Ex Parte MIYAKE et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 27, 2018

13716944 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 27, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/716,944 12/17/2012 Shinsuke MIYAKE
22850 7590 07/31/2018
OBLON, MCCLELLAND, MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P.
1940 DUKE STREET
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314
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.
409168US28 3566
EXAMINER
SHAH, MANISH S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2853
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/31/2018 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):
OBLONPAT@OBLON.COM
tfarrell@oblon.com
patentdocket@oblon.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SHINSUKE MIYAKE, KA TS UN ORI SHOJI,
KAZUNORI WATANABE, and SHIGEAKI IMAI
Appeal 2016-006622
Application 13/716,944
Technology Center 2800
Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, DEBRA K. STEPHENS, and
AARON W. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
MOORE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2016-006622
Application 13/716,944
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-16, which are all of the pending claims. An oral hearing was
conducted on March 20, 2018. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
THE INVENTION
The application is directed to "[a] light beam scanning device [that]
scans a luminous flux irradiated from a light source and deflected by a
deflector to a scanned surface through an optical system having a set of
mirrors." (Abstract.) Claim 1, reproduced below, exemplifies the subject
matter on appeal:
Claim 1. A light beam scanning device that scans a luminous
flux to a scanned surface, the device comprising:
a light source configured to irradiate the luminous flux;
a deflector configured to deflect the luminous flux irradiated
from the light source;
an optical system disposed on an optical path of the deflected
luminous flux and configured to guide the deflected luminous
flux to the scanned surface, the optical system having a set of
mirrors including a first mirror and a second mirror, each of said
mirrors being disposed on an optical path between the deflector
and a scanned surface corresponding to said light source;
a scanning line curve adjusting device configured to bend the
first mirror so as to correct a curve in a scanning line on the
scanned surface; and
1 Appellants identify Ricoh Company, Ltd. as the real party in interest. (See
App. Br. 1.)
2
Appeal2016-006622
Application 13/716,944
a scanning line tilt adjusting device configured to change
orientation of the second mirror so as to correct a tilt in the
scanning line on the scanned surface, wherein the scanning line
curve adjusting device is configured to bend the first mirror
without changing orientation of the second mirror, and wherein
the scanning line tilt adjusting device is configured to change
orientation of the second mirror without bending the first mirror.
THE REFERENCES AND THE REJECTIONS
1. Claims 12-14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Shoji (US 2008/0212155Al; published Sept. 4, 2008). (See
Final Act. 2-3.)
2. Claims 1-11, 15, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Shoji and Kuroda (JP 2003-241128 A; published Aug.
27, 2003). (See Final Act. 4--11.)
ANALYSIS
Claims 12-14
Independent claim 12 recites "scanning line curve adjusting means for
bending a first mirror . . . so as to correct a curve in a scanning line on the
scanned surface" and "scanning line tilt adjusting means for changing
orientation of a second mirror ... so as to correct a tilt in the scanning line
on the scanned surface."
Appellants argue that "the structures disclosed in Shoji for both curve
correction and tilt correction, e.g., motors 65 and 56, act on the same mirror
51 and so do not provide the claimed functions of the respective 'means' of
Claim 12." (App. Br. 9, emphasis omitted.) We agree and, for that reason,
do not sustain the rejection of claim 12 or its dependent claims 13 and 14.
3
Appeal2016-006622
Application 13/716,944
Claims 1-11, 15, and 16
Independent claim 1 requires a "scanning line curve adjusting device"
that is "configured to bend [a] first mirror without changing orientation of
[a] second mirror" and a "scanning line tilt adjusting device" that is
"configured to change orientation of the second mirror without bending the
first mirror." Independent claim 15 similarly recites "bending [a] first
mirror so as to correct a curve in the scanning line on the scanned surface"
and "changing orientation of [a] second mirror so as to correct a tilt in the
scanning line on the scanned surface." Independent claim 16 recites "a
scanning line curve adjusting device configured to bend [a] first mirror so as
to correct a curve in a scanning line on the scanned surface" and "a scanning
line tilt adjusting device configured to change orientation of [a] second
mirror so as to correct a tilt in the scanning line on the scanned surface."
Appellants argue "Shoji discloses two mirrors for each light beam La-
Ld: mirrors 44 and 51" and "the final rejection does not dispute that both the
scanning line curve adjusting device and the scanning line tilt adjusting
device in Shoji act on the same mirror." (App. Br. 10, emphases omitted.)
They further argue that because "Kuroda does not implement curve
correction and tilt correction by acting on different ones of the mirrors," it
"cannot provide a teaching for overcoming the shortcoming of Shoji, i.e., it
cannot teach that the tilt adjustment motor 56 and the curve adjustment
motor 65 shown in Figs. 4--5 of Shoji act on different mirror[ s] on the optical
path of a light beam" (id. at 11, emphases omitted), as claimed.
We agree with Appellants. Shoji teaches bending and tilting a single
mirror to correct curve and tilt errors. According to the Examiner, "Kuroda
is introduced as a secondary reference modifying Shoji disclosing a scanning
4
Appeal2016-006622
Application 13/716,944
line tilt adjusting device configured to change orientation of [a] second
mirror without bending the first." (Ans. 12-13.) The Examiner does not,
however, adequately explain why Kuroda' s teachings would have motivated
one of skill in the art to modify Shoji from using a single mirror to adjust
both tilt and curve to using a first mirror to adjust tilt and a second mirror to
adjust curve.
We accordingly do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 1, its
dependent claims 2-11, and independent claims 15 and 16, which recite
substantially the same limitations.
DECISION
The rejections of claims 1-16 are reversed.
REVERSED
5