Opposition to Patent Application Dropped but Deputy Commissioner Continues As Ex-Partes Proceeding

camtek.jpg

Israel Patent Number IL 189712 to Camtek was allowed following examination, and (not for the first time between these companies) Orbotech submitted an Opposition.

OrbotechOn 4 March 2019 Orbotech withdrew their opposition and the Deputy Commissioner Ms Jacqueline Brachah considered with despite this, sufficient evidence had been submitted to rebut the allowance, so that the Opposition could continue as an ex-partes reexamination before the Commissioner under section 34 of the Law.

After reviewing the statement of case submitted by the Opposer as part of the opposition proceedings, the Deputy Commissioner came to the conclusion that there was a prima facie case that the claims of the application were not patentable.

The Application relates to a device and a method for testing articles. The Application is the national phase of an International Application that entered Israel on 24 February 2008. The Application was first published on 1 March 2007 and this is the deadline for relevant published prior art when considering the novelty and inventiveness of the claimed invention.

As claimed in claim 1 of the allowed patent on 31 January 2018, the invention is:

An inspection system, the system comprises: at least one primary light source followed by at least one illumination path imaging lens adapted to direct at least one primary light beam towards an area of an inspected object; wherein a primary light beam of the at least one primary light beams is normal to the area of the inspected object; at least one secondary light source followed by at least one collimating component and at least one concentrating component adapted to direct at least one secondary light beam towards the area; wherein the at least one primary light beam and the at least one secondary light beam illuminate the area such that each point within an imaged portion of the area is illuminated over a large angular range characterized by uniform intensity; a collection path that comprises an image sensor, a beam splitter and a collection path imaging lens; wherein the beam splitter is positioned between the area and between the collection path imaging lens; and wherein the at least one collimating component defines a central aperture through which the at least one primary light beam propagates.

In the Statement of Case the Opposer claimed that the application is anticipated by both US 5,058,982 and US 5,153,668 which published in 1991 and 1992 respectively.

The Deputy Commissioner considers that the parts of the invention are all described in US 5,153,668 as follows:

    1. An inspection system (abstract), the system comprises:
    2. at least one primary light source (column 6, lines 47-49, lamp 81) followed by at least one illumination path imaging lens adapted to direct at least one primary light beam towards an area of an inspected object (column 6, lines 54-57, condensing lens 83); wherein a primary light beam of the at least one primary light beams is normal to the area of the inspected object (column 5, lines 1-3);
    3. at least one secondary light source (column 7, lines 30-24) followed by at least one collimating component and at least one concentrating component adapted to direct at least one secondary light beam towards the area (column 7, lines 40-44);
    4. wherein the at least one primary light beam and the at least one secondary light beam illuminate the area such that each point within an imaged portion of the area is illuminated over a large angular range characterized by uniform intensity (column 8, lines 3-18);
    5. a collection path that comprises an image sensor (column 4, lines 8-10), a beam splitter and a collection path imaging lens (82);
    6. wherein the beam splitter is positioned between the area and between the collection path imaging lens (Fig. 5); and
    7. wherein the at least one collimating component defines a central aperture through which the at least one primary light beam propagates (Fig. 5).

US 5,058,982 also recites all the element s of the main claim as follows:

  1. An inspection system (column 1, lines 13-16), the system comprises:
  2. at least one primary light source (column 5, lines 30-35, Fig 2, light guides 110 ) followed by at least one illumination path imaging lens adapted to direct at least one primary light beam towards an area of an inspected object (column 6, lines 14-20); wherein a primary light beam of the at least one primary light beams is normal to the area of the inspected object (column 5, line 66 – column 6, line 4);
  3. at least one secondary light source (column 5, lines 30-35, Fig 2, light guides 106, 108) followed by at least one collimating component and at least one concentrating component adapted to direct at least one secondary light beam towards the area (column 5, lines 44-50);
  4. wherein the at least one primary light beam and the at least one secondary light beam illuminate the area such that each point within an imaged portion of the area is illuminated over a large angular range characterized by uniform intensity (column 3, lines 17-26);
  5. a collection path that comprises an image sensor (column 4, lines 33-36), a beam splitter and a collection path imaging lens  (column 6, lines 21-27);
  6. wherein the beam splitter is positioned between the area and between the collection path imaging lens (Fig. 2); and
  7. wherein the at least one collimating component defines a central aperture through which the at least one primary light beam propagates (Fig 2).

Under the general requirements of novelty provided by Judge Shamgar in 345/87 Hughes Aircraft Company vs. State of Israel, p.d. 44(4)  45 (1990) it appears that claim 1 is not novel and thus not patentable.

The Deputy Commissioner further finds the issues raised by the Opposer against the remaining claims are convincing.

Under Section 74(b) of the Patent Ordinance 1968, the Applicant has 30 days to respond [or the application is considered rejected – MF]. Should the Applicant wishes to have a hearing, he should request one in his response.

IL 18971 to Camtek, Ruling by Deputy Commissioner Ms Jacqueline Brachah to Continue Opposition as an Ex-Partes proceeding under Section 34.



Categories: Camtek, Intellectual Property, inventive step, inventiveness, Israel IP, Israel Patent, Israel Patent Office, novelty, Section 34, Uncategorized, פטנט, פטנטים, קניין רוחני, קנין רוחני

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: