Ex Parte Klein et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 30, 2016

12656677 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 30, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/656,677 02/12/2010
20529 7590 10/04/2016
NATH, GOLDBERG & MEYER
Joshua Goldberg
112 South West Street
Alexandria, VA 22314
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Michael Klein
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
30632U 5929
EXAMINER
BUI-PHO, PASCAL M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2878
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/04/2016 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address( es):
USPTO@nathlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MICHAEL KLEIN,
CHRISTOPH MARKLE,
and BERNHARD SCHINDLER
Appeal2015-005345
Application 12/656,677
Technology Center 2800
Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, JULIA HEANEY, and
MICHAEL G. McMANUS, Administrative Patent Judges.
HANLON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
A. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants filed an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from an Examiner's
decision rejecting claims 1--4. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
Independent claim 1 is reproduced below from the Claims Appendix of the
Supplemental Appeal Brief dated March 3, 2015 ("Supp. Br."). 1
1 The Examiner states that the Examiner's Answer "is in response to the appeal
brief filed 15 January 2015." Examiner's Answer dated March 11, 2015 ("Ans."),
Appeal2015-005345
Application 12/656,677
1. An optoelectronic sensor having a transmitter for the
transmission of a transmitted light beam which is extended
perpendicular to a transmitted beam direction by means of an optical
transmission system,
a receiver for the reception of received light and for the
provision of an electronic received signal and an evaluation unit for
the recording of the received signal and for the outputting of an object
detection signal,
wherein at least the transmitter and the optical transmission
system are arranged in a sensor housing having a front screen, the
front screen being elongated in a direction perpendicular to the
transmitted beam direction and overlaid with patterns of light
absorbing material,
wherein the patterns of light absorbing material comprise
regions of light absorbing material spaced more densely towards a
middle portion of the front screen and regions of light absorbing
material spaced less densely towards outer portions of the front
screen.
Supp. Br. 11.
The claims on appeal stand rejected as follows:
(1) claims 1and2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Schwarz2 in view of Takami; 3
(2) claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Schwarz in
view of Takami, further in view of Asper et al.; 4 and
(3) claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Schwarz in
view of Takami and Asper, further in view of Robinson et al. 5
at 1. However, the Examiner states that the "supplemental appeal brief filed 03
March 2015, set[s] forth in the appendix the proper appealed claims." Ans. 1.
2 US 6,975,404 B2, issued December 13, 2005 ("Schwarz").
3 US 2004/0173757 Al, published September 9, 2004 ("Takami").
4 US 7,655,896 B2, issued February 2, 2010 ("Asper").
5 US 5,616,912 A, issued April 1, 1997 ("Robinson").
2
Appeal2015-005345
Application 12/656,677
B. DISCUSSION
The Examiner finds, and the Appellants do not dispute, that Schwarz
discloses an optoelectronic sensor having a transmitter and a receiver arranged in a
sensor housing as recited in claim 1. Non-Final 2-3.6 The Examiner finds
"Schwarz however lacks a clear disclosure of said sensor housing having a front
screen" as claimed. Non-Final 3. Thus, the Examiner turns to Takami and finds
"[i]n an analogous optics field of endeavor, Takami discloses in Fig. 9 an apparatus
comprising, among other features, a front screen ( 12) [as recited in claim 1]."
Non-Final 3.
The Appellants do not direct us to any error in the Examiner's finding that
Takami discloses "a front screen (12) being elongated in a direction perpendicular
to the transmitted beam direction and overlaid with patterns of light absorbing
material, wherein the patterns of light absorbing material comprise regions of light
absorbing material spaced more densely towards a middle portion of the front
screen and regions of light absorbing material spaced less densely towards outer
portions of the front screen" as recited in claim 1.7 Non-Final 3. Rather, the
Appellants argue that "[c]ontrary to the optoelectronic sensor claimed by
Appellant, the image analysis device of Takami teaches away from a
homogenization of light intensity in the z direction." Br. 8 (emphasis omitted). 8
More specifically, the Appellants argue that the claimed arrangement of the
patterns of light absorbing material "'attenuates the transmitted light more
6 Non-Final Office Action dated October 3, 2014.
7 The Appellants also do not dispute that it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to modify Schwarz by adding the front screen disclosed in
Takami. See Non-Final 4.
8 Appeal Brief dated January 15, 2015. See Ans. 1.
3
Appeal2015-005345
Application 12/656,677
centrally in the z direction than upwardly or downwardly toward the margins.'"
Br. 8 (citing Spec. 7, 11. 2-3). In contrast, the Appellants argue that "the image
analysis device [disclosed in Takami] is configured to reduce the amount of light
that is transmitted through a middle portion of the front screen" and filter 12
(corresponding to the claimed front screen) "does not provide for homogenization
of the light beam. "9 Br. 8 (emphasis omitted).
To the extent that the image analysis device disclosed in Takami operates
differently than the claimed sensor, it is well settled that "the name of the game is
the claim." In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 1998). On this
record, the Appellants do not direct us to any language in claim 1 that patentably
distinguishes the claimed front screen from filter 12 disclosed in Takami. For that
reason and reasons provided in the Examiner's Answer, the§ 103(a) rejection of
claim 1 is sustained.
The Appellants do not present arguments in support of the separate
patentability of any of dependent claims 2--4. Rather, the Appellants argue that the
remaining prior art of record does not "correct the deficiencies of Schwarz." Br. 9.
For the reasons set forth above and reasons provided in the Examiner's Answer,
there are no deficiencies in the combination of Schwarz and Takami that require
curing by either Asper or Robinson in the rejection of claim 1.
The§ 103(a) rejection of claims 2--4 is also sustained.
9 Takami discloses that "by varying the filter transmittance so that it is lowest at
the filter center and increases with the distance from the center, it is possible to
decrease the central intensity, thereby minimizing the difference in intensity
between the center and the peripheral areas, even for diffraction patterns with a
high central intensity." Takami i-f 24.
4
Appeal2015-005345
Application 12/656,677
C. DECISION
The Examiner's decision is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this
appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l).
AFFIRMED
5