10886755 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 19, 2010)

Ex Parte Hewlett et al

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesApr 19, 2010

10886755 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 19, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________ Ex parte GREGORY J. HEWLETT and DARREN T. MCCOSKY ____________ Appeal 2009-004361 Application 10/886,755 Technology Center 2800 ____________ Decided: April 19, 2010 ____________ Before JOHN C. MARTIN, CARLA M. KRIVAK, and ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judges. KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1-3. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Appeal 2009-004361 Application 10/886,755 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants’ disclosed invention is a method and system for providing a supplemental reset pulse for reducing visual impact of improper mirror operation in a micro-mechanical device (Spec. 10:3-4). Applying the supplemental reset pulse to the mirror ensures it is driven to a position indicated by loaded data, or to a neutral position (Abstract). The supplemental reset pulse is provided approximately 10 μS after an original reset pulse to reset “stuck” pixels without perturbing pixels that have already been released (Spec. 18:21-23). Independent claim 3, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal.1 3. A micromechanical system comprising: a micromirror device comprising a deflectable member; and electronics to provide a primary reset and a supplemental reset delayed from the primary reset to said deflectable member. THE REFERENCE AND REJECTION Knipe US 5,912,758 Jun.15, 1999 The Examiner rejected claims 1-3 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) based upon the teachings of Knipe. Appellants contend the individual pulses of Knipe’s reset signal cannot be interpreted as individual/separate resets (App. Br. 12; Reply Br. 7). 1 Appellants argue claims 1-3 as a group. We select claim 3 as representative of the claims in this group. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). Appeal 2009-004361 Application 10/886,755 3 ISSUE Did the Examiner err in finding the claimed “primary reset” and “supplemental reset” read on different parts of Knipe’s reset signal? FINDINGS OF FACT 1. In all the reset schemes of Knipe, the reset signal comprises two or more resonant pulses, which are added to a bias voltage, with or without a final impulse. The pulses maintain the mirror in a vibrational mode while maintaining a net force close to that provided by the bias voltage. Thus, the mirror remains tilted until the end of the reset signal and any stuck mirrors do not become unstuck until the end of the reset signal. (Col. 5, ll. 6-7 and 50-56; col. 6, ll. 1-13). PRINCIPLES OF LAW “Anticipation of a patent claim requires a finding that the claim at issue ‘reads on’ a prior art reference.” Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO, Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (quoting Titanium Metals Corp. of Am. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 781 (Fed. Cir. 1985)). Application claims are interpreted as broadly as is reasonable and consistent with the specification, In re Thrift, 298 F.3d 1357, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2002), while “taking into account whatever enlightenment by way of definitions or otherwise that may be afforded by the written description contained in the applicant's specification,” In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997), and without reading limitations from examples given in the specification into the claims, In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321-22 (Fed. Cir. 1989). Appeal 2009-004361 Application 10/886,755 4 ANALYSIS The Examiner finds that the reset signals depicted in each of Knipe’s Figures 5-7 and 10 include both a primary reset and a supplemental reset, as claimed (Ans. 4, 7). Discussing Figure 7 in particular, the Examiner reads the recited “primary reset” on the resonant pulses, “which are intended to help ‘to drive’ the deflectable member to ‘reset,’” and reads the recited “supplemental reset” on the final impulse, “which is intended to help ‘to drive’ the deflectable member to a chosen position, such as a neutral position” (Ans. 6). Appellants contend that a primary reset and a supplemental reset are different from the single reset signal of Knipe (App. Br. 12; Reply 5). Appellants state a primary reset is an initial positioning command and a supplemental reset is a second positioning command following the primary reset (Reply 5). Further, Appellants assert, Knipe’s individual pulses are not capable of resetting mirrors and the individual pulses are not individual commands used to position a deflectable member to a position (Reply 7). Appellants also contend the scope of the term “reset” has identifying characteristics as set forth in the specification and accordingly means “a command used to position a deflectable member to a position,” thus this inherent feature distinguishes from the individual pulses of Knipe (Reply 6). Although Appellants point to page 16, lines 4-7 of their Specification to define the term “reset,” which states “the term reset may mean a reset sequence . . . such that a mirror assumes and maintains a neutral or undeflected position” (emphasis added), this is an example of what the term “reset” can mean, not a definition of that term. The meaning of the term “reset” is not explicitly clear. Consequently, Appellants are interpreting the Appeal 2009-004361 Application 10/886,755 5 term “reset” more narrowly than the specification allows. As the Examiner has found, the term “reset” is broad enough to read on one or more pulses in a reset signal or reset sequence (Ans. 7), such as Knipe’s combination of resonant pulses and final impulse (Ans. 9). The fact that claim 3 recites a “primary reset” and a “supplemental reset” does not imply that the “primary reset” is generally capable of being successfully used without the “supplemental reset” to reset the mirror. Furthermore, even assuming such a capability is implied, we agree with the Examiner that Knipe effectively characterizes the resonant pulses as having that capability by disclosing the final impulse is optional (Ans. 10). Thus, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding the recited “primary reset” and “secondary reset” read on different parts of the reset signals depicted in Knipe’s Figures 5-7 and 10, and more particularly the “primary reset” reads on the resonant pulses and the “supplemental reset” reads on the final impulse in the Figure 7 reset signal (FF 1). CONCLUSION The Examiner did not err in finding the claimed “primary reset” and “supplemental reset” read on different parts of Knipe’s reset signals. DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-3 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 is affirmed. Appeal 2009-004361 Application 10/886,755 6 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 KIS TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATED P. O. BOX 655474, M/S 3999 DALLAS, TX 75265