SORAA, INC.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 8, 2020

2020000762 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 8, 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.
15/261,351 09/09/2016 MICHAEL R. KRAMES 014151.130US4 2972
132877 7590 12/08/2020
FisherBroyles LLP - Ecosense
1650 Market Street
36th FLoor
Philadelphia, PA 19103
EXAMINER
CHEN, JIANZI
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2844
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/08/2020 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):
Stephen.Driscoll@fisherbroyles.com
docketing@fisherbroyles.com
jennifer.chungo@fisherbroyles.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MICHAEL R. KRAMES, TROY TROTTIER,
FRANK M. STERANKA, WILLIAM D. HOUCK, and
ARPAN CHAKRABORTY

Appeal 2020-000762
Application 15/261,351
Technology Center 2800
Before GEORGE C. BEST, BRIAN D. RANGE, and LILAN REN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
REN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2020-000762
Application 15/261,351

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 22, and 24, which are all of the
pending claims in this application. See Final Act. 2, 12; see also Appeal Br.
1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to “light emitting devices” and “techniques for
using wavelength conversion materials with light emitting devices.” Spec.
¶ 2. Claim 22, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A light-emitting system for emitting emitted light, said
light emitting system comprising:
at least one first light-emitting source comprising at least
a first light emitting diode (LED) configured to emit blue light;
at least one second light-emitting source comprising at
least a second LED configured to emit violet light;
one or more wavelength-converting materials disposed
relative to said second LED to convert at least a portion of said
violet light to converted light such that said second light-emitting
source emits white light; and
at least one driving circuit for selectively powering said at
least one first and second light-emitting sources to adjust the
amount of light said at least one first light emitting source and
said at least one second light-emitting source contribute to said
emitted light.
Claims Appendix (Supplemental Appeal Brief of April 12, 2019, 3).

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as “Soraa Inc.” Appeal
Br. 2.
Appeal 2020-000762
Application 15/261,351

3
REFERENCES
The prior art references relied upon by the Examiner are:
Name Reference Date
Yin US 2005/0135079 A1 June 23, 2005
Van US 2008/0304261 A1 Dec. 11, 2008
Brass US 2010/0008079 A1 Jan. 14, 2010

REJECTIONS2
The Examiner rejects claims 1–12, 15–17, 19–24, 26, 28, 29, and 31–
35 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) in view of Chua and Van. Final Act. 2.
The Examiner rejects claim 18 under pre–AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in
view of Chua, Van, and Brass. Final Act. 12.
OPINION
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellant and in light of the arguments and evidence produced
thereon. Cf. Ex parte Frye, 2010 WL 889747, *4 (BPAI 2010) (precedential)
(cited with approval in In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
(“[I]t has long been the Board’s practice to require an applicant to identify
the alleged error in the examiner’s rejections.”)). After considering the
evidence presented in this Appeal and each of Appellant’s contentions, we
are not persuaded that reversible error has been identified, and we affirm the
Examiner’s § 103 rejections for the reasons expressed in the Final Office
Action and the Answer. We add the following primarily for emphasis.

2 All but claims 1, 22, and 24 have been canceled. Appeal Br. 1; see also
Amended Claims Appendix filed with Supplemental Appeal Brief of April
12, 2019.
Appeal 2020-000762
Application 15/261,351

4
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds that Chua teaches all elements
of claim 1 except “a violet light” and “one or more wavelength-converting
materials” for which the Examiner relies on Van. Final Act. 4. Appellant
does not dispute the Examiner’s findings with regard to each element of
claim 13 but argues that the combined prior art would “destroy [Chua’s]
principle of operation.” Appeal Br. 6. Appellant argues that “being able to
independently control the current to single color LEDs is essential to
controlling the temperature color of the flash in Chua” and the combining
Chua with Van’s use of certain materials to produce white light would
destroy the ability to individually control the current to a LED. Id.
Appellant’s argument is unpersuasive because it is unsupported by
evidence. Appellant acknowledges that Chua describes mixing colored
emitters to obtain white light. Id. As Chua describes: “[A] flash module
combines two colors, such as blue and green, in a first light source, and has a
red light source. The currents to the first and second light sources are
individually controlled to achieve a desired color temperature.” Chua ¶ 46
(cited in Appeal Br. 6). Appellant’s argument that Chua’s teaching is limited
to “independently control the current to single color LEDs” (Appeal Br. 7) is
therefore not supported by Chua’s teaching as a whole. In any event,
Appellant does not sufficiently explain why the Examiner’s proposed
combination would prevent current to the colored emitters from being
independently controlled. We further note that Appellant does not argue that

3 Appellant argues for the rejections of all pending claims as a group with
claim 1 being the representative claim. See Appeal Br. 5–9. These claims
stand or fall together. See id.; see also 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Appeal 2020-000762
Application 15/261,351

5
the Examiner’s proposed combination would render Chua inoperable. No
reversible error has been identified in this aspect of the obviousness analysis.
Appellant next argues that Chua teaches away from using white light
sources because “Chua teaches that combining sources of different colors
should be avoided.” Appeal Br. 7. Appellant’s argument is unpersuasive as it
is unsupported by the record as well as Appellant’s own statement. As
Appellant acknowledges, “Chua discloses combining colored primary
emitters to create white light[.]” Appeal Br. 6. Chua states that the invention
relates to “LED devices that mix light from a number of LEDs to produce
white light.” Chua ¶ 4. Chua also states: “[A] flash module combines two
colors, such as blue and green, in a first light source, and has a red light
source. The currents to the first and second light sources are individually
controlled to achieve a desired color temperature.” Chua ¶ 46 (cited in
Appeal Br. 6). Appellant’s argument, which is unsupported by the record,
does not show that Chua “suggests that the line of development flowing
from the reference’s disclosure is unlikely to be productive of the result
sought by the applicant.” See In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir.
1994).
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejection is affirmed.
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 22, 24 103 Chua, Van 1, 22, 24
Appeal 2020-000762
Application 15/261,351

6
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED