Ex Parte Ikemizu

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 28, 2014

12162149 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 28, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte MUGIHEI IKEMIZU ____________ Appeal 2013-000162 Application 12/162,149 Technology Center 1700 ____________ Before JEFFREY T. SMITH, BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, and KAREN M. HASTINGS, Administrative Patent Judges. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of claims 15 through 19 and 21 through 23. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. Appellant’s invention is directed to a material treatment apparatus. App. Br. 2–3.1 Claim 15 illustrates the subject matter on appeal and is reproduced below: 1 Appellant’s Brief does not include page numbers. We refer to page numbers in the Brief beginning with the cover page as page 1. Appeal 2013-000162 Application 12/162,149 2 15. A material treatment apparatus comprising: a container unit containing a material; a silver ion applying unit for applying silver ions to the material by adding the silver ions to a liquid and causing the material to contact the liquid to which the silver ions have been added; and a light irradiation unit for irradiating with light including visible light the material to which the silver ions have been applied by the silver ion applying unit, the silver ion applying unit and the light irradiation unit positioned outside the container unit; wherein the material inside the container unit is sterilized by irradiating, with the light emitted from the light irradiation unit, the material to which the silver ions have been applied by the silver ion applying unit, wherein the sterilization effect is improved by an interaction of the silver ions and the visible light. The Examiner relied on the following references in rejecting the appealed subject matter: Asai JP 10-043481 Feb. 17, 1998 Park JP 2004-065980 A Mar. 4, 2004 Hiroo JP 2005-296713 A Oct. 27, 2005 Masayuki JP 2006-014965 Jan. 19, 2006 On page 4 of the Appeal Brief, Appellant requests review of the following rejection from the Examiner’s Final Office Action: Claims 15–19 and 21–23 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Park, Hiroo, Masayuki, and Asai. Appeal 2013-000162 Application 12/162,149 3 OPINION2 After review of the respective positions provided by Appellant and the Examiner, we agree with the Examiner’s determination of obviousness. We AFFIRM for the reasons presented by the Examiner and add the following. We refer to the Final Office Action for a complete statement of the rejection. Final Action 3–9. Appellant argues that there is no reasonable basis for one skilled in the art to combine the teachings of Park and Asai, directed to washing machines, with the Masayuki’s teaching of a curtain or table cloth capable of deodorizing the surrounding air when exposed to ambient light because they are structurally disparate. App. Br. 8. We are unpersuaded by this argument. The Examiner found that Park discloses a material treatment apparatus comprising a silver ion applying unit to supply silver ions having antibacterial properties to sterilize the washing. Final Action 3; Park Figure 1 ¶¶ 1, 3. The Examiner found that Asai discloses a material treatment apparatus comprising a light irradiation unit (ultraviolet) having bactericidal action to irradiate the washing to prevent propagation of unwanted bacteria. Final Action 8; Asai ¶¶ 7, 10. The Examiner found that Hiroo discloses use of silver ions and a UV light source and Masayuki discloses the combined use of silver ions and of either a UV or visible light source to enhance the silver ions antibacterial properties. Final Action 4-5; Masayuki ¶ 6; Hiroo ¶¶ 7, 25, 28. Thus, based 2 We limit our discussion to independent claim 15. Appellant has not presented separate arguments for dependent claims 16–19 and 21–23. See Appeal Brief, generally. Accordingly, these claims stand or fall together with independent claim 15. Appeal 2013-000162 Application 12/162,149 4 on these disclosures, one skilled in the art would have combined a light source, such as the visible light source disclosed by Masayuki, with the silver ions of Park by known methods without change in their respective bactericidal functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007) (“The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does not more than yield predictable results.”) Thus, we find no error in the Examiner’s determination of obviousness. Appellant argues that Masayuki is directed to deodorization and is silent about the use of visible light for the purpose of sterilization. App. Br 7; Masayuki ¶ 16. According to Appellant, sterilization is much different and distinct from deodorization in the technical functions and effects. App. Br. 7. Thus, Appellant argues that one skilled in the art would have had no reasonable expectation of success that replacing the UV light emitting device of Asai or Hiroo with a visible light generating device would result in a material treatment apparatus having enhanced sterilization action. Id. We are also unpersuaded by these arguments. Appellant discloses silver ions and UV light sources as known for use in sterilization of materials (suppression of the propagation of bacteria). Spec. ¶¶ 3, 4, 7–9. As noted by the Examiner, Asai, Hiroo and Masayuki all provide for the use of either silver ions, a light source (UV or visible) or both for bacterial treatment of materials. Final Action 4–5, 8; Asai ¶ 10; Hiroo ¶ 25; Masayuki ¶ 6. Further, Masayuki specifically discloses the use of visible light enhances the antibacterial properties of silver ions. Masayuki ¶ 6. Appeal 2013-000162 Application 12/162,149 5 Appellant has not adequately explained why the above prior art disclosures would not have motivated one skilled in the art to use the combination of silver ions and visible light disclosed by Masayuki in the device of Park given that the cited art all seek to provide bactericidal treatment. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s prior art rejection of claims 15–19 and 21–23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Park, Hiroo, Masayuki, and Asai for the reasons given above. ORDER The Examiner’s prior art rejection of claims 15–19 and 21–23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is affirmed. TIME PERIOD No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1). AFFIRMED cdc