Ex Parte Christison

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 23, 2013

11931747 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 23, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte ERIC CHRISTISON ____________________ Appeal 2011-010694 Application 11/931,747 Technology Center 2600 ____________________ Before THU A. DANG, JAMES R. HUGHES, and GREGORY J. GONSALVES, Administrative Patent Judges. DANG, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-010694 Application 11/931,747 2 I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of claims 19, 21-26, 28-34, and 36-40 (App. Br. 1). Claims 1-18, 20, 27, and 35 have been cancelled (App. Br. 2). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. A. INVENTION Appellant’s invention directed to a camera module having a barrel and a mount engageable with a screw thread; wherein, either the barrel or the mount is a first component formed as a polycarbonate component while the other is a second component formed from a grade of Liquid Crystal Polymer (LCP) with relatively high adhesiveness to result in lower levels of Foreign Matter (FM) generation which lowers image quality of the camera module (¶¶ [0025] and [0032]). B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM Claim 19 is exemplary: 19. A camera module comprising: a mount; and a barrel coupled to said mount and movable along an interface therewith; one of said barrel and said mount comprising a polycarbonate material and the other of said barrel and said mount comprising a liquid crystal polymer (LCP) material, said LCP material being self-lubricating so that the interface between said mount and said barrel is lubricated. Appeal 2011-010694 Application 11/931,747 3 C. REJECTIONS The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Takada US 2003/0050121 Al Mar. 13, 2003 Choi US 2006/0007351 Al Jan. 12, 2006 Aoki US 2007/0183773 Al Aug. 09, 2007 Barden, Lodestone Pacific, Cost Savings at the Expense of Quality, Safety, and the Environment: A Plastic Molding Example, Oct. 21, 2006. Claims 19, 23-25, 34, and 36-38 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Aoki in view of Takada. Claims 21, 22, 39, and 40 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Aoki in view of Takada and Barden. Claims 26 and 28-33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Aoki in view of Takada and Choi. II. ISSUE The dispositive issue before us is whether the Examiner has erred in determining that the combination of Aoki and Takada teaches or would have suggested “one of said barrel and said mount comprising a polycarbonate material and the other of said barrel and said mount comprising a liquid crystal polymer (LCP) material, said LCP material being self-lubricating so that the interface between said mount and said barrel is lubricated” (claim 19, emphasis added). Appeal 2011-010694 Application 11/931,747 4 III. FINDINGS OF FACT The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of the evidence. Aoki 1. Aoki discloses a camera module having a lens module 1 that screws into a mount 2; wherein, the lens module 1 is formed of synthetic resin with a light blocking effect such as a black polycarbonate and polybutylene terephthalate (¶ [0064]). 2. The material of the lens holder 32 comprising the lens module 1 and mount 2 may be a polycarbonate or a LCP (¶ [0023]). Takada 3. Takada discloses a compact torque limiter (used for a personal printer) having a sleeve with an annular boss portion and a ring-like elastic member; wherein, the sleeve is made of a self-lubricating resin, such as LCP, and generates a radial force relative to a shaft inserted in the sleeve (Abstract; ¶ [0010]). IV. ANALYSIS Claims 19, 23-25, 34, and 35-38 Appellant contends that Aoki “discloses the mount 2 and the lens module 1, which collectively form the ‘lens holder’ being the same materials” (App. Br. 7). Appellant asserts that “[n]othing in Aoki … teaches or suggests that the mount 2 is a different material from the lens module 1 and self-lubrication between a mount and a barrel, one of which includes a polycarbonate material, and the other, an LCP material” (id.). Appeal 2011-010694 Application 11/931,747 5 After reviewing the record on appeal, we agree with Appellant. Though we agree with the Examiner that Aoki does disclose “that the lens holder … can comprise the mount … ‘integrated thereto or separately’” and “the material of the lens holder … can be made of among other things Polycarbonate or LCP” (Ans. 9), we do not find any teaching in the Examiner’s recited portion of Aoki that one of the lens module (barrel) and the mount being made of polycarbonate material while the other is made of LCP material, as required by claim 19. That is, the recited portions of Aoki do not disclose that the lens module (barrel) is made of a material that differs from the mount; rather, Aoki discloses that the lens holder comprising both the lens module and the mount may be made of the same material, such as Polycarbonate or LCP materials (FF 2). Accordingly, we find that Appellant has shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Aoki in view of Takada. Further, independent claim 34 having similar claim language and claims 23-25 and 36-38 (depending from claims 19 and 34), which have not been argued separately, stand with claim 19. Claims 21, 22, 26, 28-33, 39, and 40 As noted supra, we reversed the rejection of claims 19 and 34 from which claims 21, 22, 39, and 40 depend; wherein, claim 19 has similar claim limitations to that of independent claim 26 and claims 28-33 (depending from claim 26). The Examiner has not identified how Barden or Choi cures the noted deficiencies of the combined teachings of Aoki and Takada. As such, we also reverse the rejection of claims 21, 22, 39, and 40 over Aoki in view of Appeal 2011-010694 Application 11/931,747 6 Takada and Barden and of claims 26 and 28-33 over Aoki in view of Takada and Choi. V. CONCLUSION AND DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 19, 21-26, 28-34, and 36-40 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed. REVERSED peb