Appeal 2006-2967
Application 10/832,598
ISSUES
The pivotal issues on appeal before us are as follows:
(1) Under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (b), does Miracky’s disclosure anticipate
the claimed invention when Miracky teaches an actuator that moves a
suspended stage to effectuate movement of a suspension beam?
(2) Under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a), would one of ordinary skill in the art at
the time of the present invention, have found that Miracky’s disclosure
renders the claimed invention unpatentable when Miracky teaches disposing
the actuators in a fixed position with respect to the stage?
FINDINGS OF FACT
Appellants invented an optoelectronic module (100) for aligning an
optical light beam (102) with a movable lens (112) and an optical fiber
(106). Particularly, the movable lens (112) is mounted on a stage (110),
which is suspended on a substrate (108) via a plurality of suspension beams
(114) attached to a plurality of electrodes (116). (Specification 5 and 6).
Upon selectively and complementarily activating the electrodes (116), the
suspension beams (114) are moved, extended or compressed. Upon such
movement, extension or compression, the beams move the suspended stage
(110) to in turn position the microlens (112) to steer the light beam (102)
onto a target. (Specification 7 and 9). 1
Miracky discloses an integrated optical micro-electromechanical
system (MEMS) structure (50) to align an optical light beam (62) with a
1 Appellants’ Specification, at page 8, paragraphs 30 and 31, indicates that
the holding or locking down of the lens (as in claims 11 and 24) can be
performed in accordance with known principles, electromagnetic,
piezoelectric bimorph, and so forth.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013