Ex Parte Page et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 29, 2015

12846929 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 29, 2015)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
12/846,929 07/30/2010 David J. Page LUMEP0149USA 2903
23908 7590 01/29/2015
RENNER OTTO BOISSELLE & SKLAR, LLP
1621 EUCLID AVENUE
NINETEENTH FLOOR
CLEVELAND, OH 44115
EXAMINER
CHIEM, DINH D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2883
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/29/2015 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 DAVID J. PAGE and BRIAN M. SPAHNIE
____________

Appeal 2012-012647
Application 12/846,929
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before MARC S. HOFF, ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, and
JOHN EVANS, Administrative Patent Judges.

MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2012-012647
Application 12/846,929

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 10–15, 17, and 21–28. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

THE INVENTION
Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to making an illuminator out
of a light guide using a laser to cut a pattern of U shaped notches or grooves
in at least one side of the light guide. Abstract.
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the
subject matter on appeal.
10. A method of making an illuminator out of a light guide
having at least one light receiving edge for receiving light from a
light source for transmission through the light guide by internal
reflection comprising using a laser to cut a pattern of U shaped
notches or grooves in at least one side of the light guide to cause at
least some of the transmitted light to be extracted from the light
guide, wherein the laser is moved at a variable speed relative to the
light guide during continuous pulsing of the laser to cut relatively
long variable depth grooves in the light guide.

REFERENCES and REJECTIONS
1. The Examiner rejected claims 10–15, 21–23, and 25–27 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Myers (US 5,307,245, issued Apr.
26, 1994) in view of Matheson (US 5,660,668, issued Aug. 26, 1997).
2. The Examiner rejected claims 17, 24, and 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Myers in view of Matheson and further in view of
Parker (US 6,712,481 B2, issued Mar. 30, 2004).

Appeal 2012-012647
Application 12/846,929

3
ISSUE
The pivotal issue is whether the Examiner erred in finding that Myers
in view of Matheson teaches moving a laser at a variable speed relative to
the light guide during continuous pulsing of the laser to cut relatively long
variable depth grooves in the light guide as recited in claim 10.

ANALYSIS
We adopt the Examiner’s findings and conclusions in the Answer and
we add the following primarily for emphasis.
Claim 10
Appellants argue that Matheson does not disclose, teach or suggest
moving a laser at a variable speed relative to the light guide during
continuous pulsing of the laser to cut relatively long variable depth grooves
in the light guide as recited in claim 10. (Br. 8).
We do not agree with Appellants’ argument. The Examiner finds, and
we agree, that Matheson teaches a laser for engraving plastic at a variable
speed essential for setting depth of cut and precision of cut. (Ans. 3, 5, see
also Matherson col. 7, ll. 13–15). We also agree with the Examiner that
because the light guide is on the worktable, from the perspective of the light
guide the laser would be moving relative to the light guide. (Id. at 5). We
further agree with the Examiner that the limitation of “the laser to cut
relatively long variable depth grooves in the light guide” is inherent in the
plurality of grooves having different depths and furthermore, we agree with
the Examiner that any length would be long since the claim does not define a
searchable length. (Id. at 5, 6).
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 10.
Appeal 2012-012647
Application 12/846,929

4

Claims 11 and 12
Appellants argue that nowhere does Matheson disclose, teach, or
suggest that the laser is moved at a substantially constant speed relative to
the light guide while the laser is intermittently pulsed to cut a plurality of
notches or grooves having substantially the same depth in the light guide as
recited in claim 11 (Br. 8, 9).
We do not agree with Appellants’ argument. As stated above, from
the perspective of the light guide on the variable speed worktable the laser
would be moving relative to the light guide. (See Ans. 6). We also agree
with the Examiner’s finding that variable speed includes faster and slower
speeds (Ans. 6). Because speed can be adjusted to move at a different speed,
it would be inherent that it would be capable of performing at a constant
speed and maintain the speed until the next adjustment. (Ans. 6).
Furthermore, we also agree with the Examiner, that the engraver would
necessarily intermittently pulse to engrave the letter T or the word “Time”
wherein the formation of each letter require the engraver to stop in order to
create the spacing between the individual letters. (Ans. 6).
Appellants further argue that Matheson does not disclose, teach, or
suggest that the spacing between the pulses is varied to vary the spacing
between the notches or grooves to cause more or less of the transmitted light
to be extracted from the light guide as recited in claim 12. (Br. 9).
We agree with the Examiner that Matheson discloses intermittently
pulsing the engraver to form the word “Time” having spacing between the
letters. (Ans. 7). Furthermore, Matheson also teaches the laser engraver is
equipped with a reversing light sensor “reader,” a “skip” control system to
Appeal 2012-012647
Application 12/846,929

5
engrave skipped lines. (Ans. 7; col. 7, ll. 1–3). Also, the spacing between
the letters of the word “Time” is different from the spacing in the letter “i”
wherein the dot placed above the letter is different with the spacing between
the letters of the word “Time.” (Ans. 7). The Examiner relied on Myers for
teaching the limitation of “to cause more or less of the transmitted light to be
extracted from the light guide.” (App. Br. 3 (citing p. 13, l. 11–13), see also
col. 2, l. 29–33).
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 11 and 12.
Claims 13, 21, 22, 25, and 26
Appellants argue that Matheson does not teach or suggest desirability
of de-focusing a laser during laser pulsing to provide the notches or grooves
with a roughened or bubbled surface finish as recited in claims 13, 21 and
25, or of varying the beam diameter of the laser during laser pulsing to vary
the width of the notches or grooves along their length to cause more or less
transmitted light to be extracted from the light guide as recited in claims 22
and 26. (Br. 9-10).
We do not agree with Appellants’ arguments. The Examiner relied
for the defocused cut on a different embodiment than that indicated by
Appellants regarding the precise cut. (Ans. 7, 8). The first cut is with a
defocused laser beam, wherein the cut edge of cavity 34 is slightly wider and
imprecise (roughened at the opening) to assist the insertion of the inlay relief
engraving 38. (Ans. 7; col. 7, l. 60–col. 8, l. 8). The second cut is a
refocused laser beam and the cut edges are made more exact with the
refocused beam. (Ans. 7; col. 8, l. 9–col. 8, l. 34). Matheson’s laser
engraver is capable of functioning in two modes: a focused beam mode and
Appeal 2012-012647
Application 12/846,929

6
a defocused beam mode; wherein the defocused beam will result in
imprecise and roughened cut edges. (Ans. 7, 8).
The limitation regarding the more or less transmitted light to be
extracted from the light guide as recited was addressed supra.
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 13, 21,
22, 25, and 26.
Claim 14
Appellant further argues that Myers in view of Matheson do not teach
that the beam diameter is varied during laser pulse to vary the width of the
notches or grooves as required by claim 14 (Br. 10).
The Examiner finds, and we agree, that an unfocused beam would
necessarily have a wider beam diameter and lower intensity (Ans. 8). As
suggested by the word “focus,” the beam is focused when the light is
concentrated in the center where dispersion is minimal (Ans. 8). In contrast,
an unfocused beam disperses the light and the light is not highly
concentrated in the center, thus necessarily spreading the beam width (Ans.
8). Therefore, one of ordinary skill would recognize a defocused beam
would result in a dispersed and wider beam width (Ans. 8). Also, we agree
with the Examiner that Matheson teaches engraving using a defocused beam
for a wider image line (col. 7, ll.60–63) and the laser is later re-focused to
engrave the exact edges (col. 8, ll. 9–10) (Ans. 8). Furthermore, as we
previously discussed, Matheson teaches two operational modes, wherein an
unfocused beam will result in an imprecise cut, whereas a focused beam will
result in a precise cut but would be more time consuming (Ans. 8). One of
ordinary skill would understand the two operational modes is a tradeoff
between high precision engraving versus high speed engraving (Ans. 8).
Appeal 2012-012647
Application 12/846,929

7
Therefore, the Myers in view of Matheson combination teaches a beam
diameter being varied during laser pulsing to vary the width of the notches
or grooves.
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 14.
Claims 15, 23, and 27
Appellants do not contest that Matheson teaches a power level to the
laser being varied (col. 5, l. 61–63), and thus teaches power variation
allowing variable pulses, speed, and intensity to be controlled (Br. 10).
However, Appellants argue that the adjustable power controls of Matheson
are for the purpose of allowing a laser printed image to be scanned by a
reversible sensor or optical reader that “reads” the image and not to vary the
power level to the laser during laser pulsing to vary the width and depth of
the notches or grooves as recited in claims 15, 23, and 27 (Br. 10–11).
We do not agree with Appellants’ argument. In an obviousness
analysis, it is not necessary to find precise teachings directed to the specific
subject matter claimed because inferences and creative steps that a person of
ordinary skill in the art would employ can be taken into account. See KSR
Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). In this regard, “[a]
person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an
automaton.” Id. at 421. The Examiner finds, and we agree, that Matheson
teaches a laser with adjustable power controls (col. 6, l. 61) and further
teaches that the laser power settings are important to the success of the
engraving process and a variable speed of the engraver is essential for
setting the depth of cut and the precision of cut (col. 7, ll. 10–15) (Ans. 9).
We agree with the Examiner that the precision of the cut correlates with the
width of the cut, wherein a precise cut would have a narrow width and less
Appeal 2012-012647
Application 12/846,929

8
precise cut would have a wider width (Ans. 9). Since Matheson teaches that
power and speed are adjustable, we agree with the Examiner that Matheson
teaches or suggests that the “power level to the laser is varied during laser
pulsing to vary the width and depth of the notches or grooves” (Ans. 9).
Claims 17, 24, and 28
Appellants argue that Figure 5 of Parker discloses (col. 7, ll. 40–44) a
transparent film, sheet or plate 27 attached or positioned against the side or
sides of the panel member from which light is extracted and not a flat optical
fiber that includes a light conducting core and a cladding surrounding core,
wherein the flat optical fiber has a greater width than height and the notches
or grooves extend through the cladding as recited in claims 17, 24, and 28.
(Br. 11, 12).
We do not agree with Appellants’ arguments. We agree with the
Examiner that Figure 5 of Parker shows an embodiment wherein the light
emitting panel 14 is “a light conducting core” and the air layer 30
surrounding the light emitting panel is a cladding surrounding the core (Ans.
9). Air is used as a cladding layer to guide light within it until the beam
exits at the plurality of notches or grooves in the light emitting panel
(col. 5, ll. 21–29) (Ans. 9). An optical fiber for guiding light is defined by a
core having a higher refractive index than a cladding with a lower refractive
index (Ans. 9). Thus, an example of material that is capable of guiding light
in the manner shown in Figure 5 may be an acrylic core 14 (col. 5, ll. 21–29)
and air cladding 30 (Ans. 9).
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 17, 24,
and 28.
CONCLUSION
Appeal 2012-012647
Application 12/846,929

9
The Examiner did not err in finding that the Examiner erred in finding
that Myers in view of Matheson teaches moving a laser at a variable speed
relative to the light guide during continuous pulsing of the laser to cut
relatively long variable depth grooves in the light guide as recited in claim
10.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 10–15, 17, and 21–28 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)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

rvb