Ex parte HOU et al.

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Apr 10, 1998

08185294 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 10, 1998)

Application for patent filed January 24, 1994. According1
to applicants, the application is a continuation of Application
07/859,746, filed March 30, 1992, which is abandoned.
1
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today
(1) was not written for publication in a law journal and
(2) is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 22
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte SSUJAN HOU AND
LAM F. WONG
_____________
Appeal No. 95-3583
Application 08/185,2941
______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before HAIRSTON, KRASS, and TORCZON, Administrative Patent
Judges.
HAIRSTON, Administrative Patent Judge.
Appeal No. 95-3583
Application No. 08/185,294
2
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1
through 4.
The disclosed invention relates to a system for adjusting
the transverse location of an exposure frame on a photoreceptor
belt in relation to the detected lateral position of a set of
three inclined slots associated with the exposure frame. Each
slot is inclined at an angle with respect to a transverse line
perpendicular to the process direction of the exposure frame on
the photoreceptor belt.
Claim 1 is the only independent claim on appeal, and it
reads as follows:
1. An improved imaging system for forming multiple image
exposure frames on a photoconductive member including:
a photoreceptor belt adapted to accommodate the formation of
an integral number of image exposure frames, said belt having a
plurality of target apertures formed outside of the exposure area
and associated with each exposure frame respectively,
detecting means associated with said target apertures for
detecting changes in the lateral position of each aperture, the
apertures in said belt moving through a process direction, and
means for generating signals for adjusting the transverse
location of said exposure frames in relation to the detected
lateral position of said apertures wherein the improved apertures
comprise a set of three inclined slots, each slot alternately and
differently inclined with respect to each other at an angle 2
which is greater than 0E with respect to a transverse line
Appeal No. 95-3583
Application No. 08/185,294
3
perpendicular to the process direction, each slot separated from
each other by a distance S in the process direction when the belt
is properly registered.
The references relied on by the examiner are:
Suzuki et al. (Suzuki) 4,315,201 Feb. 9, 1982
Wong et al. (Wong) 5,208,796 May 4, 1993
(filed Jan. 3, 1991)
Claims 1 through 4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Wong in view of Suzuki.
Reference is made to the brief and the answer for the
respective positions of the appellants and the examiner.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the entire record before us,
and we will reverse the obviousness rejection of claims 1 through
4.
Figure 5 of Wong discloses a set of three slots 60, 62 and
64 on a photoreceptor belt 12, but only slot 64 is inclined at an
angle that is greater than 0 degrees with respect to a transverse
line perpendicular to the process direction of the belt. Figure
6 of Wong discloses a set of two inclined slots 66 and 68 on a
photoreceptor belt 12. We agree with the examiner that Wong
“does not explicitly disclose the use of a set of three inclined
Appeal No. 95-3583
Application No. 08/185,294
This statement gives the impression that the examiner is2
relying on the sole teachings of Wong.
4
slots, each of the slot [sic, slots] is inclined at an angle of
greater than zero degree with respect to a perpendicular line”
(Answer, page 3).
Suzuki discloses (Figure 1) apparatus for aligning a mask 12
and a wafer 13 during the manufacture of semiconductor circuit
elements. As seen in Figures 3 and 4, the mask 12 has a
plurality of circuit pattern areas A that are separated by narrow
strips S. In Figure 4, the mask 12 and the wafer 13 are shown in
an aligned position. In the narrow strip S, the plurality of
alignment marks C5 and C6 are located on the mask 12, and the
plurality of alignment marks C1 through C4 are located on the
wafer 13.
According to the examiner (Answer, pages 3 and 4):
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art at the time the invention was made to
use the teaching of Suzuki et al. and modify the system
of Wong et al. Such modification of using three slots
inclined with respect to each other is merely a
duplication of elements as opposed to two marks2
inclined with respect to each other (see fig. 6 of Wong
et al) in order to increase the lateral deviation
detection accuracy. One skilled in the art would have
been motivated to use the teaching of Suzuki et al. for
the purpose of precise alignment between an image and
reference point yielding to an accurate image recording
system.
Appeal No. 95-3583
Application No. 08/185,294
5
Appellants argue that Suzuki “discloses and claims a mask
and wafer alignment apparatus for use in the manufacture of
circuit elements” that uses “marks” as opposed to slots on the
mask and the wafer (Brief, pages 8 and 10), whereas claim 1
“recites an imaging system which forms multiple image exposures
on a photoreceptor belt and includes claim elements directed at
detecting lateral deviation of the belt during travel and
generating signals for correcting for the unwanted transverse
movement of the belt” (Brief, page 8). In view of the vast
differences between the disclosed and claimed invention and the
teachings of Suzuki, we agree with appellants that “Suzuki is not
analogous art and is not relevant to a consideration of
obviousness under Section 103" (Brief, page 7). Inasmuch as
Suzuki is concerned with the use of marks in the alignment of a
stationary mask and wafer, we do not believe that such teachings
would have logically commended themselves to an inventor
concerned with the problem of adjusting a moving photoreceptor
belt with the aid of slots located therein. See In re Clay,
966 F.2d 656, 659, 23 USPQ2d 1058, 1061 (Fed. Cir. 1992). The
teachings of Suzuki, therefore, can not be relied upon by the
Appeal No. 95-3583
Application No. 08/185,294
6
examiner to modify the teachings of Wong to arrive at the claimed
invention. Thus, the obviousness rejection is reversed.
DECISION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1 through 4
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
REVERSED
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
ERROL A. KRASS ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
RICHARD TORCZON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 95-3583
Application No. 08/185,294
7
Ronald Zibelli
XEROX CORPORATION
Xerox Square - 020A
Rochester, NY 14644