Ex parte Charnitski et al.

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 17, 1998

07981919 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 17, 1998)

Application for patent filed November 23, 1992. 1
According to appellants, this application is a continuation of
Application 07/779,655 filed October 21, 1991.
-1-
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today
(1) was not written for publication in a law journal and
(2) is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 33
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCE
_____________
Ex parte GEORGE A. CHARNITSKI, ROBERT H. MELINO,
STEPHEN C. CORONA and JAMES D. REES
_____________
Appeal No. 95-2333
Application 07/981,9191
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before KRASS, JERRY SMITH and CARMICHAEL, Administrative
Patent Judges.
CARMICHAEL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal No. 95-2333
Application 07/981,919
-2-
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims
1, 3, and 6-8. The other remaining claims, claims 5 and 9,
were allowed by the examiner.
Claim 1 reads as follows:
1. In a printer system, a line exposure apparatus
for creating line images on a photoreceptor moving in a
process direction comprising:
at least one image print bar including a linear
array of light emitting diodes (LEDs), each of said LEDs
having an individual light output when pulsed, and a linear
gradient index lens array having a center portion and a first
and second end portion, for focusing light outputs from said
LEDs to form said line images with an active write length onto
said photoreceptor, and
means for deforming each said lens array by applying
at least a force F in a direction perpendicular to a surface
of the lens array to change said active write length by a
distance X.
The examiner’s Answer cites admitted prior art and
the following references:
Dannatt 4,427,284 Jan. 24,
1984
Harrigan et al. (Harrigan) 4,589,736 May 20,
1986
Hegg 4,904,049 Feb. 27,
1990
OPINION
Claims 1, 3, and 6-8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
Appeal No. 95-2333
Application 07/981,919
-3-
§ 103 as unpatentable over admitted prior art in view of
Dannatt, Harrigan, and Hegg.
Appellants’ specification describes admitted prior
art shown in Figure 1.
The examiner finds the admitted prior art discloses
all of the claimed subject matter except the aspects involving
deforming the lens array. The examiner further finds that
Dannatt discloses those aspects. Still further, the examiner
finds that Dannatt suggested deforming the linear gradient
index lens array in the admitted prior art for the purpose
disclosed by Dannatt of modifying the linearity of an emitted
swath of light without disturbing the focal adjustment.
Examiner’s Answer at
4-5.
Appellants argue that Dannatt is non-analogous art.
Even if Dannatt were analogous art, appellants argue, Dannatt
seeks to improve focus and width characteristics of a scan
line and does not suggest improving the write length on a
photoreceptor surface by applying force to a linear lens
array. Appeal Brief at 11-13.
Appeal No. 95-2333
Application 07/981,919
-4-
We agree with the examiner’s findings and adopt them
as our own.
A reference is analogous art if it is the same field
of endeavor or is reasonably pertinent to the particular
problem with which the inventor was involved. In re Deminski,
796 F.2d 436, 442, 230 USPQ 313, 315 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In the
present case, applicants’ field of endeavor is optical imaging
and printing. Specification at 1. Dannatt’s field of
endeavor is the same, optical imaging and printing. Column 1,
lines 5-10. Thus, Dannatt satisfies the first prong of the
test for analogous art.
The particular problem with which the inventor was
involved was improving the accuracy of optically transmitted
images. Specification at 2. Dannatt is reasonably pertinent
to that problem. Column 1, lines 50-64. Thus, Dannatt
satisfies the second prong of the test for analogous art.
With respect to combining teachings in an
obviousness determination, the mere fact that the prior art
may be modified in the manner suggested by the examiner does
not make the modification obvious unless the prior art
suggested the desirability of the modification. In re Fritch,
Appeal No. 95-2333
Application 07/981,919
-5-
972 F.2d 1260, 1266 n.14, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1783-84 n.14 (Fed.
Cir. 1992). In the present case, we find that the prior art
suggested the desirability of the modification.
The admitted prior art is a printer system with LED
arrays for illuminating line images. Dannatt teaches applying
a force perpendicular to a side surface of a lens array,
deforming the lens array in order to modify linearity of a
swath of light in an optical printing system without
disturbing the focal adjustment. We find that Dannatt
suggested deforming the linear gradient index lens array in
the admitted prior art for the purpose disclosed by Dannatt of
modifying the linearity of an emitted swath of light without
disturbing the focal adjustment. We further find that in
modifying linearity of the transmitted light, Dannatt changes
the length of the transmitted image line. Column 1, lines 54-
58; Figure 3. Thus, Dannatt suggested deforming the linear
gradient index lens array in the admitted prior art so as to
change the active write length as claimed.
Dannatt states that his invention is applicable to
any flexible lens including virtually any plastic lens.
Column 3, lines 1-5. We recognize that the lens array of
Appeal No. 95-2333
Application 07/981,919
-6-
Dannatt’s preferred embodiment focuses light on an original
document to be copied, column 2, lines 51-55, whereas the
admitted prior art lens array focuses light on a
photosensitive medium, Specification at 1-2. Nonetheless, we
find that Dannatt’s suggestion, of deforming the lens array in
order to modify linearity of a swath of light without
disturbing the focal adjustment, would have been seen by the
skilled artisan as applicable to the lens array in the
admitted prior art.
Therefore, we will affirm the rejection.
The Harrigan and Hegg references, although not
necessary to our decision, provide additional evidence of
obviousness. We adopt the examiner’s treatment of these
references.
CONCLUSION
The rejection of Claims 1, 3, and 6-8 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
Appeal No. 95-2333
Application 07/981,919
-7-
ERROL A. KRASS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
JERRY SMITH ) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
JAMES T. CARMICHAEL )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Joseph R. Sakmyster
Ronald Zibelli
Xerox Corporation, Xerox Square -020
Rochester, NY 14644