Ex Parte Stenton

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 29, 2014

11702760 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 29, 2014)

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withdrawn from further consideration by the Examiner as drawn to a non-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