Ex Parte Milster et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 19, 2013

11515695 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 19, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte THOMAS DEAN MILSTER
and JAISOON KIM
____________

Appeal 2011-002170
Application 11/515,695
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, JEFFREY S. SMITH, and
DANIEL S. FISHMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2011-002170
Application 11/515,695

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1-20, which are all the claims pending in the application.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

Representative Claim
1. An apparatus comprising:
a lens;
a near-field transducer;
an alignment feature positioned adjacent to a surface of
the lens;
a detector for producing an alignment signal in response
to a portion of incident light reflected by the alignment feature
and a portion of the incident light reflected by the surface
adjacent to the alignment feature; and
an actuator for controlling alignment of the incident light
onto the near-field transducer in response to the alignment
signal.

Prior Art
Shingo US 6,845,066 B1 Jan. 18, 2005
Saito US 7,462,855 B2 Dec. 9, 2008

Examiner’s Rejections
Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Saito and Shingo.

Appeal 2011-002170
Application 11/515,695

3
ANALYSIS
Claim 1 recites a near-field transducer. The Examiner finds that
Shingo teaches a near-field transducer. Ans. 4, 6 (citing Shingo Fig 3,
element 32a; Fig. 6, element 52; col. 8 ll. 7-50). Appellants contend that a
near field transducer is a device for concentrating a light by using a surface
plasmon resonance phenomenon. App. Br. 5. Appellants contend that
elements 32a and 52 of Shingo are columnar protrusions of a solid
immersion lens (SIL), not near-field transducers. App. Br. 5-6.
We agree with Appellants. Figure 1 of Appellants’ Specification
shows a protrusion from a SIL 34 which functions as an alignment feature.
Spec. ¶ 19. Figures 1 and 2 show a near-field transducer 30 which is a bow
tie antenna structure. Id. ¶¶19-21. The Examiner has not persuasively
explained how a protrusion from a lens as shown in Figures 3 and 6 of
Shingo teaches a near-field transducer.
We do not sustain the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Claims 2-20 contain, or depend from a claim that contains, a limitation
similar to that found in claim 1 for which the rejection fails.

DECISION
The rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Saito and Shingo is reversed.

REVERSED

msc