Ex Parte Fujimori

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 29, 2016

12714838 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
121714,838 03/01/2010
23389 7590 03/31/2016
SCULLY SCOTT MURPHY & PRESSER, PC
400 GARDEN CITY PLAZA
SUITE 300
GARDEN CITY, NY 11530
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Noriyuki FUJIMORI
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.
25004 7576
EXAMINER
HENN, TIMOTHY J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2662
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/31/2016 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):
Docket@SSMP.COM
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte NORIYUKI FUJIMORI
Appeal2014-006900
Application 12/714,838
Technology Center 2600
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, LINZY T. McCARTNEY, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant 1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection
of claims 1-17. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellants, the Real Party in Interest is Olympus Corporation
(Br. 3).
Appeal2014-006900
Application 12/714, 83 8
STATEivIENT OF THE CASE
Appellant's invention relates to an image pickup unit including an
image pickup device and an objective optical system (Spec. 2). Exemplary
claim 1 under appeal reads as follows (with the disputed limitation in
Italics):
1. An image pickup unit comprising:
an image pickup device; and
an objective optical system provided in front of the image
pickup device in an optical axis direction,
wherein of the objective optical system, at least part of
the objective optical system at a tail end located closest to the
image pickup device in the optical axis direction is hermetically
adhered to the image pickup device using a photosetting
adhesive, and thereby a position of the objective optical system
in a diameter direction with respect to the image pickup device
and a length in the optical axis direction from the image pickup
device to the objective optical system are defined and a light-
receiving section of the image pickup device is hermetically
sealed beft,A.Jeen the objective optical S}'Stem at the tail end and
the light-receiving section via an enclosed space.
The Examiner rejected claims 1-17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Konno (US 2008/0055748 Al; Mar. 6, 2008) and Tansho
(US 6,813,103 B2; Nov. 2, 2004) (see Final Act. 3-7).
ANALYSIS
Claim 1
Regarding claim 1, the Examiner relies on Konno as disclosing the
recited elements of an image pickup unit and further finds using a
photosetting adhesive for positioning and alignment of those elements is
2
Appeal2014-006900
Application 12/714, 83 8
well known in the art and Tansho teaches that components of an image
pickup device are hermetically sealed in order to keep unwanted elements
out of the image pickup unit (Final Act. 3--4). Appellant contends the
structure disclosed by Konno is not the same as the recited image pickup
unit because the lens frame 21 b shields the light-receiving section of the
image sensor if the light-shielding member abuts the surface of the image
sensor, which would hinder the UV light from curing the adhesive material
(Br. 10). Appellant further contends Konno does not teach or suggest "a
configuration in which 'an enclosed sealed space' is formed between the
objective optical system at the tail end and the light-receiving surface of the
image pickup device" (Br. 12).
The Examiner responds by pointing to paragraphs 50, 51, 59, and 67
of Konno as disclosing the claimed image pickup unit including integrally
molded plastic lens 11 and optical module 21 and further by explaining that
the light shielding member is not required to abut the image sensor or block
light from all directions (Ans. 2--4). The Examiner further finds these cited
passages disclose adhering the tail end of the objective optical system and
the image pickup device such that the light-receiving section 12a is sealed
via an enclosed space (Ans. 4--5).
We are not persuaded by Appellant's arguments that the proposed
combination of Konno and Tansho, in view of the Official Notice, does not
teach or suggest the dispute claim limitations. We agree with the
Examiner's findings and conclusion that Konno does not require the light-
shielding member 21 b to cover the entire side surface and abut the top
surface of image pickup device 12. As such, the resulting structure will not
hinder curing the photosetting material by irradiating UV light, as urged by
3
Appeal2014-006900
Application 12/714, 83 8
Appellant. Additionally, we agree with the Examiner that Figures IA and
1 B of Konno show an enclosed space as the space in the lower part between
lens 11 and image pickup device 12, which is further supported by the lens
structure shown in Figure 2A.
Claim 9
Appellant contends the proposed combination of references does not
teach or suggest the method of manufacturing an image pickup unit recited
in claim 9 because one of ordinary skill in the art would not combine the use
of photosetting adhesive in Konno's structure (Br. 12-13). For similar
reasons stated above for claim 1, we are unpersuaded by Appellant's
argument. As explained by the Examiner, similar to the findings and
conclusions made with respect to claim 1, Konno describes an image pickup
unit which allows the passage of UV light for curing the photo setting
adhesive and the lens structure that forms an enclosed space between the
objective optical system and the light-receiving section (Ans. 5---6).
CONCLUSION
For the above-stated reasons, we are not persuaded by Appellant's
arguments that the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Konno and
Tansho teaches or suggests all the recited limitations of claims 1 and 9.
Accordingly, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 1 and 9,
independent claim 10, as well as the remaining dependent claims, which are
not argued separately (see Br. 13-14).
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-17 is affirmed.
4
Appeal2014-006900
Application 12/714, 83 8
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 )(iv).
AFFIRMED
5