Ex Parte Page et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 29, 201512846929 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 29, 2015) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation