Ex Parte Chang et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 22, 2017

13239925 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 22, 2017)

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.
13/239,925 09/22/2011 Seung-Hyuk CHANG 9862-000470/US 5942
30593 7590 06/26/2017
HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C.
P.O. BOX 8910
RESTON, VA 20195
EXAMINER
AN, SHAWN S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2483
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/26/2017 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):
dcmailroom@hdp.com
pshaddin@hdp.com
j Castellano @hdp. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SEUNG-HYUK CHANG,
YOON-DONG PARK, and YONG-JEL LEE
Appeal 2016-004862
Application 13/239,925
Technology Center 2400
Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, and
KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judges.
THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1—11, 31, and 32, all the pending claims
in the present application. Claims 24—30 are canceled, and claims 12—23 are
withdrawn. See App. Br., Claim Appendix; see also id. at 1. We have
jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
The present invention relates generally to a method of operating a
three-dimensional image sensor using light emitted by a light source. See
Spec., Abstract.
Appeal 2016-004862
Application 13/239,925
Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A method of operating a three-dimensional image
sensor, the method comprising:
measuring a distance of an object from the three-
dimensional image sensor using a light beam emitted by a light
source module, the three-dimensional image sensor including
the light source module; and
adjusting an emission angle of the light beam
emitted by the light source module based on the measured
distance.
Appellants appeal the following rejections:
Rl. Claims 1—3, 6, 8, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
being anticipated by Norita (US 2001/0043335 Al, Nov. 22, 2001);
R2. Claims 7, 9, and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Norita;1
R3. Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Norita and Tanaka (US 2010/0278030 Al, Nov. 4, 2010);
and
R4. Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Norita and Kameyama (US 2006/0235753 Al, Oct. 19,
2006).
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellants, and in light of the arguments and evidence
produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010)
(precedential).
1 Appellants point out that this rejection in the Final Office Action lists
claims 7, 9, and 33, however, there is no claim 33 pending. Therefore,
Appellants, and this Board, will treat this as a typographical error as
Appellants feel that the Examiner intended to reject claims 1,9, and 32. (see
App. Br. 14 footnote; see also Final Act. 4—5).
2
Appeal 2016-004862
Application 13/239,925
ANALYSIS
Rejection under § 102(e) Claims 1—3, 6, 8, and 31
Issue: Did the Examiner err in finding that Norita discloses a light
beam emitted by a light source module, as set forth in claim 1 ?
Appellants contend “Norita discuss changing the scan start angle and
scan end angle for a stepwise succession of scanned beams, as opposed to
adjusting an emission angle of the claimed ‘a light beam’ (e.g., a single light
beam)” (App. Br. 11; see also Reply Br. 6). Appellants further contend that
Norita’s “stepwise succession of scanned beams represents multiple
different beams, only one of which is transmitted at the given time (on),
while the others are not transmitted at that given time (off)” (Reply Br. 6).
The Examiner finds Norita discloses changing (adjusting) the angle of
deflection of the slit shaped light by shifting the scan start angle and the scan
end angle (Ans. 7 (citing Norita H 291, 294—295)). We agree with the
Examiner.
We refer to, rely on, and adopt the Examiner's findings and
conclusions set forth in the Answer. Our discussions here will be limited to
the following points of emphasis.
Although Appellants point out various cited paragraphs of Norita, by
emphasizing what such paragraphs teach/disclose, and concluding that such
disclosures are “as opposed to adjusting an emission angle of the claimed ‘a
light beam’” (see App. Br. 12—13), Appellants fail to provide any
meaningful analysis that explains why such disclosures are distinguishable
from the claimed adjusting an emission angle of the light beam.
For example, as highlighted by the Examiner (see Ans. 7), Norita
discloses “the scanning scope control apparatus 211 changes the angle of
3
Appeal 2016-004862
Application 13/239,925
deflection of the slit by driving the second optical path deflecting apparatus
207, and shifts the scan start angle and the scan end angle” (1291); “the
whole scanning system . . . including a light source 201 ... is mounted on a
movable apparatus 307, and the angle of mounting with respect to the whole
apparatus can be changed” (1294); and “the scanning scope control
apparatus 211 changes the angle of setting with respect to the entire
apparatus by driving the movable apparatus 30, whereby the angle of the
projection of the slit shaped light is changed” (1295). In other words,
Norita discloses changing the angle of projection of the slit shaped light.
Appellants’ arguments emphasize that Norita fail to adjust “a single
light beam” and instead performs “a stepwise succession of scanned beams
and purport that the aggregation of scanned beams serves as the claimed ‘a
light beam’” (App. Br. 11). However, we find that this is contrary to the
specific disclosures in Norita noted supra, e.g., “whereby the angle of the
projection of the slit shaped light is changed” (1295), which does not
disclose changing the angle for an aggregation of scanned beams, as
proffered by Appellants, but merely the angle of a single slit light beam.
Thus, we find unavailing Appellants’ contention that Norita does not
disclose adjusting an emission angle of the light beam, as set forth in claim
1.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1.
Appellants’ arguments regarding the Examiner’s rejection of dependent
claims 2, 3, 6, 8, and 31, rely on the same arguments as for claim 1. See
App. Br. 13. We, therefore, also sustain the Examiner’s anticipation
rejection of claims 2, 3, 6, 8, and 31.
4
Appeal 2016-004862
Application 13/239,925
Rejections under 103(a) claims 4, 5, 7, 9—11, and 32
Appellants have not presented separate arguments for dependent
claims 4, 5, 7, 9—11, and 32 (see App. Br. 14—17). Therefore, these claims
fall with the claims from which they depend. See 37 C.F.R.
§41.37(c)(l)(vi)(2012).
New Argument in Reply Brief
Regarding claim 3, Appellants contend that “as effectively admitted
on page 3 of the Examiner’s Answer— the rejection of dependent claim 3
relies on the first embodiment in combination with the third and/or fourth
embodiments” (Reply Br. 3 (citations omitted)). Similar arguments are
made for claims 6 and 8 (see id.).
The Examiner’s statement of rejection for claims 3, 6, and 8 in the
Answer appears to be substantially the same as, if not identical to, the
statement of the rejection in the Final Office Action (see Ans. 3; Final Act.
4). Thus, Appellants could have presented the new argument in support of
claims 3, 6, and 8 in the Appeal Brief, such that we would have had benefit
of the Examiner’s evaluation of the argument in the responsive Answer.2
Appellants do not explain what good cause there might be to consider the
new argument. Appellants’ new argument is thus untimely and has,
accordingly, not been considered. See Ex parte Borden, 93 USPQ2d 1473
(BPAI 2010) (informative).
2 In the Response to Remarks section of the Final Office Action, the
Examiner states that “it’s not combinations of different embodiments which
meet the claims, but it is that each claim limitation(s) are met by each
respective (different) embodiments” (Final Act. 2), which effectively rebuts
Appellants’ contention regarding an admission by the Examiner.
5
Appeal 2016-004862
Application 13/239,925
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s § 102(e) and § 103(a) rejections Rl—R4.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
6