Ex Parte Becken et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 12, 2015

11992369 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 12, 2015)

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