Ex Parte Ohfuji et al

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardJan 11, 2019

13882413 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 11, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 13/882,413 04/29/2013 Masaki Ohfuji 38834 7590 01/15/2019 WESTERMAN, HATTORI, DANIELS & ADRIAN, LLP 8500 Leesburg Pike SUITE 7500 Tysons, VA 22182 UNITED ST A TES OF AMERICA 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. P23776USOO 8683 EXAMINER LETTMAN, BRYAN MATTHEW ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3746 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/15/2019 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): patentmail@whda.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte MASAKI OHFUJI, TOSHIFUMI HASHIMOTO, and SHINGO TANAKA Appeal2017-001349 Application 13/882,413 Technology Center 3700 Before JAMES P. CALVE, BRANDON J. WARNER, and LEE L. STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judges. WARNER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Masaki Ohfuji et al. ("Appellants") 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 2, 3, and 5-7. 2 See Appeal Br. 4---6. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We AFFIRM-IN-PART. According to Appellants, the real party in interest is SHIMADZU CORPORATION. Appeal Br. 2. 2 We note that claim 4 stands objected to by the Examiner as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but is indicated as being otherwise allowable. See Final Act. 7-8. Appeal2017-001349 Application 13/882,413 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Appellants' disclosed invention relates to "a vacuum pump that detects disassembly of the pump." Spec. ,r 1. Claims 2 and 5, reproduced below with emphasis added, are the only independent claims and are representative of the subject matter on appeal. 2. A vacuum pump comprising: a rotor that is rotated to perform evacuation; a pump disassembly detection circuit that detects a disassembled state in which the vacuum pump is disassembled; a pump operation prohibition circuit that prohibits rotary drive of the rotor when the pump operation prohibition circuit determines that the pump disassembly detection circuit has detected the disassembled state; a pump unit that includes the rotor and performs evacuation; and a control unit that performs drive control of the pump unit including the rotary drive of the rotor, wherein the pump unit includes the pump disassembly detection circuit and a holding circuit that holds data for recognition of a disassembly history when the pump disassembly detection circuit has detected the disassembled state, the control unit includes the pump operation prohibition circuit, and the pump operation prohibition circuit determines that in a case where the data for recognition of the disassembly history is held by the holding circuit at start-up of the control unit, the pump disassembly detection circuit has detected the disassembled state, and prohibits the drive control of the pump unit by the control unit. 2 Appeal2017-001349 Application 13/882,413 5. A vacuum pump which integrates a control unit thereto, compnsmg: a rotor that is rotated to perform evacuation; a pump disassembly detection circuit that detects a disassembled state in which the vacuum pump is disassembled; a pump unit that includes the rotor and performs evacuation; and a control unit that is separably fixed to the pump unit, is integrated to the pump unit and performs drive control of the pump unit including the rotary drive of the rotor, wherein the pump disassembly detection circuit detects the disassembled state when the control unit is separated from the pump unit; and the control unit prohibits rotary drive of the rotor when the control unit determines that the pump disassembly detection circuit has detected the disassembled state. EVIDENCE The Examiner relied on the following evidence in rejecting the claims on appeal: Kozaki Iden Marini US 2008/0131288 Al US 2010/0300325 Al GB 2 422 233 A REJECTIONS The following rejections are before us for review: June 5, 2008 Dec. 2, 2010 July 18, 2006 I. Claims 2 and 5-7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over Marini, as evidenced by Kozaki. Final Act. 4--6. 3 Appeal2017-001349 Application 13/882,413 II. Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Marini, as evidenced by Kozaki and Iden. Id. at 6-7. ANALYSIS Claims 2. 3. and 7 Appellants argue these claims together as a group, focusing on independent claim 2. See Appeal Br. 4--5; Reply Br. 2. We likewise consider these claims together. The Examiner determined that a combination of teachings from Marini and Kozaki renders obvious the subject matter recited in claims 2 and 7, with additional evidence from Iden incorporated to render obvious the subject matter recited in claim 3. See Final Act. 4--5, 6-7. Appellants assert that Marini is deficient because its holding circuit always holds the same data, suggesting that the claim requires the held data to be variable. Appeal Br. 4--5. After careful consideration of the record before us, Appellants' arguments do not apprise us of error in the Examiner's factual findings from Marini, which are supported by a preponderance of the evidence, or the Examiner's reasonable conclusion of obviousness, which is rationally articulated based on prior art teachings. In short, we sustain the Examiner's rejection based on the reasoned positions set forth therein and in light of the Examiner's thorough responses to Appellant's arguments. See Final Act. 4--5; Ans. 8-9. In particular, as the Examiner explains, because Marini' s holding circuit is part of the controller, it "is not broken when the smart chip is 4 Appeal2017-001349 Application 13/882,413 broken." Ans. 8. Thus, "[t]he holding circuit in Marini holds onto data which indicates that the smart chip is either returning a correct signal ( smart chip is not destroyed) or not ( smart chip is destroyed), depending on the state of the smart chip," such that the controller sufficiently holds some data from one interrogation to the next. Id. ( emphasis added); see id. at 8-9. Consequently, Appellants' arguments do not apprise us of error in the Examiner's reliance on Marini. Because Appellants' arguments do not apprise us of error in the Examiner's findings or reasoning in support of the conclusion of obviousness, we sustain the rejections of claims 2, 3, and 7. Claims 5 and 6 Appellants similarly argue these claims together as a group, focusing on independent claim 5. See Appeal Br. 5---6; Reply Br. 2-3. Claim 5 recites a control unit that is "separably fixed to" and "integrated to" a pump unit, and a pump disassembly detection circuit that detects a disassembled state in which the vacuum pump is disassembled "when the control unit is separated from the pump unit" to thereby prohibit operation of the pump when in a disassembled state. Appeal Br., Claims App. In rejecting these claims, the Examiner again relies on teachings from Marini and Kozaki. See Final Act. 5---6. Appellants persuasively explain, however, that Marini's controller is connected to the pump via cables, rather than being "separably fixed" and "integrated" thereto as in the claim. See Appeal Br. 5-6. Due to this difference in construction, we agree with Appellants that if Marini' s controller were detached from the cables, it would be "impossible to detect whether" the pump had been disassembled, 5 Appeal2017-001349 Application 13/882,413 which is what is required by the pump disassembly detection circuit recited in claim 5. Id. at 5 (emphasis added). Upon review of the evidence before us, we agree with Appellants that Marini, as relied on in the rejection, does not sufficiently disclose a controller that operates as recited in claim 5. Thus, for the reasons presented by Appellants regarding the distinctions in construction and operation of the controller, between that of Marini and that claimed, we agree with Appellants that the Examiner's rejection is flawed. Accordingly, because the Examiner's rejection is premised on findings that are not supported by a preponderance of the evidence, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 5 and 6. DECISION We AFFIRM the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 2, 3, and 7. We REVERSE the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 5 and 6. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED-IN-PART 6