Ex Parte Aksyuk et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 16, 2017

11713155 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 16, 2017)

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.
11/713,155 03/02/2007 Vladimir Anatolyevich Aksyuk 45-10-12-14 1741
22046 7590
Alcatel-Lucent USA Inc
600-700 Mountain Avenue
Docket Administrator - Room 3B-212F
Murray Hill, NJ 07974
EXAMINER
BENNETT, JENNIFER D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2878
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/20/2017 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
narpatent @ alcatel-lucent, com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL
AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte VLADIMIR ANATOLYEVICH AKSYUK, ROBERT EUGENE
FRAHM, OMAR DANIEL LOPEZ, and ROLAND RYF
Appeal 2014—000594
Application 11/713,155
Technology Center 2800
Before BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, JAMES C. HOUSEL, and
WESLEY B. DERRICK, Administrative Patent Judges.
FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants request our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the
Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—7. We have jurisdiction over the
appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Appeal 2014-000594
Application 11/713,155
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claim 1 is illustrative of Appellants’ subject matter on appeal and is
set forth below (with text in bold for emphasis):
1. An apparatus, comprising:
a light source comprising a plurality of coherent sources, each
coherent source being configured to emit light of a different color than
the remaining of the coherent sources;
a reconfigurable array of mirrors and MEMS actuators, each
mirror being controlled by a corresponding one of the MEMS
actuators that is able to translate the controlled mirror in a piston-like
movement normal to the array; and
wherein the light source is configured to illuminate the
mirrors with a time division color-multiplexed light beam; and
wherein the reconfigurable array is able to modulate a phase of
a wavefront of the light beam in a spatially non-uniform and
reconfigurable manner.
The Examiner relies on the following prior art references as evidence
of unpatentability:
Minich et al.
(hereafter “Minich”)
Popovich et al.
(hereafter “Popovich”)
Noonan
Plut
US 5,700,076
US 6,870,985 B2
US 7,156,522 B2
US 2001/0019434 Al Sept. 6, 2001
Dec. 23, 1997
Mar. 22, 2005
Jan. 2, 2007
2
Appeal 2014-000594
Application 11/713,155
Pettitt et al. US 7,161,608 B2 Jan. 9, 2007
(hereafter “Pettitt”)
Duncan US 7,458,691 B2 Dec. 2,2008
THE REJECTIONS1
1. Claims 1 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Duncan in view of Minich and Noonan.
2. Claims 2, 3, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Duncan in view of Minich and Noonan as applied to claim
1 above, and further in view of Pettitt.
3. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Duncan in view of Minich and Noonan as applied to claim 4 above, and
further in view of Plut.
4. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Duncan in view of Minich and Noonan as applied to claim 1 above, and
further in view of Popovich.
ANALYSIS
In dispute in the instant case is the interpretation of certain teachings
of Duncan. On the one hand, Appellants submit that Duncan teaches an
apparatus to combine light from separate light sources into a single,
combined beam, such that the combined light of the beam propagates
substantially together. Appellants thus submit that Duncan’s intended
1 A prior rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112 has been withdrawn. Ans. 3.
3
Appeal 2014-000594
Application 11/713,155
purpose is producing a combined light beam in which light from different
light sources propagates together. Appeal Br. 6. Appellants argue that
modifying the apparatus of Duncan to produce a time division color-
multiplexed light beam (as proposed by the Examiner) would produce an
apparatus contrary to the intended purpose of Duncan. Id.
Appellants explain the difference in division color-multiplexing
whereby light of different light sources does not propagate together.2
Appeal Br. 6. Appellants explain that time division color multiplexing of
first and second light sources causes the light of first and second sources to
propagate in different time periods.3 Appellants explain that time division
color-multiplexing causes light of a first color source to not propagate when
the light of a second color source is propagating, so that the light of the two
sources does not propagate together. Appellants state that such a time
division multiplexing of two light sources does not produce a single,
combined light beam in which the light of the two light sources propagates
substantially together (as in Duncan). Id.
In reply, the Examiner states that Duncan teaches that the light
sources are capable of being pulsed, and that it would be beneficial to pulse
in order to increase the lifetime of the light sources, and refers to column 2,
lines 7—10 of Duncan in this regard. Ans. 3^4.
2 The meaning of the phrase “time division color-multiplexing” as discussed
by Appellants is not in dispute as this relates to the claim phrase “wherein
the light source is configured to illuminate the mirrors with a time division
color-multiplexed light beam”.
3 See pages 16—17 of Appellants’ Specification regarding disclosure
concerning time division color multiplexing (TDCM).
4
Appeal 2014-000594
Application 11/713,155
The Examiner also states that the language used in the specification of
Duncan is “substantially propagating together” (col. 1, lines 43-45). Ans. 4.
The Examiner states that “substantially” is a term that is not definite, so
there is some leeway in what it means to be propagating together. The
Examiner also states that the definition of “together” does not preclude time
division pulsing (sequentially pulsed light sources). The Examiner refers to
several definitions from Merriam-Webster, and submits that
because “together” can mean “in succession” and “in or into a unified or
coherent structure” or “an integrated whole”, then time division pulsed light
sources combined into a single beam would be substantially propagating
together. The Examiner states that this shows that the disclosure of Duncan
does not teach away from using time division pulsed light sources. Id.
With regard to the Examiner’s statement that Duncan teaches that
light sources are capable of being pulsed, Appellants reply that the
disclosure at column 2, lines 7—10 of Duncan teaches that an individual light
source may have an increased lifetime if singly operated in a pulsed-mode
rather than in a continuous-wave mode, but such a teaching does not suggest
that a plurality of light sources will have increased lifetime if the light
sources of the plurality are time division multiplexed. Reply Br. 1.
Appellants explain that two light sources may be pulsed-mode operated in
many manners that are inconsistent with wavelength division multiplexing
of the two light sources, for example, two light sources may be pulsed-mode
operated to be both ON for some time. Id. Appellants explain that such
pulsed-modes of operation of two light sources are different from
time division multiplexing modes of operation. Appellants state that thus
Duncan’s teaching of an advantage for single operation of individual light
5
Appeal 2014-000594
Application 11/713,155
sources in pulsed-modes does not diminish the fact the Duncan teaches away
from joint operation of pluralities of light sources via time division
multiplexing. Reply Br. 1—2. We are persuaded by such argument.
Furthermore, with regard to the Examiner’s position that the sentence
at column 1, lines 43—45 of Duncan does not preclude time-division
multiplexing,4 Appellants argue that the Examiner’s broad interpretation of
the word “together” in this sentence ignores other portions of the sentence,
which state that the combining produces, from the multiple light sources, a
“single combined light beam [that] propagates substantially together”.
Reply Br. 2. Appellants submit that the portions of the sentence which the
Examiner ignores provide a context that further limits the meaning of the
word “together”. Id. In particular, Appellants argue that the sentence recites
that the light of the multiple sources is combined into a single beam and then
recites that the single beam propagates substantially together. Appellants
submit that when modifying the “propagating act” of a single object, i.e., the
single combined beam, the word “together” does not mean “in a succession”
as suggested by the Examiner. Id. Appellants submit that, for example, the
clause “the single combined beam propagating in succession” (i.e., the
Examiner’s interpretation), would not make any sense for the propagation of
a single beam. We agree. It follows that we agree with Appellants that,
instead, the word “together” is properly interpreted to mean that the
propagating of the single combined beam is “as a whole”, “at one time”, or
4 The sentence reads “[u]pon combining the multiple light sources into a
single beam of light, that single, combined beam propagates substantially
together in a single direction.”
6
Appeal 2014-000594
Application 11/713,155
“in a unified structure” within the context of the disclosure of Duncan.
Reply Br. 2.
In view of the above, we are persuaded that the Examiner’s
interpretation of Duncan is flawed. As such, we agree with Appellants that a
prima facie case has not been met for the reasons provided by
Appellants in the record. We need not address the other applied references
in making this determination. We thus reverse Rejection 1. Because the
Examiner does not rely upon the other applied references of Rejections 2-4
in curing the flawed interpretation of Duncan, we also reverse Rejections 2—
4.
DECISION
Each rejection is reversed.
ORDER
REVERSED
7