Ex Parte Becken et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 12, 201511992369 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 12, 2015) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte KEITH JAMES BECKEN, STEPHAN LVOVICH LOGUNOV, ROBERT STEPHEN WAGNER, AIYU ZHANG, and LU ZHANG 1 ____________ Appeal 2013-004093 Application 11/992,369 Technology Center 1700 ____________ Before CHUNG K. PAK, ROMULO H. DELMENDO, and JEFFREY T. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judges. PAK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision 2 finally rejecting claims 1‒21, which are all of the claims pending in the above-identified application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm-in-part. The subject matter on appeal is directed to “a method for hermetically sealing glass packages that are suitable to protect thin 1 The real party in interest is said to be Corning Incorporated. Appeal Brief filed July 23, 2012 (“App. Br.”) at 2. 2 Final Action mailed January 23, 2012 (“Final Act.”) at 2‒12 and the Examiner’s Answer mailed October 26, 2012 (“Ans.”) at 4‒14. Appeal 2013-004093 Application 11/992,369 2 film devices which are sensitive to the ambient environment (e.g., oxygen, moisture).” Spec. 1, ll. 5‒8. “Some examples of such glass packages are organic emitting light diode (OLED) displays, sensors, and other optical devices.” Id. at ll. 8‒10. Details of the appealed subject matter are recited in illustrative claims 1, 8, and 15, 3 which are reproduced below from the Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief: 1. A method for manufacturing a glass package, said method comprising the steps of: using a heat source to direct a beam towards a frit which along with at least one light emitting device is located between two substrate plates; moving the heat source or the two substrate plates such that the beam moves at a substantially constant speed on a sealing line of said two substrate plates, where said sealing line includes said frit, a plurality of regions free of electrodes, and a plurality of regions occupied by electrodes all of which are located between said two substrate plates; modulating a power of the heat source when moving the beam at the substantially constant speed such that the beam imparts sufficient heat source energy to said frit to cause said frit to form a hermetic seal which connects said two substrate plates; and changing the speed that the beam moves along the sealing line on said two substrate plates in response to the power to the heat source reaching a maximum or a minimum power capacity, wherein the beam continues to impart sufficient heat source energy to said frit to cause said frit to form the hermetic seal which connects said two substrate plates. 3 To the extent that Appellants have separately argued the individual claims on appeal, we will address them separately. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2012). Appeal 2013-004093 Application 11/992,369 3 8. A device for sealing a glass package, said device comprising: a platform on which there is placed an unsealed glass package which is made-up of a frit and at least one light emitting device that are located between two substrate plates; a computer; and a heat source, wherein said computer processes instructions stored therein to facilitate the following: directing the heat source to emit a beam towards said frit; moving the heat source or the two substrate plates such that the beam moves at a substantially constant speed on a sealing line of said two substrate plates, where said sealing line includes said frit, a plurality of regions free of electrodes, and a plurality of regions occupied by electrodes all of which are located between said two substrate plates; modulating a power of the heat source when moving the beam at the substantially constant speed such that the beam imparts sufficient heat source energy to said frit to cause said frit to form a hermetic seal which connects said two substrate plates, then changing the speed that the beam moves along the sealing line on said two substrate plates in response to the power to the heat source reaching a maximum or a minimum power capacity so that the beam continues to impart sufficient heat source energy to said frit to cause said frit to form the hermetic seal which connects said two substrate plates. Appeal 2013-004093 Application 11/992,369 4 15. A method for manufacturing a glass package, said method comprising the steps of: using a heat source to direct a beam through a light focusing unit and towards a frit which along with at least one light emitting device is located between two substrate plates; moving the heat source or the two substrate plates such that the beam moves at a substantially constant speed on a sealing line of said two substrate plates, where said sealing line includes said frit, a plurality of regions flee of electrodes, and a plurality of regions occupied by electrodes all of which are located between said two substrate plates; modulating a power of the heat source when moving the beam at a substantially constant speed such that the beam imparts sufficient heat source energy to said frit to cause said frit to form a hermetic seal which connects said two substrate plates, wherein the light focusing unit provides the beam with a power density; and controlling the light focusing unit at the output of the heat source to adjust the power density of the beam in response to the power to the heat source reaching a maximum or a minimum power capacity, wherein the beam continues to impart sufficient heat source energy to said frit to cause said frit to form the hermetic seal which connects said two substrate plates. App. Br. 22‒26. The Examiner maintains the following grounds of rejection: 1. Claims 1‒21 under 35 U.S.C. §112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement; Appeal 2013-004093 Application 11/992,369 5 2. Claims 1‒21 under 35 U.S.C. §112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicants regard as their invention; 3. Claims 1 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. §102(b) as anticipated by, or in the alternative under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over, the disclosure of Aitken; 4 4. Claims 2, 3, 7, 16, 17, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as unpatentable over the combined disclosures of Aitken and Cook; 5 5. Claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as unpatentable over the combined disclosures of Aitken and Chen; 6 6. Claims 9, 10, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as unpatentable over the combined disclosures of Aitken, Chen, and Cook; 7. Claims 4, 5, 11, 12, 18, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as unpatentable over the combined disclosures of Aitken, Cook, Chen, and Overbeck; 7 and 8. Claims 6, 13, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combined disclosures of Aitken, Cook, Chen, and Reis. 8 Final Act. 2‒12 and Ans. 4‒14. 4 US 2004/0207314 A1 published in the name of Aitken et al., on October 21, 2004 (“Aitken”). 5 US 4,029,932 issued to Cook on June 14, 1977 (“Cook”) 6 US 6,005,995 issued to Chen et al., on December 21, 1999 (“Chen”). 7 US 2002/0156323 A1 published in the name of Overbeck on August 21, 2003 (“Overbeck”). 8 US 4,887,019 issued to Reis et al., on December 12, 1989 (“Reis”). Appeal 2013-004093 Application 11/992,369 6 DISCUSSION 35 U.S.C. §112, FIRST PARAGRAPH The Examiner has rejected claims 1‒21 under 35 U.S.C. §112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. Ans. 4. To show that the Specification does not provide an enabling disclosure for the subject matter recited in claims 1‒21, the Examiner states that “[t]he originally filed specification fails to provide sufficient written description for how the modulator determines which points are considered maximum[s] and minimums [in terms of power outputs].” Ans. 4‒5. It is well established that the Examiner has the “burden of giving reasons, supported by the record as a whole, why the specification is not enabling…Showing that the disclosure entails undue experimentation is part of the PTO’s initial burden.” In re Angstadt, 537 F.2d 498, 504 (CCPA 1976). In determining whether any given disclosure would require undue experimentation to practice the claimed subject matter, the Examiner must consider not only the breadth of the claims, the amount of direction or guidance presented and the presence or absence of working examples, but also the nature of the invention, the state of the prior art, the relative skill of those in the art and the predictability or unpredictability of the art. In re Vaeck, 947 F.2d 488, 495 (Fed. Cir. 1991). When “a [S]pecification disclosure…contains a teaching of the manner and process of making and using the invention in terms which correspond in scope to those used in describing and defining the subject matter sough to be Appeal 2013-004093 Application 11/992,369 7 patented[,]” such [S]pecification disclosure “must be taken as in compliance with the enabling requirement of the first paragraph of § 112 unless there is reason to doubt the objective truth of the statements contained therein which must be relied on for enabling support.” In re Armbruster, 512 F.2d 676, 677 (CCPA 1975) (quoting In re Marzocchi, 439 F.2d 220 (CCPA 1971)). Here, as explained by Appellants at page 7 of the Appeal Brief, the Specification states that: At step 210, the sealing device 100 may have to dynamically change the speed which the laser beam 122 is moving along the sealing line 124 on the two substrates 110 and 118 if the laser 106 reaches its maximum or minimum power capacity at any point during the modulation step 206 so that the laser beam 122 can continue to impart sufficient laser energy (not too much or too little laser energy) to the frit 116 to cause the frit 116 to melt and form the hermetic seal 120 between the two substrate plates 110 and 118. [Spec. 8, ll. 23‒31.] The Specification also states that “the actual power output from the laser 106 on the overlapping portion ‘1’ can be experimentally determined…” and “the power level of the laser 106 would be modulated such that the laser beam 122 would have a lower power at or near the nine different electrodes 114 and at or near the four curves in the OLEO display 102.” Spec.10, ll. 5–8. The Specification further describes that “the motion and power control over the laser 106 [is accomplished] by using an encoder/timing method 400a or a field-programmable gate array (FPGA) method 400 b….” Spec. 12, ll. 10‒13. According to the Specification, the purpose of the power Appeal 2013-004093 Application 11/992,369 8 outputs directed to a heat source is to provide a hermetic seal, without damaging materials, such as electrodes and organic layers, within an OLEO display. Spec. 2, ll. 10–25. In other words, the Specification not only provides a standard by which maximum or minimum power capacity for a given device can be determined, but also provides sufficient guidance to operate or modulate a heat source in the manner claimed to provide a hermetic seal. Nevertheless, the Examiner has not supplied any reason or evidence to doubt the accuracy of the statements in the Specification that one of ordinary art can modulate a power of a heat source (laser) to reach a maximum or a minimum power capacity for the above purpose via using an encoder/timing method 400a or a field-programmable gate array (FPGA) method 400b during the operation of the heat source. Ans.4‒5. Nor has the Examiner demonstrated that the state of the art, the nature of the invention, and the level of one of ordinary skill in the art, for example, are such that undue experimentation is needed to determine a maximum or minimum power capacity for given materials, e.g., substrates, electrodes, organic layers, and frit, used in forming a hermetic seal in the device recited in the claims. Id. Indeed, the Examiner has acknowledged that “[o]ne of ordinary skill in the art would have easily recognized minimum and maximum power output values…since power outputs too low would not provide a sufficient seal while power outputs too high would run the risk of damaging the substrates being sealed.” Ans. 8 and 11. Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1‒ 21 under 35 U.S.C. §112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with Appeal 2013-004093 Application 11/992,369 9 the enablement requirement. 35 U.S.C. §112, SECOND PARAGRAPH We also reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1‒21 under 35 U.S.C. §112, second paragraph, as being indefinite. The Examiner’s rejection refers to a limitation in claim 1 as a conditional limitation, 9 but does not explain why the limitation is indefinite. Final Act. 2‒3 and Ans. 5. To the extent that we need to consider the Examiner’s belated argument in the “Response to Argument” section of the Answer that the terms “minimum” and “maximum” are unclear, we note that the Examiner has not shown why one of ordinary skill in the art would not have understood such terms, when they are viewed in light of the Specification. Ans. 14‒15. As indicated supra, the Specification provides a standard by which minimum and maximum power outputs for a given device can be determined. Seattle Box Company, Inc. v. Industrial Crating & Packing, Inc., 731 F.2d 818, 826 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (“That some claim language may not be precise, however, does not automatically render a claim invalid. When a word of degree is used the district court must determine whether the patent's specification provides some standard for measuring that degree. The trial court must decide, that is, whether one of ordinary skill in the art would understand what is claimed when the claim is read in light of the specification.”) Indeed, the Examiner has conceded that “[o]ne of ordinary skill in the art would have easily recognized minimum and 9 The Examiner’s rejection does not refer to limitations of the other independent claims on appeal even though the rejection is directed to all of the claims on appeal. Final Act. 2‒3 and Ans. 5. Appeal 2013-004093 Application 11/992,369 10 maximum power output values…since power outputs too low would not provide a sufficient seal while power outputs too high would run the risk of damaging the substrates being sealed.” Ans. 8 and 11. 35 U.S.C. §102(b)/ §103(a) We also reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. §102(b) as anticipated by, or in the alternative under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over, the disclosure of Aitken for the reason set forth at pages 8 and 9 of the Appeal Brief. Notwithstanding the Examiner’s arguments to the contrary, claims 1and 15 require a step of either changing the moving speed of a heat source or two substrate plates or controlling a light focusing unit in response to a power to the heat source reaching a maximum or a minimum power capacity during the modulation of the power of the heat source. In other words, claims 1 and 15 require that during the modulation of the power of the heat source, the power to the heat source must reach either a maximum or minimum power capacity and in response to reaching such power capacity, the moving speed of a heat source or two substrate plates must be changed or a light focusing unit must be adjusted in order to ensure the formation of a hermetic seal, without damaging given materials in the claimed device. App. Br. 8‒11. As explained by Appellants, the Examiner has erred in treating such step as a conditional step and ignoring such step in rejecting claims 1 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. §102(b) or §103(a). 10 10 We also note that the Examiner has conceded that Aitken does not teach “modulating a power of the heat source when moving [the heat source or two substrate plates].” Ans. 7. Nevertheless, the Examiner Appeal 2013-004093 Application 11/992,369 11 Compare App. Br. 8‒11 with Ans. 5‒6. 35 U.S.C. §103(a) In rejecting claims 2, 3, 7, 16, 17, and 21 11 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as unpatentable over the combined disclosures of Aitken and Cook, the Examiner has found, and Appellants have not disputed, that: AITKEN teaches a method of manufacturing glass package comprising the steps of: [] using a heat source (110) to direct a beam towards a frit that is located between two sheets of glass (para. 0012), [] moving the heat source such that the beam moves at a substantially constant speed on a sealing line of said two substrate plates, where said sealing line includes said frit (para. 0032)[.] AITKEN also discloses…a plurality of regions occupied by electrodes and…a plurality of regions free of electrodes[, which] are located between said two substrate plates (para. 0008). [Compare Ans. 6‒7 with App. Br. 12‒14.] In recognizing that Aitken does not mention modulating a power of the heat source (e.g., laser) or changing the moving speed of a laser in response to the power of the heat source, the Examiner has found that: COOK teaches a method of modulating a power of has not explained why such feature is either inherent or obvious. Ans. 5‒6. 11 This rejection is presumed to include claims 1 and 15 from which dependent claims 2, 3, 7, 16, 17, and 21 depend. Cf. Ormco Corp. v. Align Tech., Inc., 498 F.3d 1307, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Appeal 2013-004093 Application 11/992,369 12 a heat source, such as a laser (abstract). COOK teaches that it is necessary to modulate the power of a heat source while welding two sheets together to ensure that the two pieces are sufficiently welded or bonded (col. 19[,] line 66‒col. 20[,] line 5). COOK teaches that it is preferable when working with lasers to travel at a constant speed (col. 19[,] lines 56‒57). COOK discloses that it is desirable to adjust the speed of the beam, as in instant claim 1, or the intensity of the beam, as in instant claim 15, to ensure the laser provides sufficient energy to join the two pieces (col. 19[,] line 66‒col. 20 line 5). COOK teaches that both the speed (col. 19 line 66‒col. 20[,] line 2) and the power output (col. 19[,] lines 58‒62) could be controlled and describes that they are the two variables responsible for providing a suitable seal (col. 19[,] lines 58‒62). [Compare Ans. 7 with App. Br. 12‒ 14.] Appellants have not questioned this finding. Compare Ans. 7 with App. Br. 12‒14. Nor have Appellants refuted the Examiner’s finding that it is well within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art to easily recognize minimum and maximum allowable power output values because “power outputs too low would not provide a sufficient seal while power outputs too high would run the risk of damaging the substrates being sealed.” Compare Ans. 8 with App. Br. 12‒14. Indeed, Aitken, like Appellants, teaches that “[a]n irradiation source (e.g., laser, infrared light) is then used to heat the frit which melts and forms a hermetic seal that connects the first substrate plate to the second substrate plate and also protects the OLEDs [from thermal damage].” Aitken 1, ¶ [0012]. Cook also teaches using “a laser of sufficient power [(inclusive of a minimum or maximum power)] to insure that an adequate weld is made even when the weld spot moves Appeal 2013-004093 Application 11/992,369 13 at its faster speed…” Cook, col. 19, ll. 59–61. Thus, we are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument that Cook fails to address the deficiencies of Aitken in terms of the limitation of claim 1 included in claims 3 and 7. On this record, we determine that Appellants have not identified any reversible error in the Examiner’s determination that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to modulate a power of a laser (heat source) when moving the laser beam and change the moving speed of the laser (heat source) in response to the power of the laser reaching a maximum or a minimum power capacity as suggested by Aitken and Cook, with a reasonable expectation of successfully forming a hermetic seal, without causing thermal damage to Aitken’s OLED display devices. However, we are persuaded by Appellants’ argument that Cook fails to address the deficiencies of Aitken in terms of the limitation of claim 15 included in claims 16, 17, and 21. On this record, the Examiner has not identified any teachings in Cook, which evinces a step of “controlling the light focusing unit at the output of the heat source to adjust the power density of the beam in response to the power to heat source reaching a maximum or minimum power capacity” in claim 15, which is missing in Aitken. 12 Appellants contend that neither Aiken nor Cook teaches or suggests “synchronizing both the moving step and the modulating 12 We note that Cook teaches controlling the light focusing unit at the output of the heat source to adjust the power density of the beam in response to slight variations in the shape of the components to be welded. Cook, col. 5, ll. 62–67. Appeal 2013-004093 Application 11/992,369 14 step…depending on whether or not the beam is currently located over the electrodes [between] said two substrates” as required by claim 2. App. Br. 12‒13. We agree. Although the Examiner has shown that Cook would have suggested synchronizing the moving step and modulating step, the Examiner has not explained or shown that Aiken and Cook teach or would have suggested that the synchronization involved is programed or configured in such a manner that the power of the heat source is capable of being controlled in response to the laser beam being over the electrodes between the two substrate plates. Ans. 8. Appellants also contend that neither Aiken nor Cook teaches overlapping moving step of the heat source as set forth in claim 3. App. Br. 13. However, as found by the Examiner, Cook teaches overlapping moving step of the heat source to prevent a flaw in the welding. Ans. 8 and Cook, col. 6, ll. 5‒21, with col. 6, ll.18–21 stating that “it may require more than one pass of the weld forming trolley along the pipe in order to effect the desired weld pattern.” Thus, we find that Appellants have not identified reversible error in the Examiner’s determination that one of ordinary skill in the art, armed with the knowledge reflective of the collective teachings of Aiken and Cook, would have been led to the subject matter recited in claims 1 and 3 within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. §103(a). Cf. Ormco Corp. v. Align Tech., Inc., 498 F.3d at 1319 (“Because claims 10 and 17 were found to have been obvious, the broader claims 1 and 11 must also have been obvious”). Appeal 2013-004093 Application 11/992,369 15 Appellants further contend that neither Aiken nor Cook expressly teaches “a feedback mechanism to control the changing of the power of the heat source while the beam is moved along the sealing line” as recited in claim 7. However, as found by the Examiner at pages 7‒9 of the Answer, Cook, at column 19, lines 54‒ 56, teaches that “the laser power were varied corresponding to the change in speed of the weld spot[,]” thus implying or suggesting the employment of some sort of a feedback mechanism for causing the laser power to correspond to the change in welding speed. Thus, we find that Appellants have not identified reversible error in the Examiner’s determination that one of ordinary skill in the art, armed with the knowledge reflective of the collective teachings of Aiken and Cook, would have been led to the subject matter recited in claims 1 and 7 within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. §103(a). Cf. Ormco Corp. v. Align Tech., Inc., 498 F.3d at 1319. In rejecting claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as unpatentable over the combined disclosures of Aitken and Chen, the Examiner has erred in ignoring a step of “changing the speed…in response to the power of the heat source reaching a maximum or a minimum power capacity” in claim 1 as a conditional step. Ans. 9‒10 and App. Br. 15. Moreover, the Examiner has not addressed the limitation “modulating a power of the heat source when moving the beam at the substantially constant” recited in claim 8. Ans. 9‒10 and App. Br. 15. Thus, we find that Appellants have identified reversible error in the Examiner’s determination that one of ordinary skill in the art, armed with the knowledge reflected in the collective teachings of Aitken and Appeal 2013-004093 Application 11/992,369 16 Chen, would have been led to the subject matter recited in claim 8 within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. §103(a). In rejecting claims 9, 10, and 14 13 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as unpatentable over the combined disclosures of Aitken, Chen, and Cook, the Examiner has determined that the collective teachings of Aitken and Cook would have suggested modulating a power of a laser (heat source) when moving the laser beam and changing the moving speed of the laser (heat source) in response to the power of the laser reaching a maximum or a minimum power capacity, as discussed supra in connection with claims 3 and 7 on appeal. Ans. 10‒11. Appellants have not disputed the above determination. App. Br. 14‒ 18. Nor have Appellants contested the Examiner’s determination that “[it] would have been obvious to . . . have the power of the laser be controlled by a computer in order to allow one to adjust the power and movement of lasers/heating sources quickly and adjust the power in order to prevent overheating of the laser/hearing source as taught in CHEN.” Compare Final Act. 7‒8 and Ans. 10 with App. Br. 14‒18. Thus, we are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument that the prior art references relied upon by the Examiner fail to address the deficiencies of Aitken in terms of the limitation of claim 8 included in claims 10 and 14. Appellants contend that the Examiner has also erred in finding that Cook teaches or would have suggested the additional limitations 13 This rejection is presumed to include claim 8 from which dependent claims 9, 10 and 14 depend. Cf. Ormco Corp. v. Align Tech., Inc., 498 F.3d at 1319. Appeal 2013-004093 Application 11/992,369 17 in claims 9, 10, and 14, which correspond to the limitations in claims 2, 3, and 7 discussed supra. App. Br. 16‒18. Thus, for the same reasons stated above in connection with claims 3 and 7, we find that Appellants have not identified reversible error in the Examiner’s determination that one of ordinary skill in the art, armed with the knowledge reflected in the collective teachings of Aiken, Chen, and Cook, would have been led to the subject matter recited in claims 8, 10, and 14 within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. §103(a). Cf. Ormco Corp. v. Align Tech., Inc., 498 F.3d at 1319. However, for the same reasons stated above in connection with claim 2, we find that Appellants have identified reversible error in the Examiner’s determination that one of ordinary skill in the art, armed with the knowledge reflected in the collective teachings of Aiken, Chen, and Cook, would have been led to the subject matter recited in claim 9 within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. §103(a). In rejecting claims 4, 5, 11, 12, 18, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combined disclosures of Aitken, Cook, Chen, and Overbeck, the Examiner has erred in finding that Overbeck teaches a motion encoder system or a field programmable gate array system, which enables the power of heat source to be changed with a spatial resolution that is higher than a motion resolution as explained by Appellants. App. Br. 18‒20. Thus, we find that Appellants have identified reversible error in the Examiner’s determination that one of ordinary skill in the art, armed with the knowledge reflected in the collective teachings of Aiken, Chen, Cook, and Overbeck, would have been led to the subject matter recited in Appeal 2013-004093 Application 11/992,369 18 claims 4, 5, 11, 12, 18, and 19 within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. §103(a). In rejecting claims 6, 13, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combined disclosures of Aitken, Cook, Chen, and Reis, the Examiner has relied upon Aitken, Cook and Chen for teaching and/or suggesting the combinations discussed supra and Reis for teaching and/or suggesting the utilization of a predetermined power profile to control the changing of the power of the heat source while the [laser] beam is moved during the laser beam’s movement. Ans. 13‒14. Appellants only contend that Reis fails to address the limitations of claims 1, 8, and 15 included in claims 6, 13, and 20, respectively. App. Br. 21. Thus, for the same reasons stated above in connection with claims 1, 3, 7, 8, 10, and 14, we find that Appellants have not identified reversible error in the Examiner’s determination that one of ordinary skill in the art, armed with the knowledge reflected in the collective teachings of Aiken, Chen, and Cook, would have been led to the subject matter recited in claims 6 and 13 within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. §103(a). However, for the same reasons stated above in connection with claim 15, we find that Appellants have identified reversible error in the Examiner’s determination that one of ordinary skill in the art, armed with the knowledge reflected in the collective teachings of Aiken, Chen, and Cook, would have been led to the subject matter recited in claim 20 within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. §103(a). Appeal 2013-004093 Application 11/992,369 19 ORDER Upon consideration of the record, and for the reasons given, it is ORDERED that the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1‒21 under 35 U.S.C. §112, first and second paragraphs, is REVERSED; FURTHER ORDERED that the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. §102(b) as anticipated by, or in the alternative under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over, the disclosure of Aitken is REVERSED; FURTHER ORDERED that the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 3 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as unpatentable over the combined disclosures of Aitken and Cook is AFFIRMED; and, FURTHER ORDERED that the decision of the Examiner to reject 2, 15, 16, 17, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as unpatentable over the combined disclosures of Aitken and Cook is REVERSED; FURTHER ORDERED that the decision of the Examiner to reject claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as unpatentable over the combined disclosures of Aitken and Chen is REVERSED; FURTHER ORDERED that the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 8, 10, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as unpatentable over the combined disclosures of Aitken, Chen, and Cook is AFFIRMED; FURTHER ORDERED that the decision of the Examiner to reject claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as unpatentable over the combined disclosures of Aitken, Chen, and Cook is REVERSED; Appeal 2013-004093 Application 11/992,369 20 FURTHER ORDERED that the decision of the Examiner to reject Claims 4, 5, 11, 12, 18, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as unpatentable over the combined disclosures of Aitken, Cook, Chen, and Overbeck is REVERSED; FURTHER ORDERED that the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 6 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combined disclosures of Aitken, Cook, Chen, and Reis is AFFIRMED; FURTHER ORDERED that the decision of the Examiner to reject claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combined disclosures of Aitken, Cook, Chen, and Reis is REVERSED; and FURTHER ORDERED that no time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). AFFIRMED-IN-PART dm Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation