Ex Parte Kopf et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 27, 2014

10543490 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 27, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT AND TRIAL APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte DANIEL KOPF, MAX LEDERER, and UDO BUNTING ____________ Appeal 2011-012276 Application 10/543,490 Technology Center 2800 ____________ Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, JEFFREY T. SMITH, and GEORGE C. BEST, Administrative Patent Judges. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-012276 Application 10/543,490 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the final rejection of claims 1, 2 and 10. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.1 According to the Specification, page 3, the present invention relates to a fold device for guiding beams in a laser having at least two converging or mutually tilted, reflecting planes between which the beam path is guided. Claim 1 is representative of the appealed subject matter and is reproduced below: 1. A fold device comprising: at least two entirely straight reflecting planar surfaces for folding a beam path of a laser beam, the at least two entirely straight reflecting planar surfaces are arranged so that: the at least two entirely straight reflecting planar surfaces are each fixed in a predetermined position so that the at least two entirely straight reflecting planar surfaces are not parallel; the laser beam is multiply reflected at each one of the at least two entirely straight reflecting planar surfaces; and the beam path entering the fold device as an input beam path, reversing within the fold device, and exiting the fold device as an output beam path, the input beam path and the output beam path tracing different paths. Appellants, App. Br. 6, request review of the following rejection from the Examiner’s final Office action:2 Claims 1, 2, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as anticipated over Usui3 (JP-A-07-335962, published Dec. 22, 1995). 1 An oral hearing was held on February 18, 2014. 2 The Examiner withdrew the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over Usui. (Ans. 2). Appeal 2011-012276 Application 10/543,490 3 OPINION After review of the positions of the Appellants and the Examiner, we reverse the rejection of claims 1, 2, and 10. We add the following. The dispositive issue is: Did the Examiner err in determining that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to eliminate the rotational mechanism of Usui for the purpose of providing a beam folding structure that has two entirely straight reflecting planar surfaces that are each fixed in a predetermined position as required by the subject matter of independent claim 1?4 The Examiner’s findings appear on pages 3-4 of the Answer. To arrive at the claimed invention the Examiner “proposes to only use the relevant parts on the device, namely the two folding mirrors that are not parallel to each other, to fold the laser beam. The rest of the device, the galvanometer 1, the incident light beam 101 and the scanner light beam 102, are not used to fold the laser beam.” (Ans. 5-6). Thus the Examiner proposes to exclude all of these elements. (Id.). Appellants correctly argue the purpose of Usui is “[t]o detect the rotation angle of a rotary mirror by a method wherein, after an auxiliary light beam is applied to the rotary mirror and reflected between the rotary mirror and a fixed mirror plurality of times, the reflected light from the rotary mirror is detected” (App. Br. 9). Usui discloses a light beam scanning device designed to address the problem associated with the angle detection of a mirror that is rotationally moved by a galvanometer. (Usui, ¶ [0013]). Usui uses an auxiliary light source (5) that emits an auxiliary 3 A certified English translation of this document was entered into the record on March 29, 2011. 4 We limit our discussion to independent claim 1. Appeal 2011-012276 Application 10/543,490 4 light beam (103) that is reflected off the back side of rotating mirror (2) to determine the angle of rotation. (Usui, ¶¶ [0015]-[0020]; figs. 1-2). Thus, we agree with Appellants that there is nothing in Usui that has anything to do with folding a beam path between two folding mirrors in order to have a compact laser cavity with an extended beam path, such as is the case with a device according to claim 1. (App. Br. 11). ORDER The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 2 and 10 is reversed. REVERSED mls