According to the Specification, a drawback of the above-described, known
method of making an LED assembly is that a peripheral strip of the upper surface
1 Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Bridgelux, Inc. Appeal Brief filed
November 10, 2014 ("App. Br."), 1.
2 Non-Final Action mailed June 19, 2014.
2
Appeal2015-003932
Application 13/284,835
of the MC PCB around each die is left uncovered by the HR material. Id. if 48.
The inventors are said to have discovered that by using a jetting machine to apply
microdots of the HR material, it is possible to first perform the steps of mounting
the LED dice and attaching wire bonds, and then carry out the deposition of the
HR material in such a manner that it forms a layer that completely coats the desired
areas of the upper surface of the MCPCB up to the side edges of the LED dice. Id.
Claims 2 and 7, the sole independent claims on appeal, read as follows:
2. A method comprising:
attaching a plurality of Light Emitting Diode (LED) dice to a
substrate; and
depositing a layer of a Highly Reflective (HR) material onto the
substrate such that the layer does not cover the LED dice, wherein the
depositing occurs after the attaching of the LED dice, and wherein the
depositing of the layer of HR material involves jetting microdots of
the HR material.
7. A method comprising:
depositing a layer of a Highly Reflective (HR) material onto a
substrate by jetting a plurality of microdots of the HR material onto
the substrate.
The claims stand rejected as follows:
1. Claims 2, 3, 5, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Andrews (US 2012/0193647 Al, pub. Aug. 2, 2012) in view of
Arai (US 2007/0087130 Al, pub. Apr. 19, 2007).
2. Claims 7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated
by Arai.
3. Claims 8, 9, 12, and 17-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Arai in view of Andrews.
4. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Arai in view ofHigashikawa et al. (US 2011/0043106 Al, pub. Feb. 24, 2011).
3
Appeal2015-003932
Application 13/284,835
5. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Arai in view ofNeese (US 2010/0238511 Al, pub. Sept. 23, 2010).
Rejection of claims 7-13and17-24
Appellant does not dispute the Examiner's finding that Arai discloses a
method of depositing a material by jetting a plurality of microdots of the material
onto a substrate. See Non-Final Act. 3; App. Br. 8-10. Appellant argues,
however, that the Examiner erred in finding the material deposited by Arai, i.e., "a
paste containing particles of gold, silver, copper, tungsten or aluminum," is an HR
material as recited in the claims. App. Br. 9-10 (citing Arai i-f 166). The
Examiner's finding, more specifically, is that aluminum is inherently a good
reflector and, therefore, a layer formed by a composition containing aluminum is
also highly reflective and meets the claim limitation of an HR material layer.
Examiner's Answer mailed Dec. 16, 2014 ("Ans."), 4; see also Non-Final Act. 3-
4.
As noted in the above discussion of the invention, the Specification
describes an HR material as a composition that is capable of forming a layer on an
MCPCB that reflects downward-directed light rays from phosphor particles so that
the rays can pass upward and out of an LED assembly as light rays. See Spec. i-f 4.
We agree with Appellant that the Examiner has not identified persuasive evidence
to support a finding that Arai' s material containing aluminum, when deposited as a
layer on a substrate, has the capability of reflecting light in the same manner as an
HR material layer reflects light as described in the Specification. 3
3W e further note that although Arai describes aluminum as a "main component"
of the composition (Arai i-f 166), the Examiner has not identified sufficient
evidence to support a finding that the composition, which contains additional
components, such as a solvent, would be expected to have the reflective properties
of aluminum by itself. See, e.g., Ans. 3--4.
4
Appeal2015-003932
Application 13/284,835
Appellant has argued convincingly that Arai fails to describe a method as
recited in claim 7. The Examiner's rejections of dependent claims 8-13 and 17-24
are based on the same unsupported finding that Arai describes a method of
depositing a layer of an HR material. See Non-Final Act. 5-9. Accordingly, we do
not sustain the rejection of claims 7 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated
by Arai, nor do we sustain the rejections of claims 8, 9, 11-13, and 17-24 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Arai in view of various secondary references.
Rejections of claims 2, 3, 5, and 6
The Examiner finds Andrews discloses a method as recited in claim 2 with
the exception that Andrews does not teach depositing the layer of HR material
using the jetting of microdots. Non-Final Act. 4. The Examiner finds Arai teaches
a method of depositing a layer of an HR material by discharging microdot droplets
of the HR material. Id. The Examiner finds one of ordinary skill in the art would
have been motivated to modify Andrews' method to apply the HR material using
Arai' s microdot deposition process "since it has been held to be within the general
skill of a worker in the art to select a known process such as a droplet discharging
method (also referred to as an inkjet method) [for] discharging a microdot droplet
as an alternative way of DEPOSITING material, as taught by Arai." Id. at 4--5
(emphasis omitted).
As explained in the above discussion of the rejections of claims 7-13 and
17-24, the evidence on the record before us does not support a finding that Arai
discloses depositing a layer of an "HR material" using jetting of microdots. We
agree with Appellant that the Examiner fails to identify persuasive evidence to
support a finding that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention
would have recognized Arai'sjetting of microdots (see Arai i-f 166) and Andrews'
deposition techniques, such as masking and wicking (see Andrews i-fi-173-80), as
5
Appeal2015-003932
Application 13/284,835
alternative methods for forming a layer of an HR material on a substrate. See App.
Br. 5-8; Ans. 6-7. Rather the Examiner's finding that the Andrews and Arai
methods were known equivalents for depositing an HR material layer appears to be
based on improper hindsight reasoning.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 2, 3, 5, and 6 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Andrews in view of Arai.
REVERSED
6