11831830 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 17, 2013)

Ex Parte Jennings et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardJul 17, 2013

11831830 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 17, 2013)

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. 11/831,830 07/31/2007 DEAN JENNINGS 011313/FEP/RTP/PJT 5039 44257 7590 07/17/2013 PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, LLP - - APPM/TX 3040 POST OAK BOULEVARD, SUITE 1500 HOUSTON, TX 77056 EXAMINER WILKES, ZACHARY W ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2872 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 07/17/2013 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte DEAN JENNINGS, TIMOTHY N. THOMAS, STEPHEN MOFFATT, JIPING LI, BRUCE E. ADAMS, and SAMUEL C. HOWELLS ____________________ Appeal 2010-010610 Application 11/831,830 Technology Center 2800 ____________________ Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, and DAVID M. KOHUT, Administrative Patent Judges. DESHPANDE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING Appeal 2010-010610 Application 11/831,830 2 STATEMENT OF CASE The Appellants filed a REQUEST FOR REHEARING on July 2, 2013. The Examiner rejected claims 1-20 in a Final Rejection, mailed June 17, 2009. In our Decision mailed on May 8, 2013 we affirmed the rejection of claims 1-2, 4, 6-7, 9, 11-15, and 18 as being anticipated by the cited prior art. We also affirmed the rejection of claims 3, 5, 8, 10, 16, 17, 19, and 20 as being obvious in view of the cited prior art. We DENY the REQUEST FOR REHEARING. ISSUE The issue pertinent to this request is whether the Appellants have sustained their burden of showing that we misapprehended the claims and Specification, and thus erred in sustaining the rejections of claims. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.52(a)(1). ANALYSIS We found in our Decision that the Examiner did not err in finding that Yoo anticipates claim 1. Decision 4-5. The Appellants contend that we misapprehended the issue argued by the Appellants. Request 1-2. The Appellants specifically argue that we misapprehended Yoo in finding that Yoo describes “receiving [a] coherent light beam with a first beam splitter,” as recited in independent claim 1. Request 2-3. The Appellants further argue that Yoo describes “a beam of light [composed] of several wavelengths” and “light comprising multiple wavelengths cannot be considered coherent light.” Request 2-3. Appeal 2010-010610 Application 11/831,830 3 We disagree with the Appellants. Yoo describes the use of multi- wavelength lasers. Yoo 2:1-2. As such, “multiple light beams, each at multiple wavelengths of laser output” pass to a bank of bandpass filters that limit the beams of specific wavelengths that can pass through the filter. Yoo 2:5-11. That is, a multi-wavelength laser emits light at multiple wavelengths and the beams emitted from the laser. As discussed in our Decision, we agree with the Examiner that light emitted from a laser, regardless of the wavelength, is coherent light. Decision 4. The Appellants contend that the Appellants have provided evidence that light emitted from lasers at different wavelengths is not coherent light. Request 2-3. However, the Appellants contention fails to cite to any specific evidence to support such an assertion. As such, the Appellants’ argument is tantamount to nothing more than attorney arguments and conclusory statements. Attorney arguments and conclusory statements that are unsupported by factual evidence are entitled to little probative value. See In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997); see also In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705 (Fed. Cir. 1984). As such, we do not find this assertion of evidence to be persuasive. As discussed supra, we find that light emitted from a laser, even with a plurality of beams at multiple wavelengths, is coherent light. Accordingly, we deny the Appellants’ request for rehearing. DECISION To summarize, our decision is as follows.  We have considered the REQUEST FOR REHEARING. Appeal 2010-010610 Application 11/831,830 4  We DENY the request that we reverse the Examiner as to the rejection of claims 1-20 as being anticipated by the cited prior art or obvious over the cited prior art. 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) (2010). DENIED msc