Ex Parte Ryu et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 10, 2006

10140619 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 10, 2006)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written for
publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte MIN-SEONG RYU, SANG-YUP SONG
and TAE-HOON KIM
____________
Appeal No. 2006-0126
Application No. 10/140,619
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before BARRETT, OWENS, and RUGGIERO, Administrative Patent Judges.
OWENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This appeal is from a rejection of claims 1-5, which are all
of the pending claims.
THE INVENTION
The appellants claim a junction device and method for joining
together with adhesive a planar lightwave circuit chip and an
optical-fiber block. Claims 1 and 4 are illustrative:
1. A junction device for assembling a PLC (Planar
Lightwave Circuit) chip and an optical-fiber block,
comprising: an adhesive material disposed between the PLC
chip and the optical-fiber block, the PLC chip and the
optical-fiber block having an inclined surface area at a
predetermined angle; an ultraviolet-light source
Appeal No. 2006-0126
Application No. 10/140,619
2
positioned over the ultraviolet-hardening adhesive for
providing an ultraviolet ray to harden the adhesive
material and disposed slanted in alignment with the
inclined surface area; an optical sensor also disposed
slanted in alignment with the inclined surface area and
positioned under the ultraviolet-hardening adhesive for
measuring a power change of the ultraviolet ray that has
penetrated the adhesive material; an optical power-meter
for displaying the power change in the ultraviolet ray
based on the output from the optical sensor; and, a
controller for detecting when the adhesive material is
completely hardened based on the output from the optical
power-meter.
4. A method for assembling a PLC (Planar Lightwave
Circuit) module, the method comprising the steps of:
providing a device having a PLC (Planar Light Circuit)
chip and an optical-fiber block, the contacting surface
between the PLC chip and the optical-fiber block having
an inclined contact area at a predetermined angle;
providing an adhesive material between the contact area
of the PLC chip and the optical-fiber block; slanting an
ultraviolet ray into alignment with said inclined contact
area in applying the ray to the adhesive material at the
predetermined angle to harden the adhesive material; and,
monitoring a change in the ultraviolet-ray output that
penetrated the adhesive material in a substantially
vertical direction.
THE REFERENCES
Reference relied upon by the examiner
Kojima et al. 2002/0033546 A1 Mar. 21, 2002
(Kojima ‘546, U.S. patent application publication)
Reference relied upon by the appellants
Kojima et al. 2003/0026919 A1 Feb. 6, 2003
(Kojima ‘919, U.S. patent application publication)
Appeal No. 2006-0126
Application No. 10/140,619
3
THE REJECTION
Claims 1-5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over the appellants’ admitted prior art in view of
Kojima ‘546.
OPINION
We affirm the aforementioned rejection.
The appellants acknowledge that each element of the claimed
invention was known in the art except the claim 1 ultraviolet ray
source and optical sensor in slanted alignment with the inclined
adhesive, and the optical power meter and controller, and the claim
4 ultraviolet ray alignment and monitoring of the ultraviolet ray
output (specification, page 1, line 16 - page 2, line 11).
Regarding the optical sensor in slanted alignment with the
inclined adhesive (claim 1) and the ultraviolet ray alignment with
the inclined adhesive (claim 4), the appellants state that if the
ultraviolet rays are not aligned with the inclined adhesive
(appellants’ figure 2), then the portion of the inclined adhesive
that cannot be penetrated by the ultraviolet rays does not harden
properly (page 4, lines 3-11). Because this statement is in the
description of the related art, it appears to be an admission that
the problem resulting from applying the ultraviolet rays
perpendicularly to the wafer rather than in alignment with the
Appeal No. 2006-0126
Application No. 10/140,619
4
inclined adhesive was known in the art. Given this problem, those
of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use their
skill to solve the problem. As stated in In re Nomiya, 509 F.2d
566, 572, 184 USPQ 607, 613 (CCPA 1975):
The significance of evidence that a problem was known in
the prior art is, of course, that knowledge of a problem
provides a reason or motivation for workers in the art to
apply their skill to its solution.
It would have been readily apparent to one of ordinary skill in the
art, when faced with the problem of ultraviolet rays applied
perpendicularly to a wafer not penetrating to all portions of an
adhesive because the adhesive is inclined such that the
perpendicularly-applied rays cannot reach the bottom portion of the
inclined adhesive, to align the ultraviolet rays with the adhesive
so that the rays penetrate all of the adhesive. Moreover, even if
the problem were not known in the art, it would have been apparent
to one of ordinary skill in the art that all of the adhesive needs
to be hardened, and that using ultraviolet rays to harden all of
the adhesive requires that the ultraviolet rays penetrate all of
the adhesive. For this reason it would have been prima facie
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to align the
ultraviolet ray source with the inclined adhesive.
The appellants argue that Kojima ‘919 indicates that
Kojima ‘546 uses slanted ultraviolet rays to prevent bubbling
Appeal No. 2006-0126
Application No. 10/140,619
5
(brief, pages 8-9; reply brief, page 11). Kojima ‘546 prevents
bubbling by using heat in addition to ultraviolet rays (¶¶ 0028,
0041 and 0064). Regardless, the prevention of bubbles in
Kojima ‘919 pertains to curing optical fiber coatings (¶¶ 0241,
0246 and 0247). Slanting the ultraviolet rays in alignment with
the inclined adhesive used to join the prior art planar lightwave
circuit chip and optical-fiber block would have been prima facie
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as discussed above.
Kojima ‘546 discloses that the ultraviolet ray intensity is
detected by a photodetector (5) to control the ultraviolet ray
output to the level suitable for curing the particular adhesive so
that stable curing characteristics of the adhesive are obtained
(¶ 0024).
The appellants argue that Kojima ‘546 does not disclose or
suggest an optical sensor for measuring a power change or an
optical power meter for displaying the power change (brief,
pages 11-13; reply brief, pages 11-13). The Kojima ‘546 disclosure
that the ultraviolet light output is controlled based on the
ultraviolet light intensity detected by a photodetector (¶ 0024)
would have fairly suggested, to one of ordinary skill in the art,
using a photodetector which measures the change in ultraviolet
light intensity on which the control of that ultraviolet light
Appeal No. 2006-0126
Application No. 10/140,619
6
output is based. Because the change in light intensity is a
control variable, Kojima ‘546 would have fairly suggested, to one
of ordinary skill in the art, displaying the corresponding change
in ultraviolet light output to permit monitoring the adequacy of
the control.
For the above reasons we are not persuaded of reversible error
in the examiner’s rejection.
DECISION
The rejection of claims 1-5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over the
appellants’ admitted prior art in view of Kojima ‘546) is affirmed.
AFFIRMED
LEE E. BARRETT )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
TERRY J. OWENS ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO )
Administrative Patent Judge )
TJO/sld
CHA & REITER, LLC
210 ROUTE 4 EAST STE 103
PARAMUS, NJ 07652