Ex Parte Laro et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 15, 2017

13425935 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 15, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office 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 APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 13/425,935 03/21/2012 Dick Antonius Hendrikus Laro 20228-0064001/12 526 US 9392 26161 7590 08/17/2017 FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. (BO) P.O. BOX 1022 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55440-1022 EXAMINER WILLIAMS, THOMAS J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3657 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/17/2017 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): PATDOCTC@fr.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte DICK ANTONIUS HENDRIKUS LARO, JAN VAN EIJK, and YIM-BUN PATRICK KWAN Appeal 2016-003007 Application 13/425,93 51 Technology Center 3600 Before JASON V. MORGAN, JON M. JURGOVAN, and NABEEL U. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judges. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection of claims 1—4, 6—8, and 10-30. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 Appellants identify Carl Zeiss SMT GmbH as the real party in interest. App. Br. 1. Appeal 2016-003007 Application 13/425,935 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Invention Appellants’ invention relates to “arrangements and methods for vibration isolation of a payload from a body.” Abstract. Exemplary independent claim 1 is reproduced below. 1. An arrangement, comprising: a payload; a body capable of undergoing vibrations; a sensor mounted to the body and configured to measure vibrations of the body; an actuator configured to generate a compensation force on the payload at least partially based on a measurement of the sensor of vibrations of the body, the compensation force being configured to reduce movement of the payload due to vibrations of the body; and a balancing mass arranged in a reaction path of a reaction force associated with the compensation force, wherein the sensor is not coupled to the balancing mass. References and Rejections 1. Claims 1—4, 6, 14—16, and 19—30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Auer et al. (EP 1 225 482 Al, published July 24, 2002) (“Auer”) and Stothers et al. (US 7,398,143 B2, issued July 8, 2008) (“Stothers”). Final Act. 2-4. 2. Claims 7, 8, 10—13, 17, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Auer, Stothers, and Butler et al. (US 2009/ 0122284 Al, published May 14, 2009) (“Butler”). Final Act. 4—5. 2 Appeal 2016-003007 Application 13/425,935 ANALYSIS Claim 1 The Examiner finds Auer teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, including a body undergoing vibrations, a sensor mounted on the body, a payload, an actuator, and a balancing mass, except that Auer “fails to specifically teach the sensor not coupled to the balancing mass (and as coupled to the body) and the actuator coupled to the payload.” Final Act. 3. The Examiner finds Auer does, however, teach an arrangement where the sensor is coupled to the balancing mass and the actuator is coupled to the body. Id. What is required, according to the Examiner’s findings, is merely the reverse of this arrangement in which the sensor is coupled to the body and the actuator is coupled to the payload. Id. The Examiner finds that the motivation to modify Auer to this reverse configuration is provided by Stothers where a vibration sensor is coupled only to the body. Id. (citing Stothers Figs. 4 and 6). Appellants argue: Auer does not render obvious a system in which the detection means 210 is not coupled to the reaction mass RM. In the embodiments depicted in each of figures 6 and 7 the detection means is always coupled to the reaction mass. See id., [0043] and figures 6 and 7. And Auer explicitly states that “[t]he detection means 210 detects relative displacement between the reaction mass RM and the rest of the silent world 13 . . . .” See id., [0043]. Thus, the Examiner’s proposed modification to Auer would run contrary to the express teachings in Auer. In addition, given Auer’s stated purpose for the detection means 210, it is unclear how the Examiner’s proposed modification to Auer would result in a system that would be operable for the intended purpose of Auer’s system. App. Br. 3. 3 Appeal 2016-003007 Application 13/425,935 We are not persuaded of Examiner error. Importantly, the Examiner has persuasively established that it would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill to modify Auer such that its sensor would be uncoupled from its balancing mass. Auer describes the sensor as “detect[ing] relative displacement between the reaction mass RM and the rest of the silent world,” (Auer 143) and illustrates two arrangements, shown in Figures 6 and 7 respectively, where the sensor is explicitly coupled to the balancing mass (labeled RM in the figures). The description of the sensor as detecting displacement of the reaction mass in the two embodiments illustrated in Figures 6 and 7 limits these two embodiments to a configuration in which a sensor is coupled to the balancing mass, rather than uncoupled from it. However, the Examiner cites to description of a third arrangement, described as “a combination of the embodiments in figure [s] 6 and 7” where “the detection means 210 located near the top of the lens 11 in figure 6 can be used to provide a control signal for the actuation means 220 in figure 7 positioned at [the] end of the main plate,” renders obvious uncoupling the sensor from the reaction mass. Ans. 4 (citing Auer 143). The Examiner proffers an interpretation of the third arrangement in which the reaction mass is located with the actuation means at the end of the main plate, while the sensor is located near the top of the lens 11. See Ans. 4, Fig. A. This interpretation is consistent with Auer’s teaching that in the third embodiment “the exertion of force” (i.e., actuation of the reaction mass) “will be done at a different position[] th[a]n where the detection occurs” (i.e., where the sensor operates). Auer 143. That is, Auer makes clear that the balancing mass and sensor are not coupled in this third embodiment. The Examiner finds it obvious that one would modify this third embodiment so that the 4 Appeal 2016-003007 Application 13/425,935 sensor is coupled to the body, while the actuator and balancing mass are located near the payload in light of Stother’s teachings. Appellants argument that “Auer would not render obvious a system in which the detection means 210 is not coupled to the reaction mass RM” because the detection means is always coupled to the reaction mass, fails to address the Examiner’s findings regarding the third embodiment of Auer, which, as we state above, we agree teaches that the balancing mass and sensor are not coupled. With regard to Stothers, Appellants further argue: [I]n the independent claims, the compensation force is configured to reduce movement of the payload due to vibrations of the body. In contrast, in Stothers discloses [sic] that the “base 21 comprises a member experiencing vibration which must be controlled,” and that “base 41 experiences vibrations which are to be absorbed.” See Stothers, col. 4, lines 53-54 and col. 6, line 41. Thus, Stothers’ base 21/41 is not analogous to Appellant’s claimed body. App. Br. 5. That is, Appellants argue that Stothers is not reasonably pertinent to the problem they faced. However, prior art does not have to be pertinent to the particular problem faced by the inventor if the prior art is in the same field of endeavor. Stothers, like the claimed invention, is in the field of vibration absorption. Therefore, Appellants’ argument that Stothers is not analogous art is unpersuasive. For these reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1 and independent claim 25, which was rejected on the same basis. See Final Act. 3. We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of the pending dependent claims, which are not argued separately with persuasive specificity. 5 Appeal 2016-003007 Application 13/425,935 DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—4, 6—8, and 10—30 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). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f). AFFIRMED 6