Ex Parte ENDO et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 19, 2014

12191006 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 19, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte TAKAFUMI ENDO,
SHIGERU TOYOTA,
and YOHEI NOKAMI
____________

Appeal 2011-008568
Application 12/191,0061
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before THU A. DANG, CAROLYN D. THOMAS, and
JAMES R. HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judges.

THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 The real party in interest is Mitsubishi Electric Corporation.
Appeal 2011-008568
Application 12/191,006

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner
finally rejecting claims 1-11, all the claims pending in the application. We
have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). An Oral Hearing
was held on January 28, 2014.
We AFFIRM.
The present invention relates generally to “an image reading device
for reading a hologram part of an irradiated member such as a bank note”
(Spec. 1:14-15).
Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. An image reading device comprising:
a conveying unit for conveying an irradiated member that
has a hologram area in a conveying direction;
a hologram detecting unit for detecting the passage of the
hologram area of the irradiated member to output a detecting
signal;
a first light source for applying light to an irradiated part
in the hologram area of the irradiated member;
a second light source separated from the first light source
along the conveying direction of the irradiated member and
applying light to an irradiated part in the hologram area after
the first light source applied light to the irradiated part of the
hologram area and the irradiated member is conveyed by a
prescribed distance, wherein a magnitude of an irradiation angle
of the second light source being different from a magnitude of a
prescribed irradiation angle of the first light source;
a lighting control unit for respectively controlling the
first and second light sources to be turned on when the
detecting signal of the hologram detecting unit is received;
Appeal 2011-008568
Application 12/191,006

3
first and second rod lens arrays for respectively
converging the lights of the first and second light sources
reflected by the irradiated part of the hologram area, a
respective optical axis of the first and second rod lens arrays
being disposed orthogonal to the surface of the irradiated
member wherein the second lens array is separated from the
first lens array along the conveying direction of the irradiated
member; and
first and second sensors for respectively receiving the
lights from the first and second light sources reflected from the
hologram area and respectively converged by the first and
second rod lens arrays to detect a signal of a hologram in the
hologram area of the irradiated member.

Appellants appeal the following rejection:
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Klock (WO 2004/080865 A1, Sept. 23, 2004).

Claim Groupings
Based on Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief, we will decide
the appeal on the basis of claim 1, as set forth below. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii).

ANALYSIS
Issue: Did the Examiner err in finding that Klock teaches and/or
suggests first and second sensors for respectively receiving the lights from
the first and second light sources reflected from the hologram area, as set
forth in claim 1?

Appeal 2011-008568
Application 12/191,006

4
Appellant contends Klock “does not use two different sensors, each of
which for receiving reflective light” (App. Br. 4).
The Examiner found that Klock discloses that capturing of the images
may also be accomplished by “[a] second light sensor array, located at a
different location along the transport path, [having] a similar design to the
first light sensor array which is shown in figure 2” (Ans. 10). Based on the
record before us, we find no error in the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
representative claim 1 essentially for the reasons indicated by the Examiner.
Contrary to Appellants’ contention that Klock does not use two
different sensors as set forth in the claimed invention, we find that Klock
expressly discloses that “the capturing of the images may also be
accomplished with two different light sensor arrays which are arranged at
different locations of the transport path” (Klock 14:30-33). In other words,
although Klock’s figure 2 illustrates a single mechanical unit housing the
imaging sensor 5 which includes light sources (11.1, 11.2, and 11.3), a lens
12, rod lens 13, and a light sensor 14, Klock discloses that “two different
light sensor arrays” may be located on the transport path. We interpret
Klock’s “two different light sensor arrays” to include two different
mechanical units as illustrated in Klock’s Figure 2. As a result, we find
Appellants’ contention that Klock fails to use two different sensors for
receiving lights reflected from the hologram area unavailing given Klock’s
above-noted disclosure.
In view of the above discussion, since Appellants have not
demonstrated that the Examiner erred in finding the argued limitations in the
disclosure of Klock, the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
Appeal 2011-008568
Application 12/191,006

5
representative independent claim 1, as well as claims 2-11 not separately
argued by Appellants, is sustained.

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s § 103(a) rejection.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

msc