Ex Parte Zimmerman et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 18, 2014

11840821 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 18, 2014)

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. 11/840,821 08/17/2007 Richard Zimmerman 1857.4890000 1994 26111 7590 06/18/2014 STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C. 1100 NEW YORK AVENUE, N.W. WASHINGTON, DC 20005 EXAMINER KIM, PETER B ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2882 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/18/2014 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte RICHARD ZIMMERMAN and ROBERTO B. WIENER ____________ Appeal 2012-008321 Application 11/840,8211 Technology Center 2800 ____________ Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, TERRY J. OWENS, and JEFFREY T. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judges. GARRIS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134 from the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-37. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6. We AFFIRM. 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is ASML Holding N.V. (Appeal Brief (filed 9 Jan. 2012) 3.) Appeal 2012-008321 Application 11/840,821 2 Appellants claim a system and method wherein a first lens, configured to move in a first plane perpendicular to a nominal optical axis, is arranged to receive and direct a light beam in a left-right position and a second lens, configured to move in a second plane perpendicular to the nominal optical axis, is arranged to receive and direct the positioned light beam in an up- down position (independent claims 1, 15, 21, 31, and 36). A copy of representative claim 1, taken from the Claims Appendix of the Amended Appeal Brief (filed 30 January 2012), appears below. 1. A beam pointing and positioning system, comprising: a first lens, configured to move in a first plane perpendicular to a nominal optical axis, arranged to receive and direct a light beam in a left- right position; and a second lens, configured to move in a second plane perpendicular to the nominal optical axis, arranged to receive and direct the positioned light beam in an up-down position, thereby the beam pointing and positioning system is capable of directing the light beam to a desired location at a desired angle. The Examiner rejects claims 1-4, 8, 9, 13-17, 20-23, 26, 27, 31, 32, and 36 (i.e., all independent claims 1, 15, 21, 31, and 36) under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 102 (b) as anticipated by Shiraishi et al. (US 6,100,961, patented Aug. 8, 2000) and rejects remaining dependent claims 5-7, 10-12, 18, 19, 24, 25, 28- 30, 33-35, and 37 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Shiraishi in combination with additional prior art. Appellants do not present arguments specifically directed to the dependent claims under rejection. Therefore, the dependent claims will Appeal 2012-008321 Application 11/840,821 3 stand or fall with their parent independent claims of which claim 1 is representative. We sustain the above rejections because Appellants fail to reveal error in the Examiner's finding that the independent claims are anticipated by Shiraishi. The basis for this finding and the reasons Appellants' arguments fail to reveal error in the finding are well expressed by the Examiner in the Final Office Action and in the Answer which we adopt as our own. The following comments are added for emphasis. Appellants argue that "Shiraishi gives no indication that the position of the light beam is controlled in both a left-right and an up-down direction" (Reply Br. 5) and that "Figure 5 of Shiraishi, reproduced below, indicates . . . the altering of the direction of the light beam in only an up-down direction" (id.). This argument lacks persuasive merit. Appellants concede that the light beams shown in their reproduction of Figure 5 (see id. at 6) are moved in an up-down direction as revealed by Appellants' annotation of the reproduced Figure. However, contrary to Appellants' argument, the Figure 5 light beams also are moved in a left-right direction as revealed by the arrows pointing from left to right along each beam-path. Appellants further argue that "Shiraishi fails to disclose a first lens moved in a first plane, and a second lens moved in a second plane" (id. at Â¶ bridging 8-9). Appeal 2012-008321 Application 11/840,821 4 We perceive no merit at all in this argument. Figure 5 of Shiraishi clearly shows a first lens 42a, 42b configured to move in a first plane perpendicular to optical axis AX which is relatively proximate to fly-eye lenses 40a, 40b and a second lens 43a, 43b configured to move in a second plane perpendicular to optical axis AX which is relatively distant from fly- eye lenses 40a, 40b. Appellants' argument may be based on the proposition that lenses 42 and 43 are both moved in a single plane which is parallel to optical axis AX. However, the planes defined by representative claim 1 are those which are perpendicular to the optical axis, and such planes are shown in Figure 5 as explained above. The decision of the Examiner is affirmed. TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a). AFFIRMED cdc