Ex Parte Shin et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 29, 2016

12503317 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/503,317 07/15/2009
8439 7590 07/01/2016
ROBERT E BUSHNELL & LAW FIRM
2029 K STREET NW
SUITE 600
WASHINGTON, DC 20006-1004
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Hyun-Cheu! Shin
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.
P46022 7879
EXAMINER
CHIEM, DINH D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2883
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/01/2016 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):
rebushnell@aol.com
mail@rebushnell.com
info@rebushnell.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HYUN-CHEUL SHIN, WON-WOONG JUNG,
JE-KIL RYU, and KYONG-TEOG LEE
Appeal2014-006299
Application 12/503,317 1
Technology Center 2800
Before JASON V. MORGAN, JOHN A. EV ANS, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
EV ANS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL 2
Appellants3 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final
Rejection of Claims 1---6, 19, and 21-27. App. Br. 1. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Claims 7-18, 20, 28, and 29 have been canceled.
Claims App.
1 Oral Hearings were held June 21, 2016.
2 Our Decision refers to Appellants' Appeal Brief filed October 7, 2013
("App. Br."); Appellants' Reply Brief filed May 5, 2014 ("Reply Br."); the
Examiner's Answer mailed March 6, 2014 ("Ans."); the Final Office Action
mailed March 28, 2013 ("Final Act."); and the original Specification filed
July 15, 2009 ("Spec.").
3 Appellants identify Samsung Mobile Display Co.,Ltd., as the Real Party in
interest. App. Br. 3.
Appeal2014-006299
Application 12/503,317
We REVERSE.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention relates to a laser beam mixing apparatus to
convert a laser beam bundle into a single laser beam having a uniform
energy density. See Abstract. An understanding of the invention can be
derived from a reading of exemplary Claim 1, which is reproduced below
with disputed limitations italicized and some formatting added:
1. A laser beam mixing apparatus, comprising:
a barrel comprising an optical lens to adjust the distance
between a multi-core optical cable and the optical lens and to
convert a laser beam bundle projected from the multi-core cable
into a single beam that is projected through a single-core optical
cable; and
a stage to adjust the position and angle of the single-core
optical cable with respect to the optical lens, so as to align the
single beam with the core of the single-core optical cable.
References and Rejections
The Examiner relies upon the prior art as follows:
Wellington, et al.
Kiryuscheva, et al.
Barnes, et al.
Teramura, et al.
us 4, 146,299
us 5,859,947
US 2005/0213890 Al
US 7 ,245,804 B2
The claims stand rejected as follows:
Mar. 27, 1979
Jan. 12, 1999
Sep.29,2005
July 17, 2007
1. Claim 26 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(d) or 35 U.S.C. § 112
(pre-AIA), 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form. Final
Act. 3.
2
Appeal2014-006299
Application 12/503,317
2. Claims 1, 6, 19, 21, 25, and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kiryuscheva and Teramura. Final
Act. 4--5.
3. Claims 2, 3, 22, 24, and 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Kiryuscheva, Teramura, and Wellington.
Final Act. 5-8.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the rejections of Claims 1---6, 19, and 21-27 in light
of Appellants' arguments that the Examiner has erred. We are persuaded that
Appellants identify reversible error. We provide the following explanation
to highlight and address specific arguments and findings primarily for
emphasis.
CLAIM 26: 35 U.S.C. § 112 FOURTH PARAGRAPH)
The Examiner finds Claim 1 recites "a barrel comprising an optical
lens." Ans. 4. The Examiner finds the claimed barrel is a hollow cylinder,
which cannot convert a laser beam in the absence of a lens. Id. The
Examiner further finds the claimed lens is the device that converts the laser
beam. Thus, the lens, recited in Claim 26, does not further limit Claim 1. Id.
Appellants contend that Claim 1 recites the barrel adjusts a distance
between a multi-core optical cable and a lens. App. Br. 14. Appellants
further contend there are many types of lenses and Claim 26 limits the lens
to a type capable of focusing a multi-source beam onto a single fiber. App.
Br. 13. We find Appellants' arguments persuasive because they are
consistent with the grammatical implications of Claim 1 's recitation of "a
barrel comprising an optical lens to adjust the distance between a multi-core
optical cable and the optical lens and to convert the laser beam bundle .... "
3
Appeal2014-006299
Application 12/503,317
The barrel, rather than the optical lense, is recited as adjusting the distance
between a multi-core optical cable and the optical lens. Thus, the barrel,
rather than the optical lense also converts "the laser beam bundle." Claim
26 recites that the optical lense is also configured to convert the laser beam
bundle, thus further limiting the recitations of claim 1.
Because we find Claim 26 further limits Claim 1, we do not sustain
the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 112, fourth paragraph, rejection of claim 26.
CLAIMS 1, 6, 19, 21, 25, AND 26: OBVIOUSNESS OVER
KIRYUSCHEVA AND TERAMURA
Appellants argue these claims as a group and specifically argue Claim
1. App. Br. 14, n. 10.
Kiryusheva teaches a receivingfiber, not a source.
Appellants contend Kiryusheva, Numeral 504, is not a fiber, but an
optical lens and that Numeral 510 is a receiving fiber, not a source, i.e., not
"a laser beam bundle projected from the multi-core cable," as claimed. App.
Br. 14--15.
The Examiner finds Kiryusheva teaches positioning devices used for
laser-to-fiber set-ups, laser-to-spatial filter set-ups, fiber-to-fiber set-ups and
the like. Ans. 5---6. The Examiner finds one having ordinary skill in the art
would have recognized there would necessarily be a source placed in front
of the device holder 518 wherein the source is emitting a beam for the
positioning device to align with the fiber 510. Ans. 6. The Examiner cites
stage 512 as the structure for providing the adjustment between the source
and the lens. The Examiner further clarified the pitch positioner 214 that is
4
Appeal2014-006299
Application 12/503,317
provided on the stage would provide the distance adjustment between the
source and the lens. Id.
Claim 1 recites two, independent alignments. Claim 1 recites "a
barrel comprising an optical lens to adjust the distance between a multi-core
optical cable and the optical lens," as a first alignment. Claim 1 further
recites "a stage to adjust the position and angle of the single-core optical
cable with respect to the optical lens, so as to align the single beam with the
core of the single-core optical cable," as a second alignment. We agree with
the Examiner that Kiryusheva teaches the second alignment, i.e., "a stage ...
to align the single beam with the core of the single-core optical cable."
However, we further agree with Appellants that Kiryusheva fails to teach the
first alignment, i.e., a "barrel ... to adjust the distance between a multi-core
optical cable and the optical lens."
DECISION
The rejection of Claim 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 112 is REVERSED.
The rejection of Claims 1---6, 19, and 21-27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is
REVERSED.
REVERSED
5