Ex Parte YAMASHITA

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 11, 2016

12960841 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 11, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/960,841 12/06/2010
7055 7590 08/15/2016
GREENBLUM & BERNSTEIN, PLC
1950 ROLAND CLARKE PLACE
RESTON, VA 20191
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Tomoyu YAMASHITA
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.
P39205 8018
EXAMINER
HAGAN, SEAN P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2828
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/15/2016 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):
gbpatent@gbpatent.com
greenblum.bernsteinplc@gmail.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte TOMOYU YAMASHITA
Appeal2015-000933
Application 12/960,841
Technology Center 2800
Before JEFFREY T. SMITH, WESLEY B. DERRICK, and
JULIA HEANEY, Administrative Patent Judges.
HEANEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 requests review pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of a
decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1-7 and 16-21, which constitute
all of the pending claims of Application 12/960,841. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.
1 Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Advantest Corporation.
App. Br. 3.
Appeal2015-000933
Application 12/960,841
BACKGROUND
The subject matter on appeal relates to phase control for a laser light
pulse that does not depend on detection of a phase difference between two
lasers. Spec. 1-2.
Claim 1, reproduced below with italics added to identify the limitation
at issue, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal:
1. A phase control device for laser light pulse, comprising:
a laser that outputs a laser light pulse;
a reference comparator that compares a voltage of a reference
electric signal having a predetermined frequency and a
predetermined voltage with each other, and outputs a result of
the comparison;
a measurement comparator that compares a voltage of a
measurement electric signal having a voltage based on a light
intensity of the laser light pulse and the predetermined
frequency, with a voltage of a phase control signal, and outputs
a result of the comparison;
a phase difference detector that detects a phase difference
between the output from the reference comparator and the
output from the measurement comparator; and
a loop filter that removes a high frequency component of an
output from the phase difference detector, wherein:
the voltage of the phase control signal is different from the
predetermined voltage;
the laser changes the phase of the laser light pulse based on said
phase difference according to the output from the loop filter;
and
a detection result of the phase difference detector is different
from a difference between a phase of the reference electric
signal and a phase of the measurement electric signal.
2
Appeal2015-000933
Application 12/960,841
REFERENCES
The Examiner relied upon the following prior art in rejecting the
claims on appeal:
Koudelka
("Koudelka)
Miyatani
("Miyatani")
Sucha, et al.,
("Sucha")
Konno
("Konno")
US 6,859,509 Bl
US 6,677,820 B2
us 5,778,016
JP 622-266780 A
THE REJECTION
Feb.22,2005
Jan. 13,2004
July07, 1998
Nov. 19, 1987
1. Claims 1-7 and 16-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Sucha, Konno, and Koudelka in view of Miyatani.
DISCUSSION
Appellant argues claims 1 and 16 as a group, focusing on a common
limitation, and does not present argument for separate patentability of the
dependent claims. App. Br. 20. Therefore, we limit our discussion to
representative claim 1; all other claims stand or fall with claim 1.
Having considered the evidence presented in this Appeal and each of
Appellant's contentions, we are not persuaded that Appellant identifies
reversible error in the rejection. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons
expressed in the Non-Final Rejection mailed December 19, 2013
(hereinafter "Non-Final Act.") and the Answer. We add the following
primarily for emphasis.
3
Appeal2015-000933
Application 12/960,841
Appellant focuses argument on the claim limitation "a detection result
of the phase difference detector is different from a difference between a
phase of the reference electric signal and a phase of the measurement
electric signal,"2 which was added in an After-final Amendment dated
September 23, 2013 to distinguish over Konno. App. Br. 16; Non-Final Act.
3. Appellant argues that the combination of references set forth by the
Examiner in the rejection would be inoperable because if the threshold of
comparators 23 and 24 of Konno were set to be different (as recited in claim
1), the output ofKonno's XOR circuit 25 would include an error, and
therefore Sucha's laser would not operate properly in combination with
Konno. App. Br. 14--15. Appellant further argues that even ifthe error were
predictably produced by adjustment of the threshold of at least one
comparator, as the Examiner finds is taught by Miyatani (Non-Final Act. 3),
the laser would not operate properly because of the error in the output of the
XOR circuit. Id. Additionally, Appellant argues that a person of ordinary
skill in the art would not have combined Konno and Miyatani because
Miyatani' s teaching of a fine phase adjustment would result in an error when
applied to Konno's comparator. App. Br. 18.
Appellant's arguments do not persuade us of reversible error because
they have not adequately explained why a person of ordinary skill would not
have modified Sucha, Konno and Miyatani, as determined by the Examiner.
The Examiner explains in detail how a person of ordinary skill in the art
2 In the event of further prosecution, the Examiner and Appellant are
advised to consider applicability of 35 U.S.C. § 112, paragraph 2 to the
claim term "a detection result of the phase difference detector" in relation to
the antecedent "a phase difference detector that detects a phase difference."
4
Appeal2015-000933
Application 12/960,841
would have modified Konno in view of the teachings of Miyatani, without
conflicting the teachings of Sucha or rendering Konno inoperable. Ans. 3-5.
Appellant's response does not adequately address the Examiner's
explanation but rather relies solely on attorney argument and reiterates that
there is no reason why a person of ordinary skill would modify the
thresholds of Konno' s comparators to be different, as this would result in an
error. Reply Br. 2-3. We therefore determine that a preponderance of the
evidence supports the conclusion of obviousness.
Appellant further argues that the combination of references is
improperly based on hindsight analysis to pick and choose among isolated
disclosures in the prior art. App. Br. 18-19. Appellant's hindsight argument
lacks persuasive merit. The Examiner articulates reasoning having rational
underpinnings for making a proposed modification of the prior art teachings,
which demonstrates the combination is not based on impermissible hindsight.
In re Kahn, 441F.3d977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
SUMMARY
We affirm the rejection of claims 1-7 and 16-21.
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
5