Ex Parte Bai et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 28, 2013

10752183 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 28, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte QING BAI, STORRS TOWNSEND HOEN,
JONAH ALEXANDER HARLEY, and KIRT REED WILLIAMS
____________

Appeal 2011-008757
Application 10/752,183
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before GAY ANN SPAHN, BEMJAMIN D.M. WOOD, and
MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, Administrative Patent Judges.

SPAHN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1, 2, 15, and 16. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Appeal 2011-008757
Application 10/752,183

2
Claimed Subject Matter
The claimed subject matter relates to “a flexure system to convert
linear to angular movement” and more particularly, “to Micro Electro
Mechanical System (MEMS) structures for converting linear movement to
angular movement.” Spec. 1, ll. 3-5. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the appealed subject matter.
1. A device comprising:
a first support configured to move linearly;
a second support configured to move linearly;
a rotatable body;
means for transmitting torque and bending moments to
the rotatable body upon the linear movement of at least one of
the respective supports relative to at least one other support of
the respective supports thereby effecting rotation of the
rotatable body, wherein the means for transmitting torque and
bending moments to the rotatable body comprises:
a first elongate flexible member extending between
and monolithically coupled to the first support at a first
position on the rotatable body;
a second elongate flexible member extending
between and monolithically coupled to the second
support at a second position on the rotatable body, the
first position on the rotatable body being offset from the
second position on the rotatable body in a second
direction orthogonal to a first direction.

Rejections
The following Examiner’s rejections are before us for review:
I. claims 1, 2, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by
Frank (US 3,981,566, issued Sep. 21, 1976);
II. claims 1, 2, 15, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated
by Stewart (US 6,386,207 B2, issued May 14, 2002);
Appeal 2011-008757
Application 10/752,183

3
III. claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Frank;
and
IV. claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Frank
and Thaxter (US 3,758,199, issued Sep. 11, 1973).

OPINION
Rejection I – Anticipation based on Frank
Appellant argues independent claim 1 (App. Br. 8-10) and relies upon
the arguments made for independent claim 1, for claim 2 dependent upon
claim 1 and for independent claim 15 (App. Br. 10-11). We select
independent claim 1 as representative and claims 2 and 15 fall therewith.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2011).
The Examiner finds that Frank discloses, inter alia, a first support
(support post 24 or drive link 26ʹ), a second support (drive link 26), a first
elongate flexible member (hinge 29 or 30ʹ) “extending between and
monolithically coupled to the first support (24 or 26') at a first position on
the rotatable body (location of first position is where 29 meets 22)” and a
second elongate flexible member (hinge 30) “extending between and
monolithically coupled to the second support (26) at a second position
(location of second position is where 30 meets 22) on the rotatable body.”
Ans. 4-5; see also Frank, col. 4, ll. 24-47, col. 5, l. 57 to col. 6, l. 19, and
figs. 2, 4, and 7. The Examiner also finds that the first position on the
rotatable body is “offset (see l in figure 4) from the second position (location
of second position is where 30 meets 22) on the rotatable body in a second
direction . . . orthogonal to a first direction.” Ans. 5. The Examiner explains
that “since ‘a first direction’ is not restricted to any particular direction, ‘a
Appeal 2011-008757
Application 10/752,183

4
first direction’ can be chosen to be ANY DIRECTION, so long as it is
orthogonal to the second . . . direction” in which the first and second flexible
elongate members are offset from each other. Ans. 18.
Appellants argue that “the positioning of the hinges 29, 30 is not as
claimed,” because “the hinges 29, 30 are linearly offset relative to one
another, and are not offset in orthogonal directions as specifically recited in
claim 1.” App. Br. 9. As support for their argument that Frank’s hinges 29,
30 are merely linearly offset, not orthogonally offset, Appellants note Frank
discloses that “‘[d]eflection forces causing rotation of the mirror 10 about
the fulcrum of the hinge 29 are transmitted through the drive link 26 to the
platform 22 by the hinge 30 having a hinge axis parallel to that [of] the hinge
29.’” Id. (quoting Frank, col. 4, ll. 39-43 and citing Frank, Fig. 2).
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument. Frank discloses a
beam deflecting mirror 10 mounted on a receiving platform 22 which forms
part of a mount 12 that additionally includes a support post 24 and a drive
link 26. Frank, col. 4, ll. 24-35 and Figs. 2 and 4. The support post 24 and
the drive link 26 are connected to the platform 22 via hinge 29 at a first
position and hinge 30 at a second position, respectively, the first and second
positions being offset from each other by a distance l in a second direction
along the bottom surface of platform 22. Frank, col. 4, ll. 36-49, col. 5, ll.
10-13, and Figs. 2 and 4. Accordingly, any direction that is orthogonal to
the second direction is the first direction. Thus, we agree with the Examiner
that Frank satisfies the claim language of claim 1 that the first and second
positions on the rotatable body are offset from each other in a second
direction which is orthogonal to a first direction, because as stated by the
Appeal 2011-008757
Application 10/752,183

5
Examiner, orthogonally offset is “not recited in the rejected claim[].” Ans.
16.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claim 1, and claims 2 and 15 which fall therewith, under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as anticipated by Frank.

Rejection II – Anticipation based on Stewart
Independent claims 15 and 16 are directed to a beam steering device
and a beam steering array, respectively. App. Br., Clms. App’x. Claims 15
and 16 recite language similar to claim 1, lines 5-19, as quoted supra,
namely, means for transmitting torque and bending moments to the rotatable
body upon linear movement of one of the first and second supports to effect
rotation of the rotatable body, and the structure comprising the means. Id.
With respect to independent claims 1 and 15, the Examiner finds that
Stewart discloses, inter alia:
a first elongate flexible member (upper left “arm”) extending
between and monolithically coupled to the first support (upper
left instance of 16) at a first position (upper left shoulder of 10)
on the rotatable body (10); a second elongate flexible member
(lower right “leg”) extending between and monolithically
coupled to the second support at a second position (lower right
“hip”) on the rotatable body, the first position on the rotatable
body being offset from the second position on the rotatable
body in a second direction (vertical direction of figure 3)
orthogonal to a first direction (horizontal direction of figure 3).
Ans. 7-8. The Examiner makes similar findings with respect to independent
claim 16. Ans. 8-9. The Examiner explains with respect to the means-plus-
function limitation that “[s]ince Stewart discloses the structure that allows
Appeal 2011-008757
Application 10/752,183

6
[A]ppellants[’] claimed body to rotate . . . , the claim is anticipated.” Ans.
21.
Appellants argue that Stewart does not disclose that “the upper and
lower appendages 16 ‘move linearly,’ or that they rotate the body 10 by such
linear movement,” because “if either the upper or lower appendage 16
moves linearly, the body 10 would likewise move linearly,” and “[i]n order
to actually ‘rotate’ the body 10, the upper or lower appendage 16 would
have to move in an arc to get the body 10 to effectively spin.” App. Br. 12.
We are persuaded by Appellants’ argument. Stewart discloses a hair
device 20, 25 incorporated into a representation of an animal and including a
body 10 and wires 12 within appendages 16 of the animal. Stewart, col. 3, l.
35 to col. 4, l. 36 and Figs. 3 and 7A-7E. As argued by Appellants, linear
movement of Stewart’s appendage 16 or wire 12 within appendage 16 would
not “effect[] rotation of the rotatable body [10]” as required by the language
of independent claims 1, 15, and 16. Because Stewart’s structure (body 10
and appendage 16 or wire 12) is incapable of performing the recited function
(linear movement of appendage 16 or wire 12 to effect rotation of body 10),
the Examiner’s reliance on Stewart as disclosing the structure that the
means-plus-function limitation is claimed to be comprised of is misplaced.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claims 1, 15, and 16, and claim 2 dependent upon claim 1,
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Stewart.

Rejection III – Obviousness based on Frank
With respect to claim 16, the Examiner sets forth essentially the same
findings (Ans. 9-11) and Appellants present essentially the same arguments
Appeal 2011-008757
Application 10/752,183

7
(App. Br. 17-18) as those discussed supra with respect to claim 1 and the
anticipation rejection based on Frank. Accordingly, for the same reasons as
discussed supra with respect to claim 1 and the anticipation rejection based
on Frank, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 16 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Frank.

Rejection IV – Obviousness based on Frank and Thaxter
With respect to claim 16, the Examiner sets forth essentially the same
findings (Ans. 11-13) and Appellants present essentially the same arguments
(App. Br. 18) as those discussed supra with respect to claim 1 and the
anticipation rejection based on Frank. Appellants also argue that “Thaxter . .
. does not cure the deficiencies of Frank.” App. Br. 18. As we found no
deficiency in Frank for the reasons discussed supra, we are not persuaded by
Appellants’ arguments. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Frank and Thaxter.

DECISION
We AFFIRM the Examiner’s rejections, under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(b)
and 103(a), of: claims 1, 2, and 15 as anticipated by Frank; claim 16 as
unpatentable over Frank; and claim 16 as unpatentable over Frank and
Thaxter.
We REVERSE the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 15, and 16
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Stewart.

Appeal 2011-008757
Application 10/752,183

8
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

Klh