Ex parte Genovese

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 25, 2001

08674308 (B.P.A.I. May. 25, 2001)

Application for patent filed July 1, 1996, entitled1
"Single Sensor Laser Beam Synchronizer And Intensity
Regulator."
- 1 -
The opinion in support of the decision being
entered today was not written for publication
and is not binding precedent of the Board.
_______________
Paper No. 9
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES

Ex parte FRANK C. GENOVESE

Appeal No. 1999-1117
Application 08/674,3081

ON BRIEF

Before BARRETT, LALL, and BLANKENSHIP, Administrative Patent
Judges.
BARRETT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal No. 1999-1117
Application 08/674,308
- 2 -
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from
the final rejection of claims 1-9.
We reverse.
BACKGROUND
The disclosed invention relates to laser beam intensity
control and start of scan detection in laser raster output
scanners. The control of laser beam intensity is important
for optimal exposure control and the detection of the start of
each scan line enables the synchronization of the modulation
with the position of the photoreceptor. In the prior art,
start of scan detection and beam intensity control were
performed using separate photodetectors and separate
electronic systems. The invention relates to performing start
of scan detection and beam intensity control using a single
photosensor.
Claim 1 is reproduced below.
1. A raster output scanner, comprising:
a laser source for generating a laser beam having an
intensity that is dependent upon a beam control signal;
a rotating polygon for sweeping the laser beam along
a scan line plane;
an optical fiber with a light receiving end and an
[sic] light exit end, wherein said light receiving end is
Appeal No. 1999-1117
Application 08/674,308
- 3 -
positioned in the scan line plane so as to intercept at
least a portion of the sweeping laser beam;
a photodetector for converting the intercepted laser
beam that leaves said exit end into a beam current which
depends upon said laser beam intensity;
a scan detection circuit for producing a
start-of-scan signal from said beam current; and
a beam intensity circuit for producing said beam
control signal from said beam current.
The Examiner relies on the following references:
Saito 4,978,975 December 18, 1990
Okinoshima et al. (Okinoshima) 5,314,979 May 24,
1994
Morehouse, Jr. et al. (Morehouse) 5,519,473 May 21,
1996
Caruso 5,592,298 January 7, 1997
(filed June 3,
1994)
Asada GB 2,235,317 February 27, 1991
(United Kingdom patent application)
Claims 1 and 2 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Asada and Saito.
Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Asada and Saito, further in view of
Okinoshima.
Claims 4, 5, 8, and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Caruso, Asada, and Saito.
Appeal No. 1999-1117
Application 08/674,308
- 4 -
Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Caruso, Asada, and Saito, further in view of
Okinoshima.
Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Caruso, Asada, and Saito, further in view of
Morehouse.
We refer to the final rejection (Paper No. 5) (pages
referred to as "FR__") and the examiner's answer (Paper No. 8)
(pages referred to as "EA__") for a statement of the
Examiner's position, and to the brief (Paper No. 7) for a
statement of Appellant's arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
The only issue is whether the claims recite that both
start of scan detection and beam intensity control are derived
from the output of a single photosensor. Appellant relies
solely on this argument for patentability of the claims. The
Examiner states that the feature of only one photosensor for
producing both a start of scan signal and beam intensity
signal is not recited in the claims (FR8; EA9-10), which
explains why the Examiner's rejection does address this
feature. We agree with Appellant's findings that none of the
Appeal No. 1999-1117
Application 08/674,308
- 5 -
references teach or suggest this feature. In particular,
Asada teaches two separate sensors, one for scan detection
(e.g., photodetector 22 in figure 2) and one for intensity
control (e.g., photodetector 9 in figure 2).
Claims 1 and 4 recite, in relevant part:
a photodetector for converting the intercepted laser
beam that leaves said exit end into a beam current which
depends upon said laser beam intensity;
a scan detection circuit for producing a
start-of-scan signal from said beam current; and
a beam intensity circuit for producing said beam
control signal from said beam current. [Emphasis added.]
Only one photodetector which produces a beam current is
recited. Both the scan detection circuit and the beam
intensity circuit refer to "said beam current," which must be
the beam current produced by the single claimed photodetector,
the only beam current for which there is antecedent basis.
The Examiner has not explained how the claim language can be
interpreted in any other way. Accordingly, we conclude that
the Examiner erred in interpreting the claims as not requiring
the feature of only one photosensor for producing both a start
of scan signal and beam intensity signal. Because none of the
references teach or suggest that both start of scan detection
Appeal No. 1999-1117
Application 08/674,308
- 6 -
and beam intensity control are derived from the beam current
output of a single photosensor, the rejections of claims 1-9
are reversed.
REVERSED
LEE E. BARRETT )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
PARSHOTAM S. LALL ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 1999-1117
Application 08/674,308
- 7 -
Ronald Zibelli
XEROX CORPORATION
Xerox Square 20A
Rochester, NY 14644