Ex Parte Ryaboy et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 2, 2016

13609134 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 2, 2016)

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.
13/609,134 09/10/2012 Vyacheslav M. Ryaboy 0069_100IRV_04CON1 7844
45134 7590 06/02/2016
NEWPORT CORPORATION
1791 DEERE AVENUE
IRVINE, CA 92606
EXAMINER
MARSH, STEVEN M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3632
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/02/2016 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte VYACHESLAV M. RYABOY, WARREN BOOTH,
and THOMAS RIGNEY II
____________________

Appeal 2014-004811
Application 13/609,134
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, WILLIAM A. CAPP, and
SEAN P. O’HANLON, Administrative Patent Judges.

BAHR, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Vyacheslav M. Ryaboy et al. (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–18. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

Appeal 2014-004811
Application 13/609,134

2
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter.
1. A table assembly, comprising:
a table with a first surface configured to support a payload
and a second surface;
a structure that is coupled to said second surface;
a housing movably attached to an external surface of said
first surface of said table;
a vibration sensor located within said housing and coupled
to said table; and,
a damper located within said housing and coupled to said
table.

REJECTIONS
I. Claims 1–6, 8, 9, and 11–17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Teel (US 6,511,035, iss. Jan. 28, 2003).
II. Claims 7, 10, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Teel.

DISCUSSION
Rejection I
Claims 1–6:
The Examiner finds that Teel discloses, in pertinent part, “a table
assembly comprising a table (12) with a first surface (bottom of 12)
configured to support a payload and a second surface (the top of 12) . . . and
a housing (34) movably attached to an external surface of the first surface of
the table.” Final Act. 2.
Appeal 2014-004811
Application 13/609,134

3
Appellants contend, “Teel fails to disclose a table assembly
comprising a table assembly [sic] that includes a table with a first surface
configured to support a payload and having a housing movably attached to
an external surface of the first surface of the table.” Br. 8–9. Furthermore,
Appellants submit that “the Examiner[’s] interpretation of the [sic] Teel is
not supported by the Teel reference itself,” which “separately describes the
platform (12) and the legs (14).” Id. at 9.
The Examiner finds that “while the first surface of Teel is not in direct
contact with the payload, the first surface is part of the structure that
supports the payload.” Final Act. 5. The Examiner explains that the bottom
of Teel’s platform 12 is configured to support a payload “because a payload
would sit on the top surface of the table with the weight of the table and the
payload supported by it all supported by the bottom surface which is
attached to the legs.” Ans. 6. Stated differently, any force applied to the top
surface of platform 12 would transfer to the bottom surface, thus making the
bottom surface act as a support in conjunction with the legs when a force or
payload is applied to the top surface. The Examiner bases the finding that
the bottom surface is configured to support a payload on the fact that when a
payload is applied to the top surface of Teel’s platform 12, the weight and
force is transferred to the bottom surface of platform 12, such that the
bottom surface of platform 12 supports the payload. Notably, claim 1 does
not require that the first surface be a top surface or that the payload be
placed directly thereon. Moreover, Appellants’ Specification discloses that
“[t]he working surface [(i.e., the surface that supports the payload)] of this
support structure may be horizontal, vertical or even inclined.” Spec. 25; see
id. at 7 (pointing out that “[d]eployment of vibration measurement systems
Appeal 2014-004811
Application 13/609,134

4
. . . on the working surface of the table would detract from the valuable
payload space,” thereby indicating that the “working surface” corresponds to
the claimed “surface configured to support a payload”). Thus, consistent
with Appellants’ Specification, the payload-supporting surface need not face
upward so as to support a payload by having the payload placed directly
thereon. Accordingly, the Examiner’s reading of the claimed “first surface
configured to support a payload” on the bottom surface of Teel’s
platform 12 appears reasonable, and Appellants do not apprise us why the
Examiner’s reading is unreasonable.
Claim 1 requires a “housing movably attached to an external surface
of said first surface of said table.” Br. 12, Claims App. Appellants’
Specification discloses “a vibration damper assembly that can be attached
and moved about a surface of a table or other work surface,” and that
includes a “housing [that] may be attached to any surface of the table or
work surface.” Spec. 11. The Specification states further:
The housing may be configured to attach to a surface of a table
or platform using one or more fasteners. For example, in one
embodiment the vibration damper may be detachably coupled
[to] a surface of a table or platform. As such, an operator can
move the vibration damper assembly to different locations of the
table or platform, thereby permitting the operator to optimize the
damping function of the assembly.
Id. at 11–12. Consistent with this description, we construe “movably
attached” to mean detachably coupled or attached in a removable manner
that permits the housing to be moved to a different location of the table.
In addressing Appellants’ arguments directed to a housing movably
attached to an external surface of the first surface of the table, the Examiner
states, “the legs (14) of Teel are each housings, and therefore Teel discloses
Appeal 2014-004811
Application 13/609,134

5
a housing movably attached to an external surface of the first surface of the
table.” Ans. 5.
Teel’s Figure 3 illustrates legs 14, isolator 30, and platform 12 being
attached with brackets and threaded fasteners, thus establishing by a
preponderance of the evidence that the legs and isolator are removably
attached to the first surface (bottom) of platform 12, as required by claim 1.
To the extent that Appellants may be arguing that the attachment of outer
housing 34 of Teel’s isolator to leg 14, as well as to the bottom of
platform 12, somehow precludes it from being a housing movably attached
to an external surface of the first surface (bottom of platform 12), we do not
agree.
For the above reasons, Appellants fail to apprise us of error in the
rejection of claim 1. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 1 and its
dependent claims 2–6, for which Appellants do not present any separate
arguments for patentability and which, thus, fall with claim 1, under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Teel. See Br. 9 (“For these reasons,
[Appellants request] withdrawal of the final rejection of independent claims
1 and 12, and claims 2-6 and 13-17, which variously depend from claims 1
or 12.”).
Claims 12–17:
Appellants point out that claim 12 “explicitly states ‘at least one
vibration isolator coupled to said second surface, the vibration isolator
configured to support the table,’” and assert that this evidences that the
Examiner’s interpretation of the first surface and second surface of Teel’s
platform “is not consistently being applied with respect to the rejection of
claims 1 and 12.” Br. 9. We find no inconsistency in the Examiner’s
Appeal 2014-004811
Application 13/609,134

6
position. The language “coupled to” does not require that the vibration
isolator be in direct contact with, or directly coupled to, the second support
surface. Cf. Douglas Dynamics LLC v. Buyers Prods. Co., 717 F.3d 1336,
1342 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (“The ordinary meaning of ‘connected to’
encompasses indirect linkages.”). The active and passive isolators of Teel’s
isolators 30 are coupled to the bottom (first) surface of platform 12 and, via
the platform, are indirectly coupled to the top (second) surface of
platform 12.
Appellants advance no additional arguments, aside from those
presented for claim 1 and discussed above, for the patentability of claim 12.
Br. 9. Thus, Appellants fail to apprise us of error in the rejection of claim
12. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 12 and its dependent
claims 13–17, for which Appellants do not present any separate arguments
for patentability and which, thus, fall with claim 12, under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Teel. See Br. 9 (“For these reasons, [Appellants
request] withdrawal of the final rejection of independent claims 1 and 12,
and claims 2-6 and 13-17, which variously depend from claims 1 or 12.”).
Claims 8, 9, and 11:
In addition to the arguments advanced for claims 1 and 12, discussed
above, Appellants further contend, “the present application clearly
distinguishes vibration dampers from vibration isolators. More specifically,
vibration isolators isolate the table from vibration transmitted to the table
through the support structure or legs. In contrast, vibration dampers damp
the vibration of the surface supporting the payload.” Br. 10. For the reasons
that follow, this argument is unpersuasive.
Appeal 2014-004811
Application 13/609,134

7
We turn to Appellants’ Specification to ascertain the manner in which
the terms “damper” and “damping” are used in Appellants’ application.
Appellants’ Specification refers to “[p]assive dampers,” such as those made
of visco-elastic material and tuned dampers comprising mass-spring
systems, and also refers to “[a]ctive dampers” or “controllable dampers,”
such as “damper 50” including “actuator 52 such as a voice coil that can be
excited to induce a vibration that offsets and cancels the vibration within the
table” and “damper 118,” which “may include one or more active actuators,”
that exert an active force on the table that “emulates the effect of a viscous
damper in the frequency domain encompassing the main natural frequencies
of the vibration of the table top.” Spec. 3–5, 16–17, 19, 22, 26. In one
embodiment, Appellants disclose an active damper employing piezoelectric
actuators. Id. at 26. Thus, in light of Appellants’ Specification, the terms
“damping” and “damper” encompass both passive dampers and active
dampers (i.e., controllable actuators which offset and cancel vibrations).
Teel’s isolator 30 uses an active damper (isolator assembly 40), which
includes piezoelectric actuator 44, a passive damper (filter assembly 54 with
elastomer 55), and an additional passive damper (passive isolator assembly
42) for damping vibrations. Teel, col. 3, l. 42–col. 4, l. 14; Fig. 3.
Appellants do not persuade us that these elements are not “dampers” that
perform “damping” as that terminology is used in the present application.
Thus, Appellants fail to apprise us of error in the rejection of claim 8.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 8 and its dependent claims 9
and 11, for which Appellants do not present any separate arguments for
patentability and which, thus, fall with claim 8, under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Teel. See Br. 10 (“For these reasons, [Appellants request]
Appeal 2014-004811
Application 13/609,134

8
withdrawal of the final rejection of independent claim 8 and claims 9 and
[11] which depend from claim 8.”).
Rejection II
In contesting this rejection, Appellants merely reiterate the same
arguments advanced against the rejection of claims 1, 8, and 12. Br. 10–11.
For similar reasons to those discussed above, these arguments fail to apprise
us of error in the rejection of claims 7, 10, and 18. Accordingly, we sustain
the rejection of claims 7, 10, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Teel.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–18 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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED