Ex Parte Ramberg et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 25, 2009

10131881 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 25, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte RANDY J. RAMBERG and THEODORE BROBERG
____________

Appeal 2009-001121
Application 10/131,881
Technology Center 2800
____________

Decided:1 June 25, 2009
____________

Before CATHERINE Q. TIMM, LINDA M. GAUDETTE, and
JEFFREY B. ROBERTSON Administrative Patent Judges.

GAUDETTE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, begins to run from the Decided Date
shown on this page of the decision. The time period does not run from the
Mail Date (paper delivery) or Notification Date (electronic delivery).

Appeal 2009-001121
Application 10/131,881

Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision finally rejecting claims 1-5 and 9 (Final Office Action (“Final”),
mailed Oct. 11, 2005)2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claim 1, the sole independent claim, is illustrative of the subject
matter on appeal, and is reproduced from the Claims Appendix to the Appeal
Brief (“Br.”), filed Jun. 7, 2006:
1. A ring laser gyroscope, comprising an interference mirror having a top
layer with a homogeneous matrix of material including ZrO2 and an amount
of a second metal oxide having large heat of formation.

Appellants request review of the sole ground of rejection (Br. 9):
claims 1-5 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Lu, US
5,457,570, issued Oct. 10, 1995.3
ISSUE
Have Appellants shown reversible error in the Examiner’s
determination that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated
to remove the top layer of coating from Lu’s optical device to achieve
Appellants’ claimed invention?
We answer this question in the affirmative.
FINDINGS OF FACT (“FF”)

2 Claims 6-8 and 10-12 are also pending and stand objected to as dependent
on a rejected base claim. (Final 4.)
3 We note that Appellants have also requested reversal of the objection to
claims 6-8. (Br. 14.) These claims are not subject to appeal because they
are not subject to a ground of rejection. See 37 CFR § 41.31(c).
2
Appeal 2009-001121
Application 10/131,881

1. At the time of Appellants’ invention, it was known in the art
that interference mirrors used in ring laser gyroscopes were degraded by
continuous exposure to a high-energy plasma environment. (Spec. 1:10-12.)
A prior art approach to reducing these degradation effects was to use a high
refractive index material, such as ZrO2, as the top layer. (Spec. 1:19-24.) In
addition, it was known in the art to coat such a layer with Al2O3. (Spec.
1:24-27.)
2. Lu discloses a two-layer antireflective coating (Abstract) for a
ring laser gyroscope (col. 3, l. 48) which includes a first layer formed from a
high refractive index material and a second layer, coated on the first layer,
formed from a material having a refractive index smaller than that of the first
layer (col. 3, l. 67-col. 4, 6). According to Lu, the first/inner layer is
preferably Ta2O5 doped with Al2O3. (Col. 4, l. 51.) The second/top layer is
preferably Al2O3 which “blocks ultraviolet radiation and prevents UV
damage to the inner layer.” (Col. 4, ll. 60-62; see also, col. 3, ll. 29-31; col.
4, ll. 18-21.)
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
The mere fact that the prior art may be modified in the manner
proposed by the Examiner does not make the modification obvious unless
the prior art suggested the desirability of the modification. In re Gordon,
733 F.2d 900, 902 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds that the composition of Lu’s first layer
corresponds to Appellants’ claimed top layer. (Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”)
mailed Jun. 27, 2006, 3-4.) The Examiner acknowledges that Lu’s first layer
is not the “top layer.” (Ans. 6.) However, the Examiner reasons that “one
3
Appeal 2009-001121
Application 10/131,881

would have been motivated to remove the top layer of Lu for the purpose of
reducing production costs by reducing the amount of material used to create
the interference mirror.” (Ans. 4.)
Appellants argue that removal of the top Al2O3 layer would render
Lu’s antireflective coating unsuitable for its intended purpose of blocking
ultraviolet radiation and preventing UV damage to the inner layer. (App. Br.
11.) We agree with Appellants. There is no suggestion in Lu that the
antireflective coating would function absent the top Al2O3 layer and,
therefore, it cannot be said that the proposed modification would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. (Compare FF 2 with FF 1 (prior
art structure which Appellants seek to improve upon is similar to Lu’s
structure).)
CONCLUSION
Appellants have identified reversible error in the Examiner’s
obviousness determination. Therefore, we reverse the rejection of claims 1-
5 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Lu.

REVERSED

tc

HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC.
PATENT SERVICES
101 COLUMBIA ROAD
P.O. BOX 2245
MORRISTOWN, NJ 07962-2245

4