Ex parte IIZUKA

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Oct 20, 1998

08279748 (B.P.A.I. Oct. 20, 1998)

Application for patent filed July 22, 1994. The appellant has claimed foreign1
priority to Japanese application 5-199484, filed August 11, 1993.
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publication in a law journal and (2) is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 15
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte TAKASHI IIZUKA
_____________
Appeal No. 97-3467
Application 08/279,7481
______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before THOMAS, HAIRSTON and LEE Administrative Patent Judges.
LEE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from
the examiner's final rejection of claims 1-4 and 6-12. Claim
5 has been canceled. No claim has been allowed.
References relied on by the Examiner
Takemoto et al. (Takemoto) 4,975,717 Dec. 04,
1990
Morimoto 5,194,981 Mar. 16,
1993
Appeal No. 97-3467
Application 08/279,748
2
Appeal No. 97-3467
Application 08/279,748
3
The Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1-4 and 6-12 stand finally rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Morimoto and Takemoto.
Claim 1 is the only independent claim.
The Invention
The invention is directed to a laser drawing apparatus
wherein the height of the drawing beams on the drawing surface
is subject to a limitation to avoid distortion. Claim 1, the
sole independent claim, is reproduced below:
1. A laser drawing apparatus comprising:
a splitting means comprising a beam splitter
which separates laser light emitted from a laser
source into two drawing beams, the beams being
aligned in a common plane and a beam separator
which separates each of the two drawing beams
into at least two bundles of drawing beams;
a deflecting mirror having a reflecting surface
which reflects and deflects the aligned drawing
beams to scan a drawing surface therewith in a
main scanning direction; and,
a scanning optical system which converges the
beams reflected by the reflecting surface of the
deflecting mirror onto the drawing surface,
wherein the height of the drawing beams on the
drawing surface in said main scanning direction
from the optical axis of said scanning optical
system is limited to be in proportion to a
deflection angle 2;
Appeal No. 97-3467
Application 08/279,748
4
wherein there is the following relationship:
* =cos { 2 cos" X cos T - cos " }-1 2
( =tan { sin" / ( 2cos" x sinT x cosT ) }-1
(* sin( - " ) < p/f
wherein
"f" designates the focal length of the scanning optical
system;
""" the incident angle of a drawing beam upon the reflecting
surface of the deflecting mirror in a sub-scanning direction
normal to said main scanning direction;
"T" the angle of a line normal to the reflecting
surface of the deflecting mirror with respect to
a bisector of the optical axis of the scanning
optical system and the axis of an incident beam;
"p" the pitch of the aligned drawing beams;
"*" the angle of the drawing beams reflected by
the reflecting surface of the deflecting mirror
with respect to the optical axis of the scanning
optical system; and,
"(" the angle of a line connecting an image
forming point of the drawing beams reflected by
the reflecting surface on the drawing surface and
an intersecting point on the optical axis of the
scanning optical system to the drawing surface,
with respect to the sub-scanning direction.
Opinion
We do not sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 1-4 and
Appeal No. 97-3467
Application 08/279,748
5
6-12 as being unpatentable over Morimoto and Takemoto.
Claim 1 expressly recites the following criteria for
limiting
the height of the drawing beams on the drawing surface:
wherein there is the following relationship:
* =cos { 2 cos" X cos T - cos " }-1 2
( =tan { sin" / ( 2cos" x sinT x cosT ) }-1
(* sin( - " ) < p/f
wherein
"f" designates the focal length of the scanning optical
system;
""" the incident angle of a drawing beam upon the reflecting
surface of the deflecting mirror in a sub-scanning direction
normal to said main scanning direction;
"T" the angle of a line normal to the reflecting
surface of the deflecting mirror with respect to
a bisector of the optical axis of the scanning
optical system and the axis of an incident beam;
"p" the pitch of the aligned drawing beams;
"*" the angle of the drawing beams reflected by
the reflecting surface of the deflecting mirror
with respect to the optical axis of the scanning
optical system; and,
"(" the angle of a line connecting an image
forming point of the drawing beams reflected by
the reflecting surface on the drawing surface and
an intersecting point on the optical axis of the
Appeal No. 97-3467
Application 08/279,748
6
scanning optical system to the drawing surface,
with respect to the sub-scanning direction.
Instead of specifically finding this recited relationship
from the disclosure of either Morimoto or Takemoto, the examiner
relied
on the appellant’s representation in the appeal brief that the
recited relationship is for causing the resulting distortion to
be "limited to the distortion free region as depicted in the
upper left corner of Fig. 26" (Br. at 3). The rationale of the
examiner is that if Morimoto’s system similarly limits
distortion, then at least a prima facie case has been made out
that Morimoto’s system also satisfies the host of special
relationships required by claim 1 among the various parameters.
This approach is logical and not improper, since the appellant
did specifically state (Br. at 3):
When the claimed parameters are followed the incident
angle and emission angle of the polygonal mirror are
confined so that the height of the drawing beams is
limited to the distortion free region as depicted in
the upper left corner of Fig. 26. (Emphasis added.)
The problem, however, is that the examiner has misconstrued
the above-quoted statement and not properly viewed the
appellant’s Figure 26. The term "upper left corner" as
Appeal No. 97-3467
Application 08/279,748
7
referenced in the appellant’s brief is used not to describe the
single point at the corner where the angle " is zero degrees and
the angle T is also zero degrees, but the relatively distortion
free "region" at the upper left corner of the graph, where the
angle " is less than 15 degrees and the angle o is less than 7.5
degrees. See Figure 26.
The examiner has, erroneously, tried (answer at 3) to find
in Morimoto an instance where the angle " is zero degrees and
the
angle o is also zero degrees. Even assuming that the examiner
finds an instance in Morimoto where the angle " is zero degrees
and the angle o is also zero degrees, that would not have
reasonably suggested the upper left "region" in Figure 26 where
" is a range between zero and 15 degrees and o is a range
between zero and 7.5 degrees, as identified by the appellant in
connection with the various relationships required by claim 1.
The examiner’s rejection fails on this ground alone.
In addition to erroneously construing the identified "region"
as a single point, the examiner has failed to explain how he
determined that in Morimoto the angle " is zero and the angle o
Appeal No. 97-3467
Application 08/279,748
8
is zero. With respect to the angle ", which is defined in claim
1 as "the incident angle of a drawing beam upon the reflecting
surface of the deflecting mirror in a sub-scanning direction
normal to said main scanning direction," the examiner stated
(answer at 3): "As seen in Morimoto’s Figures 5 and 6, the
correcting deflecting element is used to provide such an angular
incidence." No explanation is made for this observation and a
zero angle for " is not self-apparent from Figures 5 and 6. We
find that the examiner
has not shown how Figures 5 and 6 of Morimoto discloses that the
angle of incidence of the drawing beam on the reflecting surface
is zero.
The examiner also further erroneously determined that in
Morimoto the angle o is zero. The angle o is defined in claim
1 as "the angle of a line normal to the reflecting surface of
the deflecting mirror with respect to a bisector of the optical
axis of the scanning optical system and the axis of an incident
beam." That is the same definition as set forth on pages 4 and
19 of the appellant’s specification. As is illustrated in
Figure 9 of the specification, the angle o is really a variable,
Appeal No. 97-3467
Application 08/279,748
9
depending on the angular position of the reflecting polygon
mirror 46. In that illustration, the reference point of o is
where o equals zero. But when the mirror moves to another
position as indicated in dashed lines, evidently o takes on a
certain value.
As defined in claim 1, o is the angle between a line normal to
the reflecting surface and a line which bisects the angle
between the incident beam and the optical axis of the optical
scanning system, i.e. line O in Figure 26. It changes as the
position of the reflecting mirror changes. The examiner,
however, erroneously
finds (answer at 4) that "the law of reflection provides for the
normal to the surface and the bisector to be coincident." On
that erroneous basis, the examiner concludes that o is zero in
Morimoto. It is apparent that the examiner is referring to a
different
bisector, namely, the bisector of the angle formed by the
incident beam and the reflected beam, rather than the bisector
called for by the appellant’s claim. Based on the examiner’s
reasoning, the angle o would always be zero, since the normal
Appeal No. 97-3467
Application 08/279,748
10
and the bisector by definition would coincide with each other.
But that is not the angle o defined in the appellant’s claim,
which is measured with respect to a different bisector.
Because the examiner failed to establish that Morimoto’s
device satisfies the requirement of limiting distortion to that
represented by the upper left corner region shown in appellant’s
Figure 26, there is no basis for the examiner to conclude that
Morimoto inherently satisfies the various equations set forth in
claim 1 between the many pertinent parameters in the system.
Takemoto has not been relied on for any teaching in connection
with this aspect of the appellant’s claimed invention.
In the final Office action (Paper No. 11), the examiner
stated: "It is well known in the art of optical systems that the
closer the light is to the optical axis, the less distortion and
aberration is induced by the optical components." But that
general recognition is far from adequate to constitute a
reasonable suggestion for the specific formulas recited in claim
1 or for
particular identification of the upper left corner region in
appellant’s Figure 26 involving both angles " and o. The
examiner has not presented any evidence that the basic level of
Appeal No. 97-3467
Application 08/279,748
11
skill and knowledge possessed by one with ordinary skill in the
art would have included the recognition that the specific region
focused on by the appellant in Figure 26 has a particular
significance insofar as reduction of distortion is concerned.
For the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of
claims 1-4 and 6-12 over Morimoto and Takemoto.
Conclusion
The rejection of claims 1-4 and 6-12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Morimoto and Takemoto is reversed.
REVERSED
JAMES D. THOMAS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
JAMESON LEE )
Administrative Patent Judge )
vsh
Appeal No. 97-3467
Application 08/279,748
12
Gerald Levy
Kane, Dalsimer, Sullivan, Kurucz
Levy, Eisele & Richard
711 Third Avenue
New York, NY 10017-4059