SemiLEDS Optoelectronics Co., Ltd.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 27, 2020

2019003074 (P.T.A.B. May. 27, 2020)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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.
13/869,218 04/24/2013 WEN-HUANG LIU SEMI/2009-018USC1 7229
22823 7590 05/27/2020
STEPHEN A GRATTON
THE LAW OFFICE OF STEVE GRATTON
2764 SOUTH BRAUN WAY
LAKEWOOD, CO 80228
EXAMINER
KALAM, ABUL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2829
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/27/2020 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 WEN-HUANG LIU,
LI-WEI SHAN, and CHEN-FU CHU
__________________

Appeal 2019-003074
Application 13/869,218
Technology Center 2800
____________________

Before DONNA M. PRAISS, MICHELLE N. ANKENBRAND, and
JEFFREY R. SNAY, Administrative Patent Judges.

SNAY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Appellant2 filed an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 7–10, 14–16, 19, and 20. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
The subject matter on appeal relates to light emitting diodes (LEDs).

1 Our Decision refers to the Specification filed Apr. 24, 2013 (“Spec.”);
Final Office Action dated May 30, 2018 (“Final Act.”); Appellant’s Appeal
Brief filed Aug. 13, 2018 (“Br.”), and the Examiner’s Answer dated Jan. 8,
2019 (“Ans.”).
2 Appellant is the Applicant, SemiLEDs Optoelectronics Co., Ltd., which,
according to the Appeal Brief, is the real party in interest. Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-003074
Application 13/869,218

2
Spec. ¶ 8. According to the Specification, increasing LED size improves
power and luminous flux, but also can produce a high electric current
density phenomenon. Id. ¶ 4. Configuring the metal electrode on top of a
vertical LED to increase current spreading performance counters this
phenomenon. Id. ¶ 7. However, such an arrangement may result in the sides
of the metal electrode absorbing emitted light, which decreases LED
brightness. Id. ¶ 7.
The Specification describes a vertical LED device that includes,
among other things, a second metal electrode having a high illumination side
and a low illumination side, wherein the low illumination side is located
beyond the width scope of a reflective mirror layer of the LED device. Id.
¶ 10. The Specification states that such an LED device has higher output
brightness and efficiency in comparison to conventional LED devices,
without increased production costs, and has improved current spreading
performance and reduced light absorption by a metal electrode. Id. ¶¶ 8, 9.
Independent claim 1 is illustrative and is reproduced below from the
Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief. Limitations at issue are italicized.
1. A light emitting diode device comprising:
a conductive base having a first electrode;
a reflective mirror layer on the conductive base having a
width scope W,
a first conductivity type semiconductor layer on the
reflective mirror layer,
an active layer on the first conductivity type
semiconductor layer configured to produce emission light,
a second conductivity type semiconductor layer on the
active layer having a surface, an outline, a surface area and an
edge, and
a second electrode comprising a wire on the surface of the
second conductivity type semiconductor layer having a width
Appeal 2019-003074
Application 13/869,218

3
and a surface area, the wire within the outline of the second
conductivity type semiconductor layer and with the surface area
of the wire selected relative to the surface area of the second
conductivity type semiconductor layer to provide a desired
current spreading across the active layer, the wire having a low
illumination side located outside of the width scope W of the
reflective mirror layer and formed along the edge of the second
conductivity type semiconductor layer, and a high illumination
side spaced from the low illumination side by the width of the
wire, the high illumination side configured to receive at least
some of the emission light reflected from the reflective mirror
layer, the low illumination side configured to reduce light
absorption of the second electrode.

REJECTION ON APPEAL
Claims 1, 2, 7–10, 14–16, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the Admitted Prior Art3 in view of Park4 and Kim.5

DISCUSSION
The Examiner finds the Admitted Prior Art discloses a light emitting
diode including a conductive base, a first electrode, a reflective mirror layer,
a first conductivity type semiconductor layer, an active layer, a second
conductivity type semiconductor layer, and a second electrode comprising a
wire having a high illumination side. Final Act. 2–4. The Examiner finds
the Admitted Prior Art does not disclose or suggest the second electrode has
“a low illumination side located outside of the width scope W of the

3 The Examiner cites Figures 1–3 and paragraph 5–7 of Applicant’s
disclosure as the Admitted Prior Art. Final Act. 2. Appellant does not
dispute whether this portion of the disclosure is Admitted Prior Art.
4 US 2009/0273003 A1, published Nov. 5, 1999 (“Park”).
5 US 2006/0202227 A1, published Sept. 14, 2006 (“Kim”).
Appeal 2019-003074
Application 13/869,218

4
reflective mirror layer” as independent claims 1, 9, and 16 recite. Id. at 4.
The Examiner also finds the Admitted Prior Art does not disclose or suggest:
(1) the low illumination side is formed along the edge of a second
conductivity type semiconductor layer, (2) the low illumination side is
configured to reduce light absorption of the second electrode, and (3) the
low illumination side absorbs less reflected emission light from the
reflective mirror layer than the high illumination side. Id.
The Examiner finds Park discloses an LED device including, among
other things, a reflective layer and a second electrode having a low
illumination side and a high illumination side. Id. The Examiner finds
Park’s low illumination side is formed outside the width scope of the
reflective layer and is not covered by the reflective mirror layer. Id. at 4–5.
The Examiner finds Kim discloses an LED device including, among
other things, a second electrode having a low illumination side formed along
an edge of a second conductivity type semiconductor layer. Id. at 6.
The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious for one of
ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Admitted Prior Art in view of
Park and Kim to:
reduce the width scope of the reflective mirror layer, and form
the second electrode having a low illumination side located
outside the width scope of the reflective mirror layer, and along
the edge of the second conductivity type semiconductor layer, for
the purpose of reducing current concentration, improving current
spreading and increasing light emission efficiency.
Id. (citing Park ¶¶ 6, 32; Kim ¶¶ 42, 59, 60).
Appellant contends, among other things, that the Examiner’s rationale
to modify the Admitted Prior Art in view of Park and Kim is insufficient.
Appeal 2019-003074
Application 13/869,218

5
Br. 11. The Examiner responds by repeating the rationale and the prior art
citations, including paragraphs 6 and 32 of Park. Ans. 8–9.
Park’s paragraphs 6 and 32 regard improving an LED’s light emission
efficiency. Particularly, Park teaches emission efficiency results from using
a current blocking layer 70. Id. ¶¶ 31, 32. The current blocking layer 70
prevents current flowing through Park’s LED from concentrating on the
lower side of Park’s first electrode layer 100. Park ¶ 31. According to Park,
this prevents the current concentration phenomenon. Id. ¶ 32. Thus, Park’s
LED “can operate at a stable operating voltage and the light emission
efficiency can be improved.” Id. Accordingly, Park’s disclosure does not
support the Examiner’s finding that Park would have provided a reason to
modify the second electrode’s position relative to the reflective layer in the
Admitted Prior Art.
The Examiner’s reliance on Kim does not remedy the deficiency
discussed above.
For the foregoing reasons, we are persuaded the Examiner failed to
identify evidence sufficient to support the articulated obviousness
determination. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s § 103(a)
rejection of claims 1, 2, 7–10, 14–16, 19, and 20 over Park and Kim.

DECISION
On the record before us and for the reasons given in Appellant’s
Appeal Brief and above, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection.
Appeal 2019-003074
Application 13/869,218

6
In summary:

Claims
Rejected 35 U.S.C. § References/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 7–10,
14–16, 19,
20
103(a) Admitted Prior Art, Park, Kim
1, 2, 7–10,
14–16, 19, 20
Overall
Outcome
1, 2, 7–10, 14–16, 19, 20

REVERSED