`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`PLO. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 223 l 3-1051}
`Wmusptngcv
`
`APPLICATION NO.
`90:0 I 0,940
`
`FILINo DATE
`05I06r2010
`
`23443
`
`1590
`
`050-02012
`
`Hultquist IP
`P.0. Box 14329
`
`6600175
`
`ATTORNEY DOCKET NO
`1300-000M4MSIRXA
`
`CONFIRMATION N0.
`4549 '
`
`EXAMINER
`
`RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, NC 27709
`
`”PER “UMBER
`
`DATE MAILED: 05124f2012
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`PTO-98C (Rev. 1003)
`
`TCL 1034, Page 1
`LOWES 1034, Page 1
`
`LOWES 1034, Page 1
`
`

`

`UNITED STfiLTES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`Commissioner for Patents
`United States Patent amt Trademark Office
`P.0. flan-:50
`Alexandria, VA 2231 $1450
`”WWW
`
`DO NOT USE IN PALM PRINTER
`
`(THJRD PARTY REQUESTER'S CORRESRONDENCE ADDRESS)
`
`HARNESS. DICKEY & PIERCE. P.L.C.
`
`P.O. BOX 828
`
`BLOOMFIELD HILLS. Ml 4-8303
`
`EX PARTE REEXAMINATION COMMUNICATION TRANSMITTAL FORM
`
`REEXAMINATION CONTROL NO. 90/010 940.
`
`PATENT NO. 6600175.
`
`ART UNIT 3992.
`
`Enclosed is a copy of the latest communication from the United States Patent and Trademark
`Office in the above identified ex parte reexamination proceeding (37 CFR 1.550(f)).
`
`Where this copy is supplied after the reply by requester, 37 CFR 1.535, or the time for filing a
`reply has passed. no submission on behalf of the ex parte reexamination requester will be
`acknowledged or considered (3? CFR 1.550(9)).
`
`PTOL-485 R .0704
`( EU
`
`1
`
`LOWES 1034, Page 2
`TCL 1034, Page 2
`
`LOWES 1034, Page 2
`
`

`

`Office Action in Ex Parte Reexamination
`
`Examiner
`ERIK KIELIN
`
`Control No.
`901010.940
`
`Patent Under Reexamination
`6600175
`
`Art Unit
`3992
`
`
`
`- The MAILING DA TE of this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address --
`
`bE This action is made FINAL.
`aIE Responsive to the communication(s) filed on _2_6 March 2012 .
`cl] A statement under 37 CFR 1.530 has not been received from the patent owner.
`
`A shortened statutory,r period for response to this action is set to expire 2 month(s) from the mailing date of this letter.
`Failure to respond within the period for response will result in termination of the proceeding and issuance of an ex parte reexamination
`certificate in accordance with this action. 37 CFR 1.550(d). EXTENSIONS OF TIME ARE GOVERNED BY 37 CFR 1.550ic].
`if the period for response specified above is less than thirty (30} days. a response within the statutory minimum of thirty (30) days
`will be considered timely.
`
`Part |
`
`THE FOLLOWING ATTACHMENNS) ARE PART OF THIS ACTION:
`
`1. E] Notice of References Cited by Examiner, PTO-892.
`
`3. D Interview Summary. PTO-474.
`
`2. E Information Disclosure Statement, PTOISBIDB.
`
`4.
`
`[:1
`
`.
`
`Part II
`
`SUMMARY OF ACTION
`
`13. E Claims 1-5 11-13 21-24 and 26-188 are subject to reexamination.
`
`E Claims 6-10.14-20 and 25 are not subject to reexamination.
`
`El Claims _ have been canceted in the present reexamination proceeding.
`I] Claims _ are patentable andior confirmed.
`I
`
`X Claims 1-5. 1 1-13.21-24 and 26-188 are rejected.
`
`[:1 Claims __ are objected to.
`
`CI The drawings, filed on __ are acceptable.
`
`.
`
`I:] The proposed drawing correction. filed on _ has been (7a)L__I approved (7b)l:l disapproved.
`
`. E] Acknowledgment is made of the priority claim under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d) or (f).
`
`all] All b)l:l Some“ c)l:] None
`
`of the certified copies have
`
`1|:I been received.
`
`21:] not been received.
`
`3D been filed in Application No. _.
`
`4[:] been filed in reexamination Control No. _
`
`SCI been received by the International Bureau in PCT application No.
`
`' See the attached detailed Office action for a list of the certified copies not received.
`
`9. [I Since the proceeding appears to be in condition for issuance of an ex parte reexamination certificate except for formal
`matters, prosecution as to the merits is closed in accordance with the practice under Ex parte Quayle. 1935 CD.
`11.453 0.6. 213.
`
`10. 1] Other:
`
`cc: Reucster ifthird art
`US. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`re-uester
`
`
`
`PTOL-dfifi (Rev. 06-06}
`
`Office Action in Ex Parts Reexamination
`
`PamWES‘lflgaj'Pfiée 3
`TCL 1034, Page 3
`
`LOWES 1034, Page 3
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/010,940
`
`Page 2
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`DETAILED ACTION
`
`This action is on the claims for which a substantial new question of patentabiiity has
`been requested and determined to exist; that is claims 1-5, 11-13, 21-24, and 26
`of US 6,600,175 to Bruce Baretz and Michael Tischler (the ‘175 patent, hereafter)
`and proposed new claims 27-61 submitted in the Amendment dated 5/3/2011 and
`Proposed new claims 62-188 submitted in the Amendment dated 3/26/2012.
`
`Since requester did not request reaxamination of claims 6—10, 14-20, and 25, and
`did not assert the existence of a substantial new question of patentabiiity (SNQ) for
`said claims, they will not be reexamined. See MPEP 2243.
`
`This action responds to Patentee’s submissions of 2/13/2012 (IDS), 2/29/2012
`(IDS), 3/26/2012 (Amendment and Remarks), and 4/4/2012 (IDS).
`
`Table of Contents
`
`I. Information Disclosure Statement ............................................................................. 8
`
`II. Claim Status ......................................................................................................... 8
`
`III. The References .................................................................................................... 8
`
`IV. Claim Rejections - 35 USC§ 112 .......................................................................... 10
`
`A. Proposed new claims 62-99, 149-171, 178, 187, and 188 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
`112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. ................ 10
`
`V. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 and 35 USC § 103
`
`...................................... 14
`
`A. Statute ............................................................................................................ 14
`
`1. 35 USC 102 ................................................................................................... 14
`
`2. 35 USC 103 ................................................................................................... 15
`
`8. Comment regarding new claims 62-99, 149-171, 178, 187, and 188 ....................... 15
`
`C. Stevenson as a base reference ........................................................................... 15
`
`1. Claims 1, S, 12, 13, 21, 22, 26, 27, 31-33, 41, 45-47, 55, 59-61, 172, 176, and 178
`are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated over Stevenson, as evidenced
`by the CRC Handbook. ....................................................................................... 15
`
`2. Claims 1, 5, 12, 13, 21, 22, 26, 27, 31-33, 41, 45-47, 55, 59-61, 172, 176, and 178
`are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Stevenson in view of
`any of Pinnow, Menda, and Admitted Prior Art (APA). ............................................. 25
`
`3. Claims 1, 3-5, 12, 13, 21, 22, 26, 62, 63, 69-72, 74, 76-79, 100, 101, 106-110,
`112, 114-116, 118, 124-126, 128, 130-132, 134, 137, 140-142, 145-147, 172, 176,
`and 178 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Stevenson in
`view of Pinnow and Nakamura ............................................................................. 31
`
`TCL 1034, Page 4
`LOWES 1034, Page 4
`
`LOWES 1034, Page 4
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/010,940
`
`Page 3
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`4. Claims 187 and 188 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over
`Stevenson in view of Pinnow and Tadatsu ............................................................. 42
`
`5. Claims 63-65, 68, 70-73, 101-103, 106, 108-111, 119-121, 124, 126, 127, 135-137,
`140, 142, 143, 187 and 188 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable
`over Stevenson in view of Pinnow and Nakamura as applied to claims 62, 100, 118, and
`134, above, and further in view of Tadatsu. .......................................................... 45
`
`6. Claims 63, 66-72, 74, 101, 104-110, 112, 121-126, 128, 137-142, 162-166 and
`168-171 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Stevenson in
`view of Pinnow and Nakamura as applied to claims 62, 100, 118, and 134, above, and
`further in view of Tabuchi. .................................................................................. 49
`
`7. Claims 5, 11-13, 21, 22, 26, 172, and 176 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as
`being unpatentable over Stevenson in view of Pinnow and Edmond .......................... 57
`
`8. Claims 2 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over any
`of (1) Stevenson in view of Imamura, (2) StevenSOn in View of any of Pinnow, Menda,
`and APA, and further in view of Imamaura, (3) StevenSOn in view of Pinnow,
`Nakamura, and Imamura, and (4) Stevenson in view of Pinnow, Edmond and
`Imamura ......................................................................................................... 59
`
`9. Claims 1, 5, 12, 13, 21, 22, 26-28, 30—33, 41, 42, 44-47, 55, 56, 58-61, 172, 173,
`176-178, 187, and 188 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over
`Stevenson in view of Tadatsu or, in the alternative, over Stevenson in view of APA and
`Tadatsu ........................................................................................................... 61
`
`10. Claims 28-30, 42-44, 56-58, 173, and 177 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as
`being unpatentable over Stevenson in view of Tabuchi or, in the alternative, over
`Stevenson in view of APA and Tabuchi. ............................................................... 64
`
`11. Claims 3, 34, 38-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable
`over Stevenson in view of APA and Nakamura ....................................................... 67
`
`12. Claims 62, 75, 100, and 113 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being
`unpatentable over Stevenson in View of APA, Wanmaker, and Nakamura .................. 72
`
`13. Claims 3, 34, 35, 37-40, and 179 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being
`unpatentable over Stevenson in view of APA and Nakamura and further in view of
`Tadatsu ............................................................................................................ 76
`
`14. Claims 35-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over
`Stevenson in view of APA and Nakamura and further in view of Tabuchi. .................. 78
`
`15. Claims 79, 80, 116-118, 129, 132-134, 144, 147, 148, 162, and 167 are rejected -
`under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Stevenson in view of APA,
`Wanmaker, and Nakamura and further in view of Tabuchi and Martic ....................... 78
`
`D. Tabuchi as a base reference ............................................................................... 82
`
`1. Claims 1, 5, 22, 26, 172, 173, 176, and 177 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as
`being anticipated by Tabuchi, as evidenced by the CRC Handbook. .......................... 82
`
`2. Claims 1, 5, 22, 26, 27-32, 41—46, 5560, 172, 173, 176, and 177 are rejected under
`35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tabuchi in view of Admitted Prior Art
`(APA). .............................................................................................................. a7
`
`TCL 1034, Page 5
`LOWES 1034, Page 5
`
`LOWES 1034, Page 5
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/010,940
`
`Page 4
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`3. Claims 1, 5, 22, 26, 172, 173, 176, 177, and 187 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
`103(a) as being unpatentable over Tabuchi in view of Pinnow. ................................ 90
`
`4. Claims 2 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over any
`of (1) Tabuchi in view of Stevenson and Imamura, {2) Tabuchi in View of APA,
`Stevenson, and Imamaura, and (3) Tabuchi in view of Pinnow, Stevenson, and
`Imamura. ......................................................................................................... 92
`
`5. Claims 3, 4, and 34-40 are rejected under 35 U. S.C. 103(a) asbeing unpatentable
`over Tabuchi in view of APA and Nakamura ........................................................... 94
`
`6. Claims 62, 63, 66-69, 74-80, 100, 101, 104-107, 110, 112-117, 162, and 164-171
`are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tabuchi in view of APA,
`Wanmaker, and Nakamura .................................................................................. 98
`
`7. Claims 118, 121-126, 128-134, 137-142, and 144-148 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
`103(a) as being unpatentable over Tabuchi in view of APA, Wanmaker, Nakamura, and
`Martic ............................................................................................................. 105
`
`8. Claims 34, 35, 37-40 and 179 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being
`unpatentable over Tabuchi in view of APA and Nakamura as applied to claims 3, 4, 34,
`and 38-40, above, and further in view of Tadatsu. ............................................... 110
`
`9. Claims 3-5, 12, 13, 21, 22, 26, 62, 63, 66-72, 74, 76-79, 100, 101, 104-110, 112,
`114-116, 118, 121-126, 128, 130-132, 134, 137-142, 145-147, 162-166, 168-172,
`178, 187, and 188 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over
`Tabuchi in view of Pinnow and Nakamura. .......................................................... 111
`
`10. Claims 64, 65, 73, 102, 103, 111, 119, 120, 127, 135, 136, and 143 are rejected
`under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tabuchi in view of Pinnow and
`Nakamura as applied to claims 62, 72, 100, 110, 118, 126, 134, and 142, above, and
`further in view of Tadatsu. ................................................................................ 126
`
`11. Claims 5, 11-13, 22, 26, 172, 173, 187, and 188 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
`103(a) as being unpatentable over Tabuchi in view of Pinnow and Edmond ............. 129
`
`E. Ménda as a base reference ............................................................................... 131
`
`1. Claims 1, 3, 5, 22, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated
`by Menda, as evidenced by any of Penguin, Fundamentals of Photonics, Morkog, Abe,
`Tadatomo and LEDLASER .................................................................................. 131
`
`2. Claims 2, 23, 24, 180, 181, and 186 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being
`unpatentable over Menda, as evidenced by any of Penguin, Fundamentals of Photonics,
`Morkog, Abe, and Tadatomo, and in view of Imamura. ......................................... 144
`
`3. Claims 1, 3, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over
`Menda in view of any of Fundamentals of Photonics, Morkog, Abe, and Tadatomo.
`147
`
`4. Claims 21, 22, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable .
`over Menda in view of Tadatomo. ...................................................................... 153
`
`5. Claims 2, 23, 24, 180, 181, and 186 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being
`unpatentable over Menda in view of any of Fundamentals of Photonics, Morkog, Abe,
`and Tadatomo and further in view of Imamura. ................................................... 154
`
`6. Claims 4 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over
`Menda in view of Morkog. .................................................................._............... 157
`
`TCL 1034, Page 6
`LOWES 1034, Page 6
`
`LOWES 1034, Page 6
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/010,940
`
`Page 5
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`7. Claims 48 and 52-54 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable
`over Menda in view of either of Morkoc and Tadatomo, as applied to claim 24 above,
`and further in view of Uehara or, in the alternative, over Menda in view of Imamura and
`either of Morko; and Tadatomo, as applied to claim 24, above, and further in view of
`Uehara. .................................................................. . ....................................... 158
`
`8. Claims 49-51 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Menda
`in view of Uehara and either of Morkoc and Tadatomo as applied to claim 48, above,
`and further in view of Abe or, in the alternative, over Menda in view of Imamura,
`Uehara, and either of Morkog and Tadatomo as applied to claim 48, above, and further
`in view of Abe. ................................................................................................ 162
`
`F. Abe as a base reference ................................................................................... 165
`
`1. Claims 3, 4, and 34-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated by
`Abe ................................................................................................................ 165
`
`2. Claims 1, 2, 5, 23, 27-30, 41-44, 172, and 173 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(e)
`as being anticipated by Abe, as evidenced by LEDLASER. ..................................... 167
`
`3. Claims 22, 26, 55-58, 176, and 177 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being
`anticipated by Abe, as evidenced by LEDLASER and M-H Encyclopedia. .................. 170
`
`4.thns11-13,31-33,38-40,45-47,59—63,68,69,72,74-80,100,101,106,107,
`110, 112, 113-117, 162, 164, 166, 167-171, and 178 are rejected under 35
`U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Abe, as evidenced by LEDLASER, in view of
`Morkog. .......................................................................................................... 172
`
`G. Lenko as a base reference (The liquid crystal display claims) ................................ 178
`
`1. Claims 24, 48, 52-54, 81, 82, 94-98, 174, and 182-185 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
`103(a) as being unpatentable over Lenko in view of either of Menda and Pinnow, and
`further in view of Stevenson, as evidenced by the CRC Handbook .......................... 179
`
`2. Claims 24, 48, 52-54, 81, 82, 94-98, 174, and 182-185 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
`103(a) as being unpatentable over Lenko in view of either of Menda and Pinnow, and
`further in view of Stevenson in View of any of Pinnow, Menda, and Admitted Prior Art
`(APA) ............................................................................................................ 184
`
`3. Claims 81, 82, 95-98, and 182-185 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being
`unpatentable over Lenko in view of either of Menda and Pinnow, and further in view of
`Stevenson, Pinnow, and Nakamura, ................................................................... 185
`
`4. Claims 83, 84, 87, 89-92, 149-152, 155, 157, 158, 160, and 161 are rejected under
`35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lenko in view of either of Menda and
`Pinnow, and further in view of Stevenson, Pinnow, Nakamura, and Tadatsu ........... 185
`
`5. Claims 85—88, 91, 93, 149, 152-157, and 175 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as
`being unpatentable over Lenko in View of either of Menda and Pinnow, and further in
`view of Stevenson, Pinnow, Nakamura, and Tabuchi ........................................... 187
`
`6. Claims 49 and 51 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over
`Lenko in view of either of Menda and Pinnow, and further in view of either (1)
`Stevenson and Tadatsu, or (2) Stevenson, APA, and Tadatsu ............................. 189
`
`TCL 1034, Page 7
`LOWES 1034, Page 7
`
`LOWES 1034, Page 7
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/010,940
`
`Page 6
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`7. Claims 49~51 and 175 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable
`over Lenko in view of either of Menda and Pinnow, and further in view of either {1)
`Stevenson and Tabuchi, or (2) Stevenson, APA, and Tabuchi .............................. 190
`
`8. Claims 81, 82, 94-98, and 182-185 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being
`unpatentable over Lenko in view of either of Menda and Pinnow, and further in view of
`Stevenson, APA, Wanmaker and Nakarnura ........................................................ 191
`
`9. Claim 99 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lenko in
`view of either of Menda and Pinnow, and further in view of Stevenson, APA, Wanmaker,
`Nakamura, and Tabuchi .................................................................................. 192
`
`10. Claims 149 and 159 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable
`over Lenko in view of either of Menda and Pinnow, and further in view of Stevenson,
`APA, Wanmaker, Nakamura, Tabuchi and Hattie ............................................... 192
`
`11. Claims 24 and 48-53 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable
`over Lenko in view of either of Menda and Pinnow, and further in view of Tabuchi and
`APA ................................................................................................................ 193
`
`12. Claims 52-54 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over
`Lenko in view of either of Menda and Pinnow, and further in view of Tabuchi, APA, and
`Nakamura ....................................................................................................... 195
`
`13. Claims 81, 82, 85-88, and 93-99 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being
`unpatentable over Lenko in view of either of Menda and Pinnow, and further in view of
`Tabuchi, APA, Wanmaker, and Nakamura. .......................................................... 196
`
`14. Claims 89-91, 149, 152-157, and 159-161 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as
`being unpatentable over Lenko in view of either of Menda and Pinnow, and further in
`view of Tabuchi, APA, Wanmaker, Nakamura, and Martic ...................................... 198
`
`15. Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lenko in
`view of either of Menda and Pinnow, and further in view of Tabuchi and APA ........... 200
`
`16. Claims 81, 82, 85-91, 93, and 95-98 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being
`unpatentable over Lenko in view of either of Menda and Pinnow, and further in view of
`Tabuchi, Pinnow, and Nakamura ........................................................................ 202
`
`17. Claims 83, 84, 89-92, 149-152, 155, 157, 158, 160, and 161 are rejected under 35
`U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lenko in view of either of Menda and Pinnow,
`and further in view of Tabuchi, Pinnow, Nakamura, and Tadatsu ............................ 203
`
`VI. Response to Arguments ..................................................................................... 205
`
`A. Patentee's general arguments directed to Menda ................................................ 205
`
`1. Patentee and Stringfellow merely speculate that Menda is related to large area
`displays .......................................................................................................... 205
`
`2. Patentee and Stringfellow unnecessarily limit the disclosure in Menda .........' ....... 207
`
`3. Menda’s alternative sources of radiation, e.g. X-ray, B-ray, y—rays do not negate the
`explicit disclosure of “solid ultraviolet light emitting element having a structure of a pn
`junction, MOS junction or the like" ..................................................................... 208
`
`4. The ‘175 patent uses commercially available GaN~based LEDs that Patentee and
`Stringfellow argues would not work .................................................................... 209
`
`TCL 1034, Page 8
`LOWES 1034, Page 8
`
`LOWES 1034, Page 8
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/010,940
`
`Page 7
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`5. Examiner never even hinted that Menda failed to implicitly disclose single-die
`semiconductor LEDs ......................................................................................... 211
`
`6. Each of Penguin, Fundamentals of Photonics, Morkog, Abe, Tadatomo and LEDLASER
`tells that it is known to those of ordinary skill that UV light-emitting pn junctions include
`single-die semiconductor LEDs .......................................................................... 212
`
`7. Imamura uses an array of LED as a backlight for an LCD, so those of ordinary skill
`knew very well at the time of Menda that LEDs were a sufficient light source for back
`lights ............................................................................................................. 213
`
`8. Specific rejections relying on Menda as a base reference ................................... 213
`
`B. Patentee’s general arguments directed to Stevenson ........................................... 214
`
`1. Patentee and Stringfellow fail to acknowledge that Stevenson’s GaN-based LED emits
`light in the same spectral region as the commercially available LED disclosed in the
`Baretz Declaration and in the ‘175 patent ........................................................... 214
`
`2. A single white light LED was known by the time of Stevenson, Tabuchi, and Tadatsu7
`..................................................................................................................... 21
`
`3. Patentee does not know what is legally meant by “teaching away” ..................... 219
`
`C. Rejections over Abe and the Declarations filed under 37 CFR 1.131 ....................... 220
`
`1. The facts in In re Hostettler and In re Spiller and Ex parte Goddard do not apply to
`the facts in these proceedings ........................................................................... 220
`
`2. The fourth Baretz, fourth Tischler, and third Elliot Declarations are ineffective in
`swearing behind Abe ........................................................................................ 222
`
`3. Specific rejection relying on Abe as a base reference ..........................._ ............. 229
`
`D. Secondary Considerations ................................................................................ 23D
`
`1. No evidence of long-felt need ........................................................................ 230
`
`2. There is no evidence of failure of others, especially since Stevenson, Tabuchi, and
`Abe anticipate the claimed device ...................................................................... 232
`
`3. There is no evidence of unexpected results ..................................................... 232 '
`
`4. Commercial success and the third Brandes Declaration ..................................... 233
`
`5. The third Brandes Declaration fails to provide evidence of commercial success
`
`235
`
`Conclusion ............................................................................................................ 240
`
`THE REST OF THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
`
`TCL 1034, Page 9
`LOWES 1034, Page 9
`
`LOWES 1034, Page 9
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/010,940
`
`Page 8
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`I. Information Disclosure Statement
`
`MPEP 2256 states in pertinent part,
`
`Where patents, publications, and other such items of information are
`submitted by a party (Patent Owner or Requester) in compliance with the
`requirements of the rules, the requisite degree of consideration to be given to
`such information will be normally limited by the degree to which the
`party filing the information citation has explained the content and
`relevance of the information. The initials of the examiner placed adjacent
`to the citations on the form PTO /SB /08A and OBB or its equivalent, without
`an indication to the contrary in the record, do not signify that the Information
`has been considered by the examiner any further than to the extent noted
`above.
`
`(Emphasis added.)
`
`In concert with MPEP 2256, unless otherwise indicated, the references submitted in
`the IDS filed 2/13/2012, 2/29/2012, and 4/4/2012 have been considered only to
`the extent that the submitting party has “explained the content and relevance”.
`
`II. Claim Status
`
`(1) Original claims subject to reexamination: 1-5, 11-13, 21—24, and 26
`
`(2) Claims not subject to reexamination: 6-10, 14—20, and 25
`
`(3) Canceled claims: none
`
`(4) Claims newly proposed: 27-188
`
`(5) Claims literally amended: 1, 5, 11, 12, 21, and 24
`
`(6) Claims effectively amended: 2 and 8—23
`
`(7) Claims active: 1-5, 11-13, 21-24, and 26—188
`
`(1) JP 6-267301 to Kazunori Menda, published 22 September 1994 (Menda,
`hereafter)
`
`III. The References
`
`(2) US 5,535,230 to Tadashi Abe, filed 3 January 1995, issued 9 July 1996 (Abe,
`hereafter)
`
`(3) US 5,283,425 to Masaya Imamura, issued 1 February 1994 (Imamura,
`hereafter)
`
`TCL 1034, Page 10
`LOWES 1034, Page 10
`
`LOWES 1034, Page 10
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/010,940
`
`Page 9
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`(4) Morkog, et al, “Large-band-gap SIC, III—V nitride, and II—VI ZnSe—based
`semiconductor device technologies", J. Appi. Phys. 76(3), 1; March 17, 1994;
`Illinois University (Morkog, hereafter)
`
`(5) McGraw-Hiii Encyclopedia of Science & Technoiogy, 6‘“ Edition, Vol. 9, pg. 582
`and Vol. 10, pp. 60-63; Copyright 1987 (M-H Encyclopedia, hereafter)
`
`(6) McGraw-Hiii Dictionary of Scientific and Technicai Terms, 3"3 Edition, pp. 912,
`1446; Copyright 1984 (M-H Dictionary, hereafter)
`
`(7) The Penguin Dictionary of Electronics, 3rd edition, pp. 315, 437-438, 509-510,
`copyright 1979, 1988, and 1998 (Penguin, hereafter)
`
`(8) “LEDs and Laser Diodes", Electus Distribution, copyright 2001, available at URL:
`http:((www.jaycar.com.au(images uploadedtledlaserpdf (LEDLASER, hereafter)
`
`(9) US 4,772,885 to Uehara et al., issued 20 September 1988 (Uehara, hereafter)
`
`(10) JP 3-24692 to Kentaro Fujii, published 14 March 1991 (Fujii, hereafter)
`
`(11) US 5,770,887 to Tadatomo et al., filed 11 October 1994 (Tadatomo, hereafter)
`
`(12) Saleh and Teich, Fundamentals of Photonics, New York: John Wiley & Sons,
`1991, pp. 592-594 (Fundamentals of Photonics, hereafter)
`
`(13) US 3,819,974 to Stevenson et al., issued 25 June 1974 (Stevenson, hereafter)
`
`(14) US 3,691,482 to Pinnow et al., issued 12 September 1972 (Pinnow, hereafter)
`
`(15) JP 5-152609 to Tadatsu et al., published 18 June 1993 (Tadatsu, hereafter)
`
`(16) JP 50-79379 to Sei-ichi Tabuchi, published 24 November 1973 (Tabuchi,
`hereafter)
`'
`
`(17) CRC Handbook, 63rd Ed., (1983) p. E-201 (CRC Handbook, hereafter)
`
`(18) US 4,918,497 to John Edmond, issued 17 April 1990 (Edmond, hereafter)
`
`(19) US 3,793,046 to Wanmaker et al., issued 19 February 1974 (Wanmaker,
`hereafter)
`
`(20) US 3,743,833 to Martic et al., issued 3 July 1973 (Martic, hereafter)
`
`(21) Lumogen® F Violet 570 Data Sheet; available at the BASF Chemical Company
`website URL,
`htt
`: worldaccount.basf.com wa EU~en GB Catalo
`
`Pi ments doc4 BASF PRO 30
`
`TCL 1034, Page 11
`LOWES 1034, Page 11
`
`LOWES 1034, Page 11
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/010,940
`
`Page 10
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`
`0482741.pdf?title=Technical%20Datasheet&asset type:pdsipdf&language=EN&um
`=urn:documentum:eCommerce sol EU:09007bb280021e27.[mc
`
`The ‘175 patent was filed 26 March 1996. Each of Menda, Morkog, M-H
`Encyclopedia, M-H Dictionary, Uehara, Fujii, Fundamentals of Photonics, Stevenson,
`Pinnow, Tadatsu, Tabuchi, and Edmond, were issued or published more than one
`year before the ‘175 patent’s priority date; thus each qualifies as prior art under 35
`USC 102(b).
`
`Abe and Tadatomo were filed before the filing of the application that became the
`‘175 patent; thus, Abe and Tadatomo qualify as prior art under 35 USC 10203). As
`wiil be discussed below, Patentee’s Declarations are ineffective to overcome Abe as
`prior art.
`
`Penguin, LEDLASER, and CRC Handbook are used only for purposes of definition or
`.evidence and therefore need not qualify as prior art.
`
`The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112:
`
`IV. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
`
`The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner
`and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to
`enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly
`connected, to make and use the same and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by
`the inventor of carrying out his invention.
`
`A. Proposed new claims 62-99, 149-171, 178, 187, and 188 are rejected
`under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the
`enablement requirement.
`
`The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in
`such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is
`most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
`
`Each of claims 62, 81, 149, 162, 178, 187, and 188 requires a primary radiation
`consisting of blue light from a GaN-based LED to be converted by phosphors to a
`secondary radiation composed of lower energy (longer wavelength) visible white
`light, wherein the secondary radiation alone --without contribution from the blue
`primary radiation-— produces white light. As claimed-this reads:
`
`(1) Claims 62,81, 162 and 173:
`
`at least one singie-die gaiiium nitride based semiconductor blue iight-
`emitting diode (LED)
`said primary radiation being a reiativeiy shorter
`wavelength biue iight radiation; and
`
`TCL 1034, Page 12
`LOWES 1034, Page 12
`
`