Ex Parte Endo et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 19, 2014

11467399 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 19, 2014)

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