Ex Parte Deladurantaye et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 19, 2012

11316568 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 19, 2012)

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.
11/316,568 12/21/2005 Pascal Deladurantaye 09680.0338US01 2178
23552 7590 10/19/2012
MERCHANT & GOULD PC
P.O. BOX 2903
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402-0903
EXAMINER
HAGAN, SEAN P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2828
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/19/2012 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte PASCAL DELADURANTAYE, YVES TAILLON,
and ROBERT LAROSE

Appeal 2010-006437
1

Application 11/316,568
Technology Center 2800
____________________

Before JEAN R. HOMERE, CAROLYN D. THOMAS, and CARL W.
WHITEHEAD JR, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1
The real party in interest is INSTITUT NATIONAL D’OPTIQUE. (App.
Br. 2.)
Appeal 2010-006437
Application 11/316,568

2
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1-8, 10-12, and 14-37. Claims 9 and 13 have been
canceled. (App. Br. 4.) We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appellants’ Invention
Appellants invented a system for processing a continuous beam (40)
obtained from a pulsed laser light source (10) to thereby produce optical
output pulses with a flexible shape. (Specification 1, ll. 4-6.) In particular,
the system utilizes two cascaded modulators (32, 54), each being
independently controlled by a separate pulse generator (34, 56), wherein the
modulators are synchronized to help determine the shape of the output
pulses as they pass therethrough. (Spec. 3, l. 26- spec. 4, l. 3, Fig. 2.)
Illustrative Claim
Independent claim 1 further illustrates the invention. It reads as
follows:
1. A pulsed laser light source for outputting optical
pulses having an adaptable pulse shape, comprising:
a continuous wave laser light source generating a
continuous light beam having spectral characteristics which
determine spectral characteristics of the optical pulses;
a first modulator and a first pulse generator connected to
the first modulator for transmitting a first drive signal thereto,
the first drive signal having controllable characteristics, the first
modulator being disposed to receive the continuous light beam
therethrough and temporally modulating the continuous light
beam according to said first drive signal so as to generate said
optical pulses; and
Appeal 2010-006437
Application 11/316,568

3
a second modulator and a second pulse generator
connected to the second modulator for transmitting a second
drive signal thereto, the second drive signal having controllable
characteristics, the second modulator being disposed to receive
the optical pulses therethrough, the second drive signal opening
the second modulator in at least a partial synchronization with
said optical pulses thereat, said controllable characteristics of
the first and second drive signal and said at least partial
synchronization being controlled to determine the pulse shape
of said optical pulses downstream of the second modulator.

Prior Art Relied Upon
Emmons, Jr. US 5,197,074 Mar. 23, 1993
Shichijyo US 5,809,048 Sep. 15, 1998
Waarts US 5,867,305 Feb. 2, 1999
Gu US 2004/0263949 A1 Dec. 30, 2004

Rejections on Appeal
The Examiner rejects the claims on appeal as follows:
1. Claims 1-5, 8, 10, 11, 12, and 14-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Shichijyo
and Emmons.
2. Claims 6, 7, 20, 21, and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over the combination of Shichijyo, Emmons,
and Waarts.
3. Claims 19 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Shichijyo, Emmons, and Gu.
Appeal 2010-006437
Application 11/316,568

4
4. Claims 23-29 and 37 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Shichijyo and
Waarts.
5. Claims 30-36 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Shichijyo, Waarts and
Emmons.

ANALYSIS
We consider Appellants’ arguments seriatim as they are presented in
the Appeal Brief, pages 9-18.
Representative Claim 1
Dispositive Issue: Have Appellants shown that the Examiner erred in
finding that the combination of Shichijyo and Emmons teaches or suggests
two modulators, each being coupled to a separate pulse generator, and the
modulators being synchronized to determine the pulse shape of optical
pulses passing therethrough, as recited in claim 1?

Appellants argue that Emmons does not describe the disputed
limitations emphasized above. (App. Br. 15.) In particular, Appellants
argue that while Emmons discloses Q-switching to generate optical pulses,
one of ordinary skill would not have been led to use a first and second
modulators being synchronized therein to determine the shape of optical
pulses. (Id.)
Appeal 2010-006437
Application 11/316,568

5
In response, the Examiner finds that Emmons’ disclosure of first and
second modulators coupled with separate generators teaches the disputed
limitations. (Ans. 4.)
Based upon our review of the record, we agree with the Examiner’s
underlying factual findings and ultimate conclusion of obviousness
regarding claim 1. Emmons discloses a laser system (70) including a light
beam emitted by a light source (22) passes through a first modulator (74)
coupled to a first pulse generator (36), and then passes through a second
modulator (72) coupled to a second pulse generator (66). Emmons further
discloses that upon exiting the second modulator, the trailing edge of the
output pulse is refined. (Col. 7, ll. 12-31, ll. 65-68, Fig. 4.)
We find that Emmons’ disclosure clearly teaches two modulators
being separately coupled to a generator. We also find that because the
output of the first modulator is fed as input to the second modulator to
thereby refine the pulse trailing edge, Emmons teaches that the two
modulators are synchronized to thereby achieve such result. That is,
Emmons teaches that the modulators are synchronized to help shape the
output of the pulses as they pass therethrough.
Further, we note that even if the components in Emmons’ disclosed
laser system did not perform the same functionalities as those recited in the
claim, Appellants would be unable to distinguish the merits of the disputed
limitations over Emmons’ based solely on the functional limitations of those
elements. Our reviewing court has indicated that while features of an
apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed
Appeal 2010-006437
Application 11/316,568

6
to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure
rather than function.” In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78 (Fed. Cir.
1997). We are therefore satisfied that the combination of Shichijyo and
Emmons teaches the disputed limitations. It follows that Appellants have
not shown that the Examiner erred in concluding that the proffered
combination renders claim 1 unpatentable.
Regarding claim 23, Appellants argue that Emmons does not disclose
two separate stages, each containing a separate modulator coupled with a
generator. (App. Br. 16-17.) This argument is unavailing. As discussed
above, we find that the two modulators and respective generators coupled
thereto as disclosed by Emmons teaches or suggests two separate stages that
are synchronized to refine the shape of a pulse passing therethrough. As
further discussed above, Appellants’ reliance upon the functionality of these
stages to distinguish the cited laser system over Emmons is not persuasive.
It follows that Appellants have not shown error in the Examiner’s rejection
of claim 23.
Claims 2-5, 8, 10-12, 14-18, 24-29, and 37 (not argued separately) fall
with claims 1 and/or 23. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Regarding claims 6, 7, 19-22, and 30-36, Appellants reiterate
substantially the same arguments presented above for patentability of claims
1 and/or 23. (App. Br. 17-18.) As discussed above, these arguments are not
persuasive. Further, Appellants argue that the additional references relied
upon do not cure the noted deficiencies. (Id.) We find no such deficiencies
Appeal 2010-006437
Application 11/316,568

7
in the proffered combination. Therefore, Appellants have not shown error in
the Examiner’s rejection of those claims.

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1-8, 10-12, and 14-37
as set forth above.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

ELD