Ex Parte Neijzen et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardOct 25, 201714355462 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 25, 2017) Copy Citation 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. 14/355,462 04/30/2014 Jacobus Hermanus Maria Neijzen 2011P01215WOUS 5692 24737 7590 10/27/2017 PTTTT TPS TNTFT T FfTTTAT PROPFRTY fr STANDARDS EXAMINER 465 Columbus Avenue SIEFKE, SAMUEL P Suite 340 Valhalla, NY 10595 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1797 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/27/2017 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): patti. demichele @ Philips, com marianne. fox @ philips, com katelyn.mulroy @philips .com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JACOBUS HERMANUS MARIA NEIJZEN and WENDY UYEN DITTMER Applicant: KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V.1 Appeal 2017-002149 Application 14/355,462 Technology Center 1700 Before: CHUNG K. PAK, AVELYN M. ROSS, and JANE E. INGLESE, Administrative Patent Judges. INGLESE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant requests our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of a final rejection of claims 6, 7, 15, and 19—212. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant claims a sensor apparatus for optical examination of a 1 The real party in interest, KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V., is the Applicant, and thus the Appellant. Appeal Brief filed February 15, 2016 (“App. Br.”), 1. 2 Claims 3—5, 8—10, 12—14, 16—18, and 22 stand withdrawn from consideration. Final Office Action entered July 16, 2015 (“Final Act.”), 2. Appeal 2017-002149 Application 14/355,462 sample. App. Br. 3. Claim 6 illustrates the subject matter on appeal and is reproduced below, with contested limitations italicized: 6. A sensor apparatus for optical examination of a sample, comprising: a cartridge including a first sample chamber and a second sample chamber; at least one light source configured to irradiate the first sample chamber with a first input light beam and the second sample chamber with a second input light beam; wherein the first sample chamber and a direction of the first input light beam are configured such that the first input light beam is reflected from the first sample chamber by total internal reflection to form a first output light beam; wherein the second sample chamber is configured to reflect the second input light beam from an interior of the second sample chamber to form a second output light beam; a light detector configured to convert light received on a single image plane into an electrical signal for analysis by an analysis unit; at least one optical element configured to direct the first output light beam and the second output light beam to said single light detection surface such that the first output light beam and the second output light beam are detected with the same light detector. App. Br. 11 (Claims Appendix) (emphasis added). The Examiner sets forth the rejection of claims 6, 7, 15, and 19—21 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Archibald et al. (US 2003/0175160 Al, published September 18, 2003) in the Final Office Action, and maintains the rejection in the Answer entered September 23, 2016. DISCUSSION Upon consideration of the evidence relied-upon in this appeal and the 2 Appeal 2017-002149 Application 14/355,462 respective positions of the Examiner and Appellant, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 6, 7, 15, and 19—21 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) for the reasons set forth in the Appeal Brief and below. We decide this appeal based on independent claim 6 because the remaining rejected claims include all the limitations of claim 6.3 As set forth above, claim 6 requires a sensor apparatus for optical examination of a sample to comprise a cartridge that includes a first sample chamber and a second sample chamber, and at least one light source configured to irradiate the first sample chamber with a first input light beam and the second sample chamber with a second input light beam. Claim 6 further requires the first sample chamber to be configured such that the first input light beam is reflected from the first sample chamber by total internal reflection, and requires second sample chamber to be configured to reflect the second input light beam from an interior of the second sample chamber. According to the Examiner, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the word “reflect” recited in claim 6 in connection with the second sample chamber encompasses total internal reflection (as recited in claim 6 in connection with the first chamber). Ans. 4—5, 8—9. The Examiner finds that Archibald discloses a sensor apparatus in which a prism directs a plurality of parallel light beams towards individual sample chambers, where total internal reflection off the surfaces of the samples occurs. Ans. 4 (citing Archibald Fig. 4). The Examiner finds that Archibald defines “total internal reflection” as occurring at an interface where a transparent optical structure, such as a sample well, contacts a sample. Ans. 4, 8—9 (citing Archibald 3 Independent claim 19 recites all the limitations of claim 6 and recites an additional limitation not included in claim 6. 3 Appeal 2017-002149 Application 14/355,462 1109). The Examiner finds that, “[i]n other words the interior surface [of a sample well] that contacts the sample is where the reflection occurs and this is the same surface claim 6 speaks of in the second sample chamber.” Ans. 4, 8. The Examiner thus takes the position that Archibald’s disclosure of total internal reflection occurring at an interface where a sample well contacts a sample meets the limitation in claim 6 of reflection of an input light beam from a first sample chamber by total internal reflection, and also meets the limitation in claim 6 of reflection of an input light beam from an interior of a second sample chamber. However, Appellant’s Specification discloses that total internal reflection takes place at a detection surface of a first sample chamber to produce a first output light beam, and a second output light beam “comes from the interior of the inspectable [second] chamber.” Spec. 2,11. 8—11, 21—22; 3,11. 3—9, 13—15 (emphasis added). Appellant’s Specification also discloses that input light beams “must be totally internally reflected at the TIR [total internal reflection or first] chamber and enter the inspectable [second] chamber.” Spec. 6,11. 19—21 (emphasis added). Therefore, according to Appellant’s Specification, total internal reflection of a first input light beam takes place at the surface (detection surface) of a first sample chamber to produce a first output light beam, whereas a second input light beam enters a second chamber to produce a second output light from the interior of the second chamber. Although the Examiner interprets the word “reflect” recited in claim 6 in connection with the second sample chamber as encompassing total internal reflection, Appellant’s Specification makes clear that input light beams enter the interior of the second sample chamber, while total internal 4 Appeal 2017-002149 Application 14/355,462 reflection occurs at the surface of the first sample chamber. Appellant’s Specification thus distinguishes total internal reflection of an input light beam at the surface of a first sample chamber from reflection of an input light beam from the interior of a second sample chamber. The Examiner’s interpretation of claim 6 is inconsistent with these disclosures in Appellant’s Specification, and is therefore unduly broad. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054—55 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“While the Board must give the terms their broadest reasonable construction, the construction cannot be divorced from the specification and the record evidence.”); In re Smith Int’l, Inc., 871 F.3d 1375, 1382—83 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“The correct inquiry in giving a claim term its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification is not whether the specification proscribes or precludes some broad reading of the claim term adopted by the examiner. And it is not simply an interpretation that is not inconsistent with the specification. It is an interpretation that corresponds with what and how the inventor describes his invention in the specification, i.e., an interpretation that is ‘consistent with the specification.’” (quoting Morris, 127 F.3d at 1054)). Contrary to the Examiner’s assertions, Archibald’s disclosure of total internal reflection occurring at an interface where a transparent optical structure, such as a sample well, contacts a sample, does not correspond to a (second) sample chamber configured to reflect an input light beam from an interior of the sample chamber, as recited in claim 6. It follows that the Examiner does not establish that Archibald discloses all of the features recited in claim 6, and we accordingly do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 6, 7, 15, and 19—21 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Archibald. 5 Appeal 2017-002149 Application 14/355,462 DECISION In view of the reasons set forth above and in the Appeal Brief, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 6, 7, 15, and 19—21 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). REVERSED 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation