Ex Parte Nakagawa et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 17, 2016

12295041 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 17, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
121295,041 09/29/2008 Yoshinori Nakagawa
52473 7590 03/21/2016
RATNERPRESTIA
P.O. BOX980
VALLEY FORGE, PA 19482-0980
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.
MAT-10220US 4867
EXAMINER
PAIK, SANG YEOP
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3742
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/21/2016 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):
ptocorrespondence@ratnerprestia.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte YOSHINORI NAKAGAWA and MITSUO HARA1
Appeal2013-001356
Application 12/295,041
Technology Center 3700
Before JOSIAH C. COCKS, BARRY L. GROSSMAN, and
MITCHELL G. WEATHERLY, Administrative Patent Judges.
COCKS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
1 The real party in interest is Panasonic Corporation.
Appeal2013-001356
Application 12/295,041
l. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection
of claims 1-11 of Application No. 12/295,041 ("the '041 Application").2
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
A. References Relied on by the Examiner
Muneyuki
Halford
Beeding
6,403,920
7,703,190
4,723,766
B. The Rejections on Appeal
The Examiner rejected the claims as follows:
Jun. 11, 2002
Apr. 27, 2010
Feb.9, 1988
(1) Claims 1, 2, and 5-7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Muneyuki and Halford; and
(2) Claims 3, 4, 8, 9, 10, and 11 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over Muneyuki, Halford, and Beeding. Final Rej. 2-3.
2 In this opinion, we make reference to: (1) the Final Rejection mailed
March 29, 2012 ("Final Rej."); (2) the Appeal Brief filed August 27, 2012
("App. Br."); (3) the Examiner's Answer mailed October 12, 2012 ("Ans.");
and (4) the Reply Brief filed November 1, 2012 ("Reply Br.").
Appeal2013-001356
Application 12/295,041
C. The Invention
The invention disclosed in the '041 Application is a laser
processing apparatus and method for laser processing a workpiece.
Figure 1 of the '041 Application is reproduced below.
FIG 1
Figure 1 illustrates an embodiment according to the invention. As
shown in Figure 1 above, laser beam 2 is emitted from laser oscillator 1 to
irradiate substrate 7 (i.e. workpiece). Spec. 9. Substrate 7 is located on
processing area P of XY table 8a. Id. at 10. Processing area Pis divided
into individual divided blocks 9 that move vertically in a manner that is
independent of each other. Id. Laser processing of substrate 7 occurs at
processed area R. Id. XY table 8a moves in the X direction or Y direction
Appeal2013-001356
Application 12/295,041
to move processed area R from one divided block 9 to the next divided block
9. Id.
Figure 3 ofthe'041 Application is reproduced below:
FIG. 3
Fig. 3 illustrates the configuration of the laser processing apparatus
according to the same embodiment. Id. at Figures. As shown in Figure 3
above, divided block 9b can be in a downward stopped state relative to
divided blocks 9a and 9c. Spec. 11. Processed area R corresponds to
downward stopped divided block 9b. Id. at 11-12. Divided blocks 9a, 9b,
and 9c each include intake holes 11 for holding substrate 7 by means of
suction. Id. at 11. While divided blocks 9a and 9c are in an upward stopped
state, intake holes 11 of divided blocks 9a and 9c intake air to hold substrate
7 by suction. Id. at 13. While divided block 9b is in a downward stopped
state, intake holes 11 of divided block 9b exhaust air. Id. This exhaust of air
through intake holes 11 of divided block 9b prevents intake holes 11 from
being clogged due to dust during processing. Id. at 11. Dust produced
Appeal2013-001356
Application 12/295,041
during processing can be collected through gap 10 formed between divided
blocks 9a and 9c while divided block 9b is in a downward stopped state. Id.
Claims 1, 10, and 11 are independent and are reproduced below:
l. A laser processing apparatus comprising:
a 1aser oscillator:
a reflecting mirror;
a Q:alvanometer minor:
.\._.; ·'
a kns; and
an XY table on which a workpiece is placed, vvherein the
XY table is composed of a plurality of divided blocks ve1iically
movable, each of the divided blocks having a top surface and a
bottom surface) and when one of the divided b1ocks moves down,
the top surface of the one of the divided bfocks is below the
bottom surfaces of others of the divided blocks,
l 0. A laser processing method for a laser processing apparatus
compnsmg:
placing a workpiece on an XY table of the laser processing
apparatus, wherein the XY table is composed of a plurality of
divided blocks verticaHy movable, each of the divided blocks
having a top surface and a bottom surface~ and when one of the
divided b1ocks moves down, the top surface of the one of the
divided blocks is below the bottom surfaces of others of the
divided blocks;
stopping at least the one of the divided blocks out of the
Pluralitv of divided blocks ve1iicallv nmvable while the one of ~ ~
the divided blocks is moving down;
forming a through hole by irradiating the workpiece in an
area coffesponding to a position directly above the one of the
divided blocks with a laser beam.
11. A laser processing method :for a laser processing apparatus
compnsmg:
placing a workpiece on an XY table of the laser processing
apparatus~ wherein the X\' table is composed of a plurality of
divided blocks vertically movable, each of the divided blocks
Appeal2013-001356
Application 12/295,041
having a top surface and a bottom surface, and when one of the
divided blocks moves down, the top surface of the one of the
divided blocks is below the bottom surfaces of others of the
divided blocks;
stopping at least the one of the divided blocks out of the
plurality of divided blocks vertically movable while the one of
the divided blocks is moving up;
forming a non-through hole by irradiating the workpiece
in an area corresponding to a position directly above the one of
the divided blocks with a laser beam.
App. Br. Claims App'x 8-10.
II. ISSUE
Is the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-11 under 35 U.S.C. 103
based on prior art supported on the record before us? More specifically, did
the Examiner correctly determine that the teachings of the prior art account
for the following limitation of claims 1, 10, and 11:
when one of the divided blocks moves down, the top surface of
the one of the divided blocks is below the bottom surface of
others of the divided blocks?
III. ANALYSIS
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, and 5-7 as unpatentable over
Muneyuki and Halford, and claims 3, 4, 8, 9, 10, and 11 as unpatentable
over Muneyuki, Halford, and Beeding. Claims 1, 10, and 11 are
independent and claims 2-9 ultimately depend from claim 1. Claim 1 recites
a laser processing apparatus and claims 10 and 11 recite a laser processing
method. Each of claims 1, 10, and 11 comprise the following limitation:
XY table is composed of a plurality of divided blocks
vertically movable, each of the divided blocks having a top
surface and a bottom surface, and when one of the divided blocks
Appeal2013-001356
Application 12/295,041
moves down, the top surface of the one of the divided blocks is
below the bottom surfaces of others of the divided blocks.
App. Br. Claims App'x 8-10.
Thus, the claims require that multiple divided blocks that are
vertically moveable with respect to one another, and that the top surface of a
block is moved downward to a position below the bottom surfaces of other
blocks. That requirement is the focus of the disagreement between the
Examiner and the Appellants. In that regard, the Examiner takes the
position that, based on Halford's teachings, it would have been obvious to
modify Muneyuki' s table to include a block that moves down such that its
top surface is below the bottom surfaces of other blocks. Final Rej. 2. The
Appellants challenge that position as inadequately supported. App. Br. 4---6.
We agree with the Appellants.
Muneyuki discloses a laser processing apparatus and method for laser
processing. Muneyuki 1: 6-9. Muneyuki' s Figure 1 is reproduced below:
Fig. 7
Appeal2013-001356
Application 12/295,041
Figure 1 is a perspective view representing the configuration of a laser
processing apparatus used in a laser processing method. Muneyuki 3 :7-9.
As shown in Figure 1 above, laser oscillator 1 outputs laser beam 2, which is
split into two laser beams 2a and 2b. Id. at 3:27-36. Laser beams 2a and 2b
are directed to processing areas B on board 7, which is positioned on XY
table 8. Id. at 3:36-40. Muneyuki does not disclose that any of those
processing areas are vertically moveable.
Halford is directed to a tooling system. Halford, Abstract. Halford's
Figure 4 is reproduced below:
\
66
Figure 4 shows the tool in which the surface contour of the tool is
being cut to a desired shape with a milling cutter. Id. at 4:27-29. As shown
in Figure 4 above, tool 15 includes a plurality of elements 18. Id. at 4:64--
66. Elements 18 are moved vertically relative to each other to produce an
Appeal2013-001356
Application 12/295,041
approximation of desired tool surface contour 22. Id. at 5:6-10. After
elements 18 are so positioned, milling cutter 62 machines the surfaces of the
elements into the desired contour. Id. at 5 :21-23. Positioning elements 18
prior to machining allows for a minimum amount of machining, thereby
minimizing the amount of each element 18 sacrificed in machining. Id. at
5:23-27.
The Examiner acknowledges that neither Muneyuki nor Halford
discloses that the top surface of any block is movable below the bottom
surfaces of others. Ans. 3. The Examiner, however, citing to In re Stevens3
and In re Boesch4, states that such movement would have been an obvious
matter of adjustment so as to "to choose the table element level through
process optimization." Id. at 3--4; Final Rej. 2.
The Examiner's reliance on In re Stevens and In re Boesch is
unpersuasive. In particular, the Examiner does not explain why any
"optimization" of the teachings of either Muneyuki or Halford would result
in the specific required positioning of the top surface of any one of
Muneyuki' s processing areas below the bottom surfaces of other processing
areas. To the extent the prior art would have been optimized by a skilled
artisan, such optimization would have been focused on positioning vertically
moveable processing areas of a table so as to minimize the amount of
machining required for any of an element being processed, as is suggested
by Halford. The Examiner provides no elucidation as to why the required
top surface positioning of a processing area relative to the bottom surfaces of
3 212 F.2d 197 (C.C.P.A. 1954).
4 617 F.2d 272 (C.C.P.A. 1980).
Appeal2013-001356
Application 12/295,041
other such processing areas arises as being an optimum or desired
positioning based on the teachings of the prior art.
We are not persuaded that the Examiner has explained why the
limitation in claims 1, 10, and 11 directed to the positioning of a block's top
surface relative to other block's bottom surfaces would have been derived
from the teachings of Muneyuki and Halford. We also are not persuaded
that Beeding provides any additional evidence tending to overcome that
deficiency. In that respect, the Examiner relies on Beeding to account for
additional claim features of claims 3, 4, and 8-11 and not to address the
pertinent limitation of claims 1, 10, and 11.
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the
Examiner's rejections of claims 1-11.
IV. CONCLUSION
The Examiner's rejections of claims 1-11 under 35 U.S.C. 103 based
on prior art are not supported on the record before us. More specifically, the
Examiner did not determine correctly that the teachings of the prior art
account for the following limitation of claims 1, 10, and 11:
when one of the divided blocks moves down, the top surface of
the one of the divided blocks is below the bottom surface of
others of the divided blocks.
V. ORDER
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-11 over the prior art is
reversed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this
appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
Appeal2013-001356
Application 12/295,041
REVERSED