Ex Parte Kumaoka et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 24, 2016

13880136 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 24, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/880, 136 04/18/2013 23373 7590 06/28/2016 SUGHRUE MION, PLLC 2100 PENNSYLVANIA A VENUE, N.W. SUITE 800 WASHINGTON, DC 20037 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Mototoshi Kumaoka 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. Q203683 7354 EXAMINER ISKRA, JOSEPH W ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3742 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/28/2016 ELECTRONIC 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. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address( es): PPROCESSING@SUGHRUE.COM sughrue@sughrue.com USPTO@sughrue.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte MOTOTOSHI KUMAOKA, TOMOHIRO KYOTO, and NAOKI MIYAMOTO Appeal2016-004006 Application 13/880,136 Technology Center 3700 Before LINDA E. HORNER, STEFAN STAICOVICI, and JAMES J. MAYBERRY, Administrative Patent Judges. HORNER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Mototoshi Kmnaoka et al. (Appellants) 1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134 of the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 4, 8, 9, 19, 20, and 28. 2 We conducted an oral hearing in this appeal on June 21, 2016. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We REVERSE. 1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Mitsubishi Electric Corporation. Appeal Br. 2. 2 Claims 3, 5-7, and 27 are pending and objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim. Final Action 11, dated March 24, 2015 ("Final Act."). Appeal2016-004006 Application 13/880, 136 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Appellants' claimed subject matter relates to "a control device ... for a laser processing machine that reduce[ s] the running cost of the laser processing machine." Spec. para. 1. Claims 1 and 4 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1 is reproduced below. 1. A control device for a laser processing machine that includes element units containing at least a laser blower unit, an optical-path purge unit, and a temperature control unit, the control device comprising: an input device configured to receive, in advance, an input of a first stop time, a second stop time, and a third stop time, based on a required activation time of each of the element units; a first stop unit configured to pre-store the input first stop time; a second stop unit configured to pre-store the input second stop time; a third stop unit configured to pre-store the input third stop time; a measurement unit configured to measure an elapsed time from a final trigger at which a laser processing operation of the laser processing machine has stopped and no user operation is applied with respect to the laser processing machine; and a control unit configured to automatically stop the element units individually after the final trigger, in response to the elapsed time exceeding each of the pre-stored first stop time, the pre-stored second stop time, and the pre-stored third stop time, of each of the element units. 2 Appeal2016-004006 Application 13/880, 136 EVIDENCE The Examiner relied upon the following evidence: Sato Hayashi Baas el US 2006/0274806 Al JP 05-261574 (Abstract) DE 10 2004 040 582 Al REJECTIONS Dec. 7, 2006 Oct. 12, 1993 Feb.23,2006 Appellants appeal from the Final Action, dated March 24, 2015, which contains the following rejections: 1. Claims 1, 4, 8, 19, and 28 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Sato and Baasel. 2. Claims 9 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Sato, Baasel, and Hayashi. ANALYSIS Independent claim 1 recites a control unit configured to automatically stop element units of a laser processing machine individually after a final trigger in response to the elapsed time exceeding pre-stored stop times for each of the element units, where the stop times are based on a required activation time of each of the element units. Appeal Br. 14 (Claims App.). Independent claim 4 contains similar limitations. 3 The Examiner found that Baasel discloses a control unit that stops the element units individually when an elapsed time from the final trigger has exceeded a stop time set in advance based on a required activation time of each of the element units. Final Act. 3; id. at 15 (finding that "Baasel 3 Independent claim 4 recites "a stop unit configured to pre-store the input required activation times" for each of the element units and "a control unit configured to ... automatically stop a corresponding one of the element units or maintain a stopped state thereof' based on the pre-stored activation time of the corresponding element unit. Id. at 14-15 (Claims App.). 3 Appeal2016-004006 Application 13/880, 136 explicitly teaches that each of the power-consuming loads can be individually slowed/shut down via a switch, and further, each of said individual loads can have a predetermined user-adjustable time period"). Appellants contend that the Examiner's finding is based on unsupported speculation and is not supported by a preponderance of the evidence. Appeal Br. 7 (arguing that although Baasel appears to disclose that the control device automatically stops the element units individually upon an elapsed time from the final trigger, Baasel is "completely silent as to the plural stop times" and the "control device configured [as recited in the claims]"). Appellants contend that Baasel discloses "one single predetermined time which is set for all of the loads in common." Id. Baasel discloses a laser machining unit including "a control device [that] has provision for disconnecting a user when the agreed time is exceeded, with recording of a signal (S) from the control device for disconnecting a specific user." Baasel, Abst. 4 In particular, Baasel discloses, "the use of a control device which automatically switches off at least one of the consumer [loads] when occurring in a predetermined time period not in normal operation" to effect the "function of a stand-by mode" in which "only those consumers are switched off in standby mode that can be switched on again shortly." Id. at para. 4. Baasel describes that if a user- initiated signal that occurs in normal operation, such as initial operation of a joystick, or motion detected in the work area, is not registered over a given, 4 The Record contains two English language translations of Baasel. Citations in this Decision are made to the English language translation provided by the Examiner accompanying the Office Action of February 6, 2014. 4 Appeal2016-004006 Application 13/880, 136 user-adjustable, time period, then consumers [i.e., loads] will "slow or [be] shut down immediately depending on requirements." Id. at para. 9-10. We cannot discern by a preponderance of the evidence that paragraph 10 of Baasel, upon which the Examiner relies, discloses separate user-adjustable time periods for each consuming load in the system, as recited in claims 1 and 4. For this reason, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1 and 4 as unpatentable over Sato and Baasel. The rejections of dependent claims 8, 9, 19, 20, and 28 rely on the same unsupported findings as to Baasel, as was relied on for the rejections of claims 1 and 4. Accordingly, for the same reasons, we do not sustain the rejections of these dependent claims. DECISION The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 4, 8, 9, 19, 20, and 28 is REVERSED. REVERSED 5