Ex Parte Shirk et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 27, 201311271454 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 27, 2013) 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. 11/271,454 11/10/2005 Michael Shirk IL-11345 9500 24981 7590 02/27/2013 Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC LAWRENCE LIVERMORE NATIONAL LABORATORY PO BOX 808, L-703 LIVERMORE, CA 94551-0808 EXAMINER HEINRICH, SAMUEL M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3742 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/27/2013 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 MICHAEL SHIRK and JEVAN FURMANSKI ________________ Appeal 2010-011408 Application 11/271,454 Technology Center 3700 ________________ Before ANTON W. FETTING, MEREDITH C. PETRAVICK, and JAMES A. TARTAL, Administrative Patent Judges. TARTAL, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-011408 Application 11/271,454 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE1 Michael Shirk, et al. (Appellants) seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s final decision rejecting claims 1-14. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Appellants’ claimed invention relates to a laser machining system. Spec. [0003]. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal. 1. An apparatus for machining a workpiece to desired specifications, comprising: a workpiece design having workpiece specifications, a workpiece substrate, said workpiece substrate having topography, a laser that produces a laser beam; a controlled stage that positions said workpiece substrate relative to said laser beam, wherein the said workpiece substrate is operatively connected to said controlled stage; a profilometer that measures said topography of said workpiece substrate and produces workpiece topography data; and a computer and control system operatively connected to said laser, to said controlled stage, and to said profilometer, wherein said computer and control system compares said workpiece topography data with the desired finished workpiece specifications and controls said controlled stage and said laser; wherein said computer and control system causes said workpiece substrate to be moved with respect to the laser beam in a desired fashion, within certain velocity, acceleration, and 1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,” filed Apr. 23, 2010) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Jul. 12, 2010), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Jun. 24, 2010). Appeal 2010-011408 Application 11/271,454 3 distance constraints and wherein said computer and control system causes said laser and said laser beam to machine said workpiece substrate to said workpiece specifications and said workpiece design producing the desired finished workpiece. The Examiner relies upon the following evidence: Nagy US 5,504,303 Apr. 2, 1996 Kurtz US 5,625,635 Apr. 29, 1997 Detalle US 6,532,068 B2 Mar. 11, 2003 Ngoi US 6,555,781 B2 Apr. 29, 2003 Claims 1-3 and 8-10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Nagy. Claims 4, 5, 11, and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Nagy and Detalle. Claims 6 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Nagy and Ngoi. Claims 7 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Nagy and Kurtz. ANALYSIS After carefully considering Appellants’ arguments (App. Br. 18-60, Reply Br. 2-8), we agree with and adopt the Examiner’s findings and rationales, as set forth on pages 3-9 of the Examiner’s Answer. Appeal 2010-011408 Application 11/271,454 4 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW We conclude that Appellants have not overcome the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-3 and 8-10 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Nagy. We further conclude that Appellants have not overcome the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-3 and 8-10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Nagy. We further conclude that Appellants have not overcome the Examiner’s rejection of claims 4, 5, 11, and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Nagy and Detalle. We further conclude that Appellants have not overcome the Examiner’s rejection of claims 6 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Nagy and Ngoi. We further conclude that Appellants have not overcome the Examiner’s rejection of claims 7 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Nagy and Kurtz. DECISION We AFFIRM the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-14. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2011). AFFIRMED mls Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation