Ex parte ONO

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 9, 1999

08246723 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 9, 1999)

Application for patent filed May 20, 1994.1
1
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today
(1) was not written for publication in a law journal and
(2) is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 22
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________
Ex parte SHUJI ONO
__________
Appeal No. 96-3128
Application 08/246,7231
__________
ON BRIEF
__________
Before URYNOWICZ, BARRETT, and FLEMING, Administrative Patent
Judges.
FLEMING, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal No. 96-3128
Application 08/246,723
2
This is a decision on appeal from the final rejection of
claims 1 through 27, all of the claims pending in the
application.
The invention relates to an optical information
processing system wherein light is utilized as a medium for
carrying information. In particular, the invention is
directed to an optical information processing system which
utilizes a constituent unit group. Appellant discloses on
page 19 of the specification that Figure 1 illustrates a
constituent unit group 1 having an input information
displaying means 2 which presents an optical pattern I0. The
constituent unit 1 also includes a plurality of optical
correlation operation means (3, 3,...). Each optical
correlation operation means 3 detects only a portion of
optical pattern I0 that falls within its predetermined range.
The arrows shown in Figure 1 illustrate the portion of the
optical pattern I0 that falls within the predetermined range
of each optical correlation operation means 3.
Independent claim 1 is reproduced as follows:
1. A constituent unit for an optical information
processing system, comprising:
Appeal No. 96-3128
Application 08/246,723
3
i) an input information displaying means for displaying
information as an optical pattern in at least one dimension,
ii) a plurality of optical correlation operation means,
which are located close to said input information displaying
means,
wherein each of said plurality of said optical
correlation operation means detects a respective portion of
said optical pattern displayed by said input information
displaying means, and
wherein each of said plurality of said optical
correlation operation means calculates a correlation value
between said portion of said optical pattern and a
predetermined value and outputs said correlation value, and
iii) a plurality of electric operation means,
wherein each of said plurality of said electric
operation means inputs said correlation value output from at
least one of said plurality of said optical correlation
operation means, and
wherein each of said plurality of said electric
operation means performs an operation based on said
correlation value input from said at least one of said optical
correlation operation means and outputs a result of said
operation.
The references relied on by the Examiner are as follows:
Peppers et al. (Peppers) 4,862,511 Aug. 29,
1989
Paek 5,121,228 Jun. 9,
1992
Appeal No. 96-3128
Application 08/246,723
Appellant filed an appeal brief on January 16, 1996. 2
Appellant filed a reply appeal brief on June 17, 1996. The
Examiner responded to the reply brief with a letter, mailed
July 3, 1996, stating that the reply brief has been entered
and considered but no further response by the Examiner is
deemed necessary.
4
Claims 1, 2, 4 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
102 as being anticipated by Peppers. Claims 3, 5 through 13
and 15 through 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Peppers in view of Paek.
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellant or the
Examiner, we make reference to the briefs and the answer for2
the details thereof.
OPINION
After a careful review of the evidence before us, we do
not agree with the Examiner that claims 1, 2, 4 and 14 are
anticipated by the applied references.
It is axiomatic that anticipation of a claim under § 102
can be found only if the prior art reference discloses every
Appeal No. 96-3128
Application 08/246,723
5
element of the claim. See In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1326,
231 USPQ 136, 138 (Fed. Cir. 1986) and Lindemann
Maschinenfabrik GMBH v. American Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F.2d
1452, 1458, 221 USPQ 481, 485 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Appellant argues on pages 7 and 8 of the brief that
Peppers fails to teach the Appellant's claimed limitations as
required under 35 U.S.C. § 102. In particular, Appellant
argues on
pages 13 through 17 of the brief that Peppers does not
disclose each optical correlation operation means only
detecting a portion of the optical pattern. Appellant points
out that Peppers discloses a device in which the entire
optical pattern is outputted to each correlation means 3a, 6a
and 7a as shown in Peppers' Figure 1. This point is further
emphasized in the reply brief.
On page 4 of the answer, the Examiner argues that Peppers
teaches correlation means which receives a portion of an image
pattern displayed. In particular, the Examiner directs our
attention to column 1, lines 6-13.
Appeal No. 96-3128
Application 08/246,723
6
Upon a careful review of Peppers, we fail to find that
Peppers teaches "each of said plurality of said optical
correlation operation means detects a respective portion of
said optical pattern displayed by said input information
displaying means" as recited in Appellant's claim 1.
Furthermore, we note that claims 2 through 27 recite the above
limitations. Column 1, lines 6-13, the portion of Peppers
that the Examiner has directed our attention, is the stated
field of invention. However, this is not a teaching of a
portion of the optical image being displayed is only received
by the optical correlation operation means. Peppers teaches
in column 7, line 68, to column 8, line 9, that the input
image formed on the screen of the display 1 is received by the
first lens of the array 3 and is multiplied by the image
formation lenses 3a as shown in Figure 1. Peppers further
teaches that the optical pattern images 5a shown in Figures 3
through 5 are formed on imaginary image formation plane 5.
Thus, the entire optical pattern is outputted to each
correlation means 3a, 6a and 7a shown in Peppers' Figure 1.
Therefore, we find that Peppers fails to teach all of the
Appeal No. 96-3128
Application 08/246,723
7
limitations of claims 1, 2, 4 and 14, and thereby the claims
are not anticipated by Peppers.
Claims 3, 5 through 13 and 15 through 27 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Peppers in
view of Paek. As we pointed out above, these claims require
that each of said plurality of said optical correlation
operation means detects a respective portion of said optical
pattern displayed by said input information displaying means.
The Examiner is arguing that Peppers teaches this limitation.
As point out above, we find that Peppers teaches detecting the
entire optical pattern displayed, and thereby fails to teach
the Appellant's claimed limitation. Upon a review of Paek, we
find that Paek fails to teach this limitation as well.
Therefore, we will not sustain the Examiner's rejection.
In view of the foregoing, the decision of the Examiner
rejecting claims 1 through 27 is reversed.
REVERSED
)
STANLEY M. URYNOWICZ, JR. )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 96-3128
Application 08/246,723
8
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
LEE E. BARRETT )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
MICHAEL R. FLEMING )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 96-3128
Application 08/246,723
9
Sughrue, Mion, Zinn, MacPeak & Seas
2100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20037