Ex Parte StentonDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 29, 201411702760 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 29, 2014) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte CONRAD STENTON ____________ Appeal 2012-002487 Application 11/702,760 Technology Center 2800 ____________ Before PETER F. KRATZ, ROMULO H. DELMENDO, and BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judges. KRATZ, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1-7, 11, 13, 19, and 23.1 We have jurisdiction pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6. 1 Appellant inadvertently includes claims 20 and 21 among the appealed rejected claims (Br. 3 and 6). In accord with the designation of claims 20 and 21 in the Claims Appendix to the Brief, claims 20 and 21 have been withdrawn from further consideration by the Examiner as drawn to a non- elected invention (Ans. 3). Appeal 2012-002487 Application 11/702,760 2 According to Appellant, “[r]efractive or reflective optical sights are used in a wide variety of applications to obtain increased magnification of a scene” (Spec. 0002). For example, optical sights are employed on weapons (id.). A weapon optical sight reticle typically includes a reticle with reference markings, such as a crosshair, that aids in aiming a weapon (Spec. 0003). Appellant’s claimed invention is directed to an optical sight having an illuminated reticle that includes a reticle pattern defined by a quantum-dot (nano-dot) light emitter and wherein the reticle illumination is provided by an ultraviolet light source (Spec. 0007, 0008, 0026, 0027, and 0029). As disclosed by Appellant, quantum-dot light emitters and UV LEDs are commercially available (Spec. 0027 and 0029). Appellant discloses that two independently illuminated reticle patterns may be present in their reticle, which patterns can be used for conveying reference markings and/or other information (Spec. 0011, 0032, and 0003). Further details can be derived from a reading of claim 1, which is illustrative and reproduced below: 1. An optical sight, comprising: an optical train defining an optical path and including an eyepiece and a reticle, and wherein the reticle comprises a reticle substrate; a first reticle pattern formed into a reticle surface of said substrate, wherein said first reticle pattern includes a plurality of individual recesses disposed in said surface to define a desired pattern; a first quantum-dot light emitter disposed within each said individual recess of said first reticle pattern, wherein each first quantum-dot light emitter is adapted to emit light in a first visible wavelength when excited by light of a first excitation wavelength; a first light source producing a first output light of the first excitation wavelength positioned to direct the first output light to be incident upon the Appeal 2012-002487 Application 11/702,760 3 first quantum-dot light emitters said such that said first reticle pattern is visible through said eyepiece when said first light source is on; a second reticle pattern comprising a plurality of individual recesses formed in said reticle surface of said reticle substrate; a second quantum-dot light emitter disposed within each said individual recess of said second pattern, wherein each second quantum-dot light emitter is adapted to emit light in a second visible wavelength when excited by light of a second excitation wavelength; and a second light source producing a second output light of said second excitation wavelength positioned to direct said second output light to be incident upon said second quantum-dot light emitters such that said second reticle pattern is visible through said eyepiece when said second light source is on. The Examiner relies on the following prior art references as evidence in rejecting the appealed claims: Douden US 2,392,979 Jan. 15, 1946 Nagler US 4,749,271 Jun. 7, 1988 Bawendi et al. US 6,251,303 B1 Jun. 26, 2001 Ball US 2006/0107581 A1 May 25, 2006 Zaderey US 2006/0236586 A1 Oct. 26, 2006 The Examiner maintains the following ground of rejection: Claims 1-7, 11, 13, 19, and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Douden in view of Zaderey, Ball, Nagler, and Bawendi. We sustain the above rejections based on the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and rebuttals to arguments expressed by the Examiner in the Answer (Ans. 5-19).2 2 Appellant argues the rejected claims together as a group. We consider claim 1 as the representative claim on which we focus in deciding this appeal. Appeal 2012-002487 Application 11/702,760 4 Douden teaches or suggests providing an optical sight with a reticle having engraved reticle patterns (such as crosshairs or an engraved scale for use with telescopes or as gun sights), which engraved patterns are filled with an appropriate fluorescent material and illuminated by ultraviolet light directed thereon to prevent or militate against stray light affecting the visible field is well known (Douden, pp. 1 and 2). As determined by the Examiner, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to select an appropriate material for filling the engraved reticle patterns of an optical sight as taught by Douden from readily available materials, such as an available quantum- dot light emitter, such as taught by Bawendi, and would have been led to employ available light sources, such as LEDs as taught by Ball (Ans. 7-9). Indeed and as indicated above, Appellant acknowledges that quantum-dot light emitters and UV LEDs were commercially available prior to the time of the filing of the subject Application (Spec. 0027 and 0029). As for the claimed provision of two reticle patterns and two, respectively associated light sources to provide for the visibility of each of the separate reticle patterns when its associated light source is on, we agree with the Examiner that Zachary taken with Douden teaches or suggests to one of ordinary skill in the art the option to employ more than one reticle pattern for the optical sight of Douden and the further combined teachings of Ball and Nagler would have suggested the provision of separate light sources for such separate reticle patterns (Ans. 5-19). After all, Douden, itself, teaches or suggests two typical types of indicia to be patterned, crosshairs and an engraved scale (col. 1, ll. 4-11). Against this backdrop and for reasons expressed by the Examiner in the Answer, Appellant’s arguments against the Examiner’s conclusion of Appeal 2012-002487 Application 11/702,760 5 prima facie obviousness (see generally Br. 7-9) are not persuasive. One with ordinary skill in this art would have been led to combine the applied references to obtain an optical sight having first and second illuminated reticle patterns as claimed in order to obtain the predictable result of providing an optical sight with several reticle pattern configurations that can be illuminated independently with separate light sources (Ans. 10-11, 15). “The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). No evidence of unexpected results has been put forward by Appellant. For reasons stated by the Examiner, we affirm the stated obviousness rejection. CONCLUSION/ORDER The Examiner’s decision to reject the appealed claims 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). AFFIRMED cdc Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation