Ex Parte Holzapfel et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJul 20, 201613068659 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 20, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/068,659 757 7590 BGL P.O. BOX 10395 CHICAGO, IL 60610 05/16/2011 07/20/2016 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Wolfgang Holzapfel 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. 56/493 7034 EXAMINER GRAY, SUNGHEE Y ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2886 MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE 07/20/2016 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte WOLFGANG HOLZAPFEL, MICHAEL HERMANN, and KARSTEN SANDIG Appeal2015-000763 Application 13/068,659 1 Technology Center 2800 Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, CATHERINE Q. TIMM, and JAMES C. HOUSEL, Administrative Patent Judges. PERCURIAM. DECISION ON APPEAL A. STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Appellants filed an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's decision finally rejecting claims 1---6 and 8-23. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). 2 We AFFIRM. 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Dr. Johannes Heidenhain GmbH. Br. 2. 2 Our decision refers to the Appellants' Specification filed May 16, 2011 (Spec.), the Final Office Action mailed Feb. 7, 2014 (Final Act.), the Appeal Brief filed May 30, 2014 (Appeal Br.), the Examiner's Answer mailed Aug. 15, 2014 (Ans.), and the Reply Brief filed Oct. 13, 2014 (Reply Br.). Appeal2015-000763 Application 13/068,659 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The subject matter on appeal relates to an optical position measuring instrument (see, e.g., claim 1 ). Appellants disclose optical position measuring instruments have narrow tolerances for mounting components. Spec. iii! 3--4. Deviations of components from ideal positions cause deformations in the wave fronts of partial light beams, which are used for signal generation. Spec. iii! 4---6. Because the wave fronts of the partial beams are deformed and not planar, the instruments experience signal dropoff when the partial beams are brought into interfering superposition for signal detection. Spec. iii! 4--6 and 4 7. Appellants disclose an optical position measuring instrument that compensates for wave front deformations of partial beams. Spec. ii 10. Figure 2 is reproduced below. F!Ci. 2 7 L 1 x / .::::_ ___ y Figure 2 is a radial view of an optical position measuring instrument. 2 Appeal2015-000763 Application 13/068,659 The optical position measuring instrument includes a scanning unit 20 and a scale 10, such as a radial graduation on a graduated disk 11 that rotates about an axis RA. Spec. i-f 58. The optical position measuring instrument generates highly precise position signals for the rotational motion of the scale 10 relative to the scanning unit 20. Id. The scanning unit 20 includes optical elements to generate position signals. Spec. i-f 61. Figure 3a is reproduced below. FIG . .30 '§ L y L ./' Z_ __ ~ x Figure 3a is a sectional view along line A-A' of Figure 2. A light source 21 emits light that is collimated by a collimating optical unit 22 to produce a beam S that impinges on the scale 10. Spec. i-f 62. The scale 10 causes diffraction of the beam S into two partial beams TS 1 a and TS2a, which are the positive and negative first orders of diffraction of the beam S. Spec. i-f 64. The partial beams TS 1 a and TS2a have wave fronts deformed along a curved line after 3 Appeal2015-000763 Application 13/068,659 diffraction via the scale 10. Id. Subsequent to diffraction by the scale 10, the partial beams TS 1 a and TS2a respectively reach first wave front correctors 24.1 a and 24.2a, which correct the deformed wave fronts of the partial beams TS 1 a and TS2a. Spec. i-f 65. Appellants disclose that scanning gratings can be used for wave front correctors of the optical position measuring instrument. Spec. i-f 72. The partial beams TS 1 a and TS2a then propagate to respective inverters 26.1 and 26.2 that reflect the partial beams TS 1 a and TS2a back in a direction towards the scale 10 as partial beams TS 1 b and TS2b, as illustrated in Figure 3b, reproduced below. Spec. i-f 65. Appellants disclose that triple prisms can be used for beam inverters. Spec. i-fi-1 65 and 71. F,,,.., ")t ~lJ. J.) z y t./ x Figure 3b is a sectional view along line B-B' of Figure 2. As the partial beams TS 1 b and TS2b propagate towards the scale 10, the partial beams TS 1 b and TS2b encounter respective second wave correctors 24.1 b 4 Appeal2015-000763 Application 13/068,659 and 24.2b, which distort wave fronts of the partial beams TS 1 band TS2b so after a subsequent, second diffraction by the scale 10, the partial beams TS 1 b and TS2b may be superimposed co-linearly (i.e., have planar wave fronts) at a superposition location. Spec. i-fi-1 66 and 68. After diffraction via scale 10, partial beams TS 1 b and TS2b propagate co-linearly for detection, such as by detection units 29 .1-29 .3 after the partial beams TS 1 b and TS2b have been divided by a splitter grating 27. Spec. i166. Independent claim 1 is illustrative and is reproduced below from the Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief. 3 The limitations at issue are italicized. 1. An optical position measuring instrument for detecting a relative position of a scanning unit and a scale, said optical position measuring instrument comprising: a scale; and a scanning unit, wherein said scanning unit and said scale are movable with respect to one another along a curved measurement direction and wherein said scanning unit comprises: 3 Appeal Br. 14. a detector unit; and a reflector unit comprising; a first wave front corrector; a beam direction inverter; and a second wave front corrector, wherein said reflector unit is disposed and/or embodied in said scanning unit so that partial beams first pass through a first combination of said scale and said first wave front corrector, then via said beam direction inverter, said partial beams are reflected back towards said scale, and said partial beams then pass through a second combination of said scale and said second wave front corrector before said partial beams then arrive at said detector unit, wherein said reflector unit has a structure so that it is ensured that wave front deformations of said partial beams, which 5 Appeal2015-000763 Application 13/068,659 result via a first dij)raction at said scale, are converted into wave front deformations that compensate for resultant wave front deformations of said partial beams upon a second diffraction at said scale. The claims on appeal stand rejected as follows: (1) claims 1-6 and 8-204 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sandig; 5 (2) claim 21under35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sandig in view of Ishizuka; 6 and (3) claims 22 and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sandig in view of Igaki. 7 B. DISCUSSION Rejection (1) Claims 1-6 and 8-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sandig. Citing Figures 1 a and 1 b of Sandig, the Examiner finds Sandig discloses an optical position measuring instrument comprising a scale and a scanning unit including a detector unit and a reflector unit having a first wave front corrector, a beam direction inverter, and a second wave front corrector. Final Act. 2-3. Figure la is reproduced below. 4 The Final Office Action states claim 7 is included in this rejection. However, claim 7 was previously canceled via an amendment filed Dec. 2, 2013. Therefore, claims 1-6 and 8-20 are before us as rejected under§ 103(a) over Sandig. 5 Sandig et al., US 2008/0062432 Al, published Mar. 13, 2008. 6 Ishizuka, US 2005/0007598 Al, published Jan. 13, 2005. 7 Igaki, US 5,327,218 A, issued July 5, 1994. 6 Appeal2015-000763 Application 13/068,659 FIG. io [ .. -----. ----. -----. -. --~o~ .. -....... -. -. --. ·; l 11 ! ! I < I I ' ' I ~ l2 : 10-: 15.1 13.1 a 20~ / ) 21 15.2 a R~o! I t Figure 1 a shows a first portion of a beam path of a position measuring arrangement. In the positioning measuring arrangement depicted in Figure 1 a, light is emitted from a light source 11 and collimated by an optical collimation device 12. Sandig i-f 99. The light then impinges on a measuring graduation 22 of a reflection scale graduation 20, which results in the diffraction of the light beam into two partial light beams, which are the positive and negative first orders of diffraction of the original beam. Sandig i-fi-1 100 and 101. The partial light beams then pass through respective scanning gratings 14.1 and 14.2 and are back reflected by 7 Appeal2015-000763 Application 13/068,659 respective reflector elements 15.1and15.2. Sandig ilil 101and102. The back reflection is depicted in Figure 1 b, which is reproduced below. FIG. 1b I ' ' ' ' I 10--: 111 13 a . ' > ' ' 20~ ) 21 15.1 I a.1 cr.2 Figure 1 b shows a second portion of a beam path of the position measuring arrangement. After back reflection, the partial light beams propagate through two additional scanning gratings 14.3 and 14.4, are re-deflected by the reflection scale graduation 20, diffracted by a combining grating 14.5, and then detected by detector elements 16.1-16.3. Sandig i-fi-f 102, 104, and 108. 8 Appeal2015-000763 Application 13/068,659 There is no dispute on this record that Sandig does not expressly disclose that the "reflector unit has a structure so that it is ensured that wave front deformations of said partial beams, which result via a first diffraction at said scale, are converted into wave front deformations that compensate for resultant wave front deformations of said partial beams upon a second diffraction at said scale" as recited in claim 1. Appeal Br. 14. Nonetheless, citing the scanning gratings 14.1- 14.4 and reflector elements 15.1 and 15.2, the Examiner finds the reflector unit of Sandig inherently has such a structure. Final Act. 13 (reflector unit inherently has such a structure). Appellants argue that "the Examiner has not provided any extrinsic evidence and/or technical reasoning that makes it clear that the missing descriptive matter is necessarily present in Sandig et al. and that it would be recognized by a person of ordinary skill in the art. Appeal Br. 11. To the contrary, the Examiner finds that Sandig's structure is the same as that recited in claim 1 and does not require any structural alteration. Ans. 4. As noted above, Appellants disclose scanning gratings can be used for wave front correctors and triple prisms can be used for beam inverters. Spec. i-fi-1 65, 71, and 72. Similarly, Sandig discloses the use of scanning gratings 14.1, 14.2, 14.3, 14.4 and that triple prisms can be used for back reflection of beams. Sandig i-fi-1 89, 101, and 102. Therefore, the disclosure of Sandig supports the Examiner's finding that Sandig' s reflector unit is the same as that recited in claim 1. Significantly, Appellants do not direct us to any evidence demonstrating that the Examiner's finding is erroneous. 8 8 Appellants argue that Sandig' s "gratings 14.1-14.4 have optical functions that differ from that of the claimed invention." Appeal Br. 12; see also Appeal Br. 10- 11 (arguing that Sandig paragraph 13 identifies two optical functions of Sandig's 9 Appeal2015-000763 Application 13/068,659 In sum, Appellants' arguments are not persuasive that the Examiner reversibly erred. We note the dispute as to whether the language of claim 1 regarding the compensation recites structure or a function. Final Act. 3--4; Appeal Br. 7-9; and Reply Br. 2-3. However, whether the language is structural or functional, the result is the same. Appellants have not patentably distinguished the claimed invention from the prior art. Appellants do not argue claims 2---6 and 8-20 separately from claim 1. Appeal Br. 12. Therefore, for the reasons discussed above and those set forth in the Answer, the§ 103(a) rejection of claims 1---6 and 8-20 is sustained. Rejections (2) and (3) Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sandig in view of Ishizuka. Claims 22 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sandig in view oflgaki. For claims 21-23, Appellants merely reiterate the arguments set forth in support of the patentability of claim 1 and contend Ishizuka and Igaki do not remedy the deficiencies of the references applied in the rejection of claim 1. Appeal Br. 12-13. For the reasons set forth above, there are no deficiencies in the rejection of claim 1 that require curing by Ishizuka or Igaki. Therefore, the§ 103(a) rejection of claim 21 over the combination of Sandig and Ishizuka and the§ 103(a) rejection of claims 22 and 23 over the combination of Sandig and Igaki are sustained. gratings 14.1-14.4). Suffice it to say that the claimed reflector unit comprises two wave front correctors and a beam direction inverter. 10 Appeal2015-000763 Application 13/068,659 C. DECISION The decision of the Examiner 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)(l). AFFIRMED 11 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation