Ex Parte Hult

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Dec 20, 2010

11259088 (B.P.A.I. Dec. 20, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________

Ex parte DAVID A. HULT
__________

Appeal 2009-009526
Application 11/259,088
Technology Center 2800
___________

Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, CHUNG K. PAK, and
MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judges.

HANLON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE”
(paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery
mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.
Appeal 2009-009526
Application 11/259,088

2
A. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from an Examiner’s decision
finally rejecting claims 1-10 and 16-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Tsuji (US 7,324,187 B2, issued January 29, 2008). We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
The subject matter on appeal is directed to a system and apparatus
comprising a detector array mounted on an edge of a reticle-masking blade
device. Claim 1 is illustrative.
1. A reticle masking blade system, comprising:
a reticle-masking blade device; and
a detector array mounted on an edge of a blade of the
blade device.

App. Br., Claims Appendix (emphasis added).2
B. ISSUE
Did the Examiner reversibly err in concluding that it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to mount a detector array on an
edge of a reticle-masking blade device in view of the teachings in Tsuji?
C. DISCUSSION
The Examiner finds that Tsuji discloses a reticle-masking blade
device (801-804) and a detector array (820, 821) mounted on the blade
device.3 The Examiner finds that Tsuji does not expressly disclose that the
detector array (820, 821) is mounted on an edge of the blade device. Ans.

2 Appeal Brief dated September 24, 2008.
3 The Examiner also found that Tsuji discloses a plurality of sensors (121)
placed around a blade 15. Ans. 6-7. However, Tsuji discloses that reference
numeral 15 refers to an aperture stop, not a blade device. See, e.g., Tsuji
11:41-45.
Appeal 2009-009526
Application 11/259,088

3
4.4 However, the Examiner contends that in the broadest sense, the sensors
(820, 821) can be interpreted as being mounted on the horizontal edges of
the blade device. Ans. 7. The Examiner directs our attention to Tsuji Figure
8, reproduced below. Ans. 3.

Tsuji Figure 8 depicts a masking blade.
The claims on appeal recite, inter alia, that a detector array (i.e., at
least two detectors) is mounted on “an edge” of the blade device. In other
words, the at least two detectors that comprise the array are mounted on a
single edge of the blade device.
The Appellant argues that the sensors 820, 821 are not mounted on
“an edge of the blade device” as claimed but rather are located “on opposite
portions of arcuate illumination region [812].” Br. 14.
The Appellant’s argument is supported by the record. See, e.g., Tsuji
9:17-26. At best, the sensors 820 and 821 can be said to be mounted on

4 Examiner’s Answer dated November 24, 2008.
Appeal 2009-009526
Application 11/259,088

4
different edges of the blade device, i.e., an edge of light blocking plate 804
and an edge of light blocking plate 803, respectively.
Relying on In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019 (CCPA 1950), the Examiner
also contends that it would have been per se obvious to arrange the detectors
(820, 821) of Tsuji on an edge of the blade device as claimed. Ans. 4, 8.
The Court does not look favorably on per se rules of obviousness. See
In re Ochiai, 71 F.3d 1565, 1570 (Fed. Cir. 1995 (no per se rule of
obviousness exists). Therefore, we decline to adopt the Examiner’s
reasoning that it would have been per se obvious to arrange the detectors of
Tsuji as claimed.
As explained in In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006), there
must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to
support the legal conclusion of obviousness. On this record, the Examiner
has failed to establish that one of ordinary skill in the art would have seen a
benefit in mounting more than one sensor on a single edge of the blade
device disclosed in Tsuji. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,
424 (2007) (the proper question to have asked was whether one of ordinary
skill in the art would have seen a benefit to upgrading Asano with a sensor).
Therefore, the Examiner’s § 103(a) rejection will be reversed.
D. DECISION
The decision of the Examiner is reversed.

REVERSED
tc

STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C.
1100 NEW YORK AVENUE, N.W.
WASHINGTON, DC 20005