Appeal 2006-2967
Application 10/832,598
ANALYSIS
In Miracky a stage is moved directly by an actuator’s activation, and
a suspension beam’s movement is subsequently induced by the stage
movement. In contrast, claim 1 requires that the actuator’s activation induce
movement of the suspension beams, which in turn effectuates the movement
of the suspended stage. Therefore, Miracky does not teach a suspension
beam that effectuates movement in a suspended stage.
The Examiner erred in finding Miracky’s teachings anticipate claim 1.
For the same reasons, the Examiner erred in finding Miracky’s teachings
anticipate dependent claims 2 through 10 and 18 through 23.
Next, we address independent claims 11 and 24. Miracky teaches a
microlens and MEMS actuators being located at a fixed position with respect
to the substrate. We recognize that Miracky does not particularly teach
locking the lens in place to render the stage unmovable. However, we find
that in order to dispose the microlens in a fixed position with respect to the
substrate, the stage upon which the microlens is mounted must at least
momentarily be held in place during that process. Therefore, we conclude
the ordinarily skilled artisan would have aptly appreciated that the stage
must remain immovable while the lens is being positioned in a fixed location
to align with the light beam. Therefore, we conclude that Miracky’s
teaching of the microlens and the MEMS actuators being located at a fixed
position with respect to the substrate would have led one of ordinary skill in
the art to render the stage unmovable to lock the microlens in place.
After considering the entire record before us, we conclude that
Appellants have not established the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 11
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013