Ex Parte Renntoft

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 31, 2012

10468292 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 31, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
10/468,292 08/19/2003 Per Renntoft 69993-254131 1990
26694 7590 07/31/2012
VENABLE LLP
P.O. BOX 34385
WASHINGTON, DC 20043-9998
EXAMINER
GISHNOCK, NIKOLAI A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3715
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/31/2012 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte PER RENNTOFT
____________________

Appeal 2010-005271
Application 10/468,292
Technology Center 3700
____________________

Before: JOHN C. KERINS, CHARLES N. GREENHUT, and
PATRICK R. SCANLON, Administrative Patent Judges.

GREENHUT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-005271
Application 10/468,292
2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1-
11 and 14-16. App. Br. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

The claims are directed to a system for aligning a firing simulator and
an aligning unit for the same. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of
the claimed subject matter:
1. A system for aligning a simulator arranged for firing and
mounted on a weapon, which weapon has aiming means,
wherein the simulator is equipped with at least one element
arranged so as to emit an electromagnetic beam out of the
simulator along a simulation axis, and adjusting means arranged
in the path of the electromagnetic beam and operable to adjust
the simulation axis so that it is aligned with an aiming axis, the
system including:
a sighting mark at which the weapon aiming means are to
be aimed during alignment so as to define the aiming axis from
the weapon to the sighting mark, and means arranged in
connection with the sighting mark to emit a beam along an axis
representing the aligned simulation axis, and
an aligning unit that is deployable at the simulator and
contains optics means arranged to reflect at least a first part of
the beam emitted from the element along an axis representing
the current position of the simulation axis, and position-
indicating means arranged so that the beam along the axis
representing the aligned simulation axis strikes the position-
indicating means at a point representing a set-point value for the
simulation axis, and so that the beam along the axis
representing the current simulation beam strikes the position
indicating means at a point representing an actual value for
simulation axis, and a control unit communicating with the
adjusting means, the control unit generating a control signal for
the adjusting means, the control signal being based on a relative
distance between the point representing the set-point value for
Appeal 2010-005271
Application 10/468,292
3
the simulation axis and the point representing the actual value
for the simulation axis, the adjusting means aligning the
simulation axis with the aiming axis based on the control signal.

REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Vauchy
Goda
Robertsson
US 4,173,414
US 4,464,974
WO 00/53993

Nov. 6, 1979
Aug. 14, 1984
Sep. 14, 2000
REJECTIONS
Claims 1-9, 11 and 14-161 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Goda and Vauchy. Ans. 3.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Goda and Robertsson. Ans. 10.

OPINION
As Appellant points out, the “adjusting means” of independent claims
1 and 8 is described in the Specification as “‘one or more optical wedges 10,
which are rotatable for setting and adjusting the simulation axis 4 extending
from the firing simulator 3.’” Reply Br. 2-3 citing Spec. 6:19-21; see also
Fig. 2A. The Examiner interprets Goda’s upper tilted mirror 16 as the
claimed adjusting means. Ans. 4. Goda’s upper tilted mirror is clearly not
“the corresponding structure . . . described in the specification” within the
meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph. Further, Goda’s mirror is not
“in the path of” either laser radiation axis 38, or reference radiation beam

1 Claims 12 and 13 appear to have been properly cancelled.
Appeal 2010-005271
Application 10/468,292
4
axis 46—the elements that appear to be interpreted by the Examiner as the
claimed “simulation axis” of the “electromagnetic beam.” Nor does Goda’s
mirror appear to be capable of adjusting those axes. Thus, it differs in
structure, function and result and cannot properly be considered an
“equivalent” of the claimed “adjusting means.” In re Donaldson Co., 16
F.3d 1189, 1195 (Fed. Cir. 1994); In re Iwahashi, 888 F.2d 1370, 1375 (Fed.
Cir. 1989).

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1-11 and 14-16 are reversed.

REVERSED

hh