Ex Parte Endo et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 19, 201411467399 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 19, 2014) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte TAKAFUMI ENDO, SHIGERU TOYOTA, and YOHEI NOKAMI ____________ Appeal 2011-008634 Application 11/467,3991 Technology Center 2800 ____________ Before THU A. DANG, CAROLYN D. THOMAS, and JAMES R. HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judges. THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL 1 The real party in interest is Mitsubishi Electric Corporation. Appeal 2011-008634 Application 11/467,399 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner finally rejecting claims 13-15, 23, and 24, all the claims pending in the application. Claims 1-12 and 16-22 are cancelled. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). An Oral Hearing was held on January 28, 2014. We REVERSE. The present invention relates generally to an image reading device for reading a hologram part of an irradiated member such as a bank note. Spec. 1:4-6. Claim 13 is illustrative: 13. An image reading device comprising: a conveying unit for conveying an irradiated member in a conveying direction, the irradiated member having a surface with a hologram area; a first light source for applying light to an irradiated part in the hologram area; a second light source separated from the first light source along the conveying direction, to apply light to an irradiated part in the hologram area when the hologram area is conveyed by a prescribed distance from a position at which the hologram area is irradiated by the first light source, and provided so as to apply light to the irradiated part when the hologram area is conveyed by the prescribed distance at an irradiation angle different from an irradiation angle at which the irradiated part is irradiated with the light of the first light source, a magnitude of the irradiation angle of the second light source being different from a magnitude of the irradiation angle of the first light source; Appeal 2011-008634 Application 11/467,399 3 first and second rod lens arrays for respectively converging the lights of the first and second light sources reflected by the irradiated part in the hologram area, a respective optical axis of the first and second rod lens arrays being disposed orthogonal to the surface of the irradiated member; first and second sensors for receiving the lights respectively converged by the first and second rod lens arrays to photoelectrically convert the lights; and a checking unit for comparing output signals of the first and second sensors with each other to check whether a hologram in the hologram area of the irradiated member is true or false. Appellants appeal the following rejections: R1. Claims 13 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Klock (WO 2004/080865 A1, Sept. 23, 2004); R2. Claims 14, 15, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Klock and Coombs (U.S. 6,473,165 B1, Oct. 29, 2002). ANALYSIS The representative claim, claim 13, recites, inter alia, “a checking unit for comparing output signals of the first and second sensors with each other.” Independent claim 14 recites a commensurate checking unit. Thus, the scope of each of the independent claims includes comparing signals. Claims 13 and 23 Issue: Did the Examiner err in finding that Klock discloses comparing signals? Appeal 2011-008634 Application 11/467,399 4 Appellants contend that “none of these cited portions [of Klock] disclose[] the comparing of output signals with each other” (App. Br. 7). We agree with Appellants. Although the Examiner found that in Klock “[t]he images are combined so that they can correspond properly” (Ans. 13), we find that “combining” signals is distinguishable from “comparing” signals. Specifically, Klock merely discloses that “the separately produced transmission and reflection images can be combined so that they correspond properly” (14:35-37). However, the claimed invention requires “comparing outputs signals of the first and second sensors” (claim 13) or “comparing the detecting signal . . . with [a] true hologram distribution map” (claim 14). A “comparison” entails discovering the resemblances or differences, whereas “combining” entails uniting into a single unit. We find no basis for the Examiner’s determination that Klock’s step for combining signals is equivalent to the claimed comparison step. The Examiner has not shown that Coombs makes up for deficiencies in Klock. In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the analysis set forth by the Examiner does not support the obviousness rejection. We, accordingly, do not sustain the rejection of independent claims 13 and 14, or the rejection of claims 15, 23, and 24 which are dependent thereon. Since we agree with at least one of the arguments advanced by Appellants, we need not reach the merits of Appellants’ other arguments. It follows that Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in finding that Klock alone, or in combination with Coombs, renders claims 13-15, 23, and 24 unpatentable. Appeal 2011-008634 Application 11/467,399 5 DECISION We reverse the Examiner’s § 103 rejections. REVERSED cdc Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation