Ex Parte Zhao et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 17, 2015

12336704 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 17, 2015)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/336,704 12/17/2008
60838 7590 12/21/2015
LNG/KLA 1 Joint Customer Number
C/O Luedeka Neely Group, P.C.
P.O. BOX 1871
KNOXVILLE, TN 37901
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Guoheng Zhao
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.
63309.US 2398
EXAMINER
GREEN, YARAB
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2884
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/21/2015 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):
Rick@TheBamesHome.com
pto-email@Lng-patent.com
docketing@luedeka.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GUO HENG ZHAO, GEORGE H. ZAPALAC JR.,
SAMUELS. H. NGAI, MEHDI VAEZ-IRA VANI, ADY LEVY, and
VINEET DHARMADHIKARI
Appeal2013-010167
Application 12/336,704
Technology Center 2800
Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, and
DENISE M. POTHIER, Administrative Patent Judges.
POTHIER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision to reject claims 7-9, 11, 12, and 21. App. Br. 4. 1 Claims 1---6, 10,
1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Final Rejection (Final Act.)
mailed October 19, 2012 (2) the Appeal Brief (App. Br.) filed April 22,
2013, (3) the Examiner's Answer (Ans.) mailed July 15, 2013, and (4) the
Reply Brief (Reply Br.) filed August 15, 2013.
Appeal2013-010167
Application 12/336,704
and 13-20 have been canceled. Id. at 5---6. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.
Invention
Appellants' invention relates to a tool for imaging and repairing
defects in a web of photovoltaic material moving relative to an imaging
device's field of view. See generally Abstract. Claim 7 is reproduced below
with emphasis:
7. A tool for detecting and taking action on a defect
in a moving web of photovoltaic material without stopping the
movement of the web, the tool comprising:
a detection module for detecting the defect in the web as
it is moving, the detection module comprising a linear array of
sensors disposed across the web of photovoltaic material
perpendicular to the movement of the web, where each sensor
in the linear array inspects an incremental portion of a width of
the web,
an action module for repairing the defect in the web as it
is moving, the action module comprising a linear array of
actors disposed across the web of photovoltaic material
perpendicular to the movement of the web, where each actor in
the linear array acts upon an associated one of the incremental
portions of the width of the web,
a common frame to which both the detection module is
mounted and the action module is mounted, where the detection
module is disposed at a known distance from and in an
upstream position to the action module relative to the
movement of the web, and
a controller for determining a position of the defect as
detected by the detection module, at least one of receiving and
detecting a speed of the moving web, and for instructing the
action module to take action on the defect at an appropriate
point in time when the defect is disposed within an action range
of the action module, based at least in part upon the speed of
2
Appeal2013-010167
Application 12/336,704
the moving web and the known distance between the detection
module and the action module.
The Examiner relies on the following as evidence of unpatentability:
Nikoonahad
Guha
Marella
Zapalac
US 2004/0032581 Al
US 6,750,466 B2
US 7,236,847 B2
US 2007 /0227586 Al
Feb. 19,2004
June 15, 2004
June 26, 2007
Oct. 4, 2007
R. Scheer, Thin film photovoltaics: diagnostics and repair, Annual Report
2004 of Hahn-Meitner Institut 92-93 (2004).
The Rejections
Claims 7-9, 12, and 21 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Scheer, Nikoonahad, Marella, and Guha. Final Act. 3-8. 3
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Scheer, Nikoonahad, Marella, Guha, and Zapalac. Final Act. 8-9.4
2 The Examiner mistakenly includes canceled claim 10 in the rejection. We
deem this error harmless.
3 When discussing the rejections under appeal, the Examiner refers to the
"Final Office action dated January 31, 2013 and the Advisory Action dated
January 31, 2013." Ans. 2. For purposes of appeal, we presume that the
Examiner intended to refer to the Final Action dated October 19, 2012 and
that the appeal is taken from the rejection presented in the Final Action.
4 Although indicating that claim 13 has been canceled (Final Act. 1 ), the
Examiner mistakenly rejects claim 13 based on various references (Final
Act. 9). We presume that the Examiner did not intend to reject a canceled
claim, and assume the Examiner intended to withdraw the rejection.
3
Appeal2013-010167
Application 12/336,704
OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER SCHEER, NIKOONAHAD,
MARELLA, AND GURA
Appellants argue claims 7-9, 12, and 21 as a group. App. Br. 3--4.
We select claim 7 as representative. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
The Examiner finds that Scheer, Nikoonahad, Marella, and Guha
collectively teach the limitations of representative claim 7. Final Act. 3-5.
In the proposed combination, the Examiner finds that Scheer teaches a
sensor and an actor but not a linear array of these elements. Id. at 3--4. In
finding that both the linear array of sensors and actors would have been
obvious, the Examiner relies upon Nikoonahad's teaching of both detecting
and emitting light along the width of an inspected specimen using a linear
array. Id. at 4 (citing Nikoonahad i-fi-122, 25, 81, 88).
Appellants argue that the proposed combination lacks a linear array of
actors. App. Br. 3. According to Appellants, Nikoonahad discloses a linear
array of sensors, but does not describe any actors. Id. Appellants contend
that the cited paragraphs from Nikoonahad describe only sensors, and that
none of the cited references describe a linear array of actors. Id. at 4.
Furthermore, Appellants disagree it would have been obvious to apply
teachings regarding all sensors to all actors based on the finding that some
sensors and some actors use light. See Reply Br. 1.
ISSUE
Under§ 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 7 by finding
that Scheer, Nikoonahad, Marella, and Guha collectively would have taught
or suggested a linear array of actors?
4
Appeal2013-010167
Application 12/336,704
ANALYSIS
Based on the record before us, we find no error in the Examiner's
rejection of claim 7, which calls for, in pertinent part, an action module
having a linear array of actors. Appellants do not dispute that Scheer
discloses at least one laser. App. Br. 3. Appellants, likewise, present no
arguments disputing the Examiner's finding that Scheer' s laser is an actor.
Id. at 3--4; Reply Br. 1. In particular, Scheer discloses an in-line machine for
detecting shunts using a camera (e.g., TK) and a laser (e.g., PL) for
eliminating shunts by ablation. Scheer 93, Fig. 2, cited at Final Act. 3. We
agree with the Examiner's finding that Scheer's laser is an actor because,
like the recited actor, the laser repairs defects, such as local shunts in a
substrate. Ans. 2. Accordingly, the present appeal turns on whether the
Examiner erred in concluding that converting Scheer' s one actor into a linear
array of actors, as recited, would have been obvious in view of the cited art.
Final Act. 3-5.
When addressing the recited linear arrays, the Examiner turns to
Nikoonahad. Id. at 4. In particular, the Examiner finds that Nikoonahad
uses linear arrays to span the width of the inspected sample for both
detecting and emitting light. See id. (citing Nikoonahad i-fi-122, 25, 81, 88).
In one aspect, Nikoonahad describes the advantage of using a linear array of
sensors is to image all points along the diameter or width of the sample.
Nikoonahad i1 81, cited at Final Act. 4. Likewise, Nikoonahad discloses
using a linear array of lights to provide a similar advantage.
Nikoonahad i1 88, cited at Final Act. 4. Nikoonahad further describes a light
source 70 that can be an array of laser diodes. Nikoonahad i-fi-1 88, 96. Based
on these teachings, the Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious
5
Appeal2013-010167
Application 12/336,704
to transform Scheer's camera and laser into a linear array of sensors and
actors respectively as taught and suggested by Nikoonahad to detect defects
uniformly and repair defects uniformly along the width of the material
inspected. Id.
We agree with the Examiner's conclusion that the recited linear array
of actors would have been obvious in view of the cited references.
Nikoonahad's light source (see, e.g., Nikoonahad i-f 88) and Scheer's laser
(Scheer, Fig. 2) have similarities. Of particular significance and previously
discussed, both use lasers that illuminate and emit radiation. Although
Nikoonahad does not use its light source as an actor, the Examiner proposes
combining Nikoonahad's suggestion of a light source composed of a linear
array with Scheer' s laser. See Final Act. 4. That is, when combined,
Scheer's laser would obtain the same advantage as Nikoonahad's light
source arranged as a linear array - a light source that both illuminates and
irradiates along the full width of the material. See Final Act. 4 (concluding
that applying Nikoonahad's array would confer the advantage of "uniform
defect repair" along the width like the disclosed array provides "uniform
detection"); see also Ans. 2-3 (explaining why the combination achieves
predictable results).
Also, given Nikoonahad's teaching, one skilled in the art would have
recognized the benefit of using Nikoonahad's light array with Scheer's
lasers to position and orient the radiation so that the radiation reaches the
surface of the sample effectively, such as along the full width of a material.
For example, arranging lights of a laser in a linear array eliminates the need
to move these elements perpendicular to the direction of travel, into
positions relative to specific points on the inspected surface.
6
Appeal2013-010167
Application 12/336,704
On this record, the Examiner's proposed enhancement (id. at 3-5)
does no more than improve a similar device (e.g., Scheer's action module
that includes a laser) in the similar manner taught by Nikoonahad (e.g., using
an array of actors to act on the full width of a material}-an obvious
combination of prior art elements. See KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550
U.S. 398, 401 (2007).
Appellants' arguments to the contrary are unavailing because they
either (1) amount to an improper attack on the references individually, or
(2) fail to rebut persuasively the specific combination of teachings used by
the Examiner. First, we are unpersuaded that none of the references describe
or suggest a linear array of actors. App. Br. 4. Also, as previously
discussed, the Examiner's rejection is based on applying Nikoonahad's
linear array that behaves as both an illuminator and an irradiator to Scheer's
camera and laser in concluding that the linear array of sensors and actors
would have been obvious. Final Act. 4. By arguing that neither reference
describes a linear array of actors (App. Br. 3--4), Appellants' argument does
not squarely address the prior art's collective teachings and as such, does not
persuasively rebut the Examiner's obviousness conclusion.
Likewise, we are unpersuaded by Appellants' argument that the
Examiner concludes incorrectly that it would have been obvious to apply
teachings regarding all sensor to all actors. Reply Br. 1. The Examiner's
rejection is not based solely on the finding that some sensors and some
actors use light. Id. To the contrary, the Examiner cites a specific teaching
applicable to sensors, lasers, and light sources-Nikoonahad's linear array
arrangement. Final Act. 4. Appellants' argument ignores how the linear
7
Appeal2013-010167
Application 12/336,704
array provides an advantage based on the known manner in which the prior
art elements use light, as discussed previously.
On the application of the linear array to Scheer's detector and actors,
Appellants have not presented a persuasive argument. For example, based
on the record, we determine that it would not have been uniquely
challenging or otherwise beyond the level of ordinarily skilled artisans in
arranging Scheer's lasers in an array. See Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-
Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Nor would duplicating
Scheer's laser to form an array of actors have produced some unexpected
result. See In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 671 (CCPA 1960) (noting that merely
duplicating parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected
result is produced).
For the foregoing reasons, Appellants have not persuaded us of error
in the rejection of claim 7 and dependent claims 8, 9, 12, and 21, not
separately argued with particularity. See App. Br. 3--4; Reply Br. 1.
OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER SCHEER, NIKOONAHAD,
MARELLA, GURA, AND ZAPALAC
Claim 11 depends from claim 7. In arguing against the rejection for
each of claim 11, Appellants argue that Zapalac does not cure the
deficiencies of Sheer, Nikoonahad, Marella, and Guha. App. Br. 4.
However, as discussed above, we determine that Scheer and Nikoonahad
collectively teach the disputed features in claim 7 and refer to our previous
discussion. Accordingly, we sustain this rejection.
8
Appeal2013-010167
Application 12/336,704
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 7-9, 11, 12, and 21 under
§ 103(a).
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 7-9, 11, 12, and 21 is
affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
dw
9