Ex Parte Okada et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 27, 2012

11011087 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 27, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte TAKESHI OKADA, MUNEHIRO JINUSHI, and HIDENORI KUREBAYASHI ____________________ Appeal 2010-005675 Application 11/011,087 Technology Center 3600 ____________________ Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, KEN B. BARRETT, and EDWARD A. BROWN, Administrative Patent Judges. BROWN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-005675 Application 11/011,087 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Examiner's decision rejecting claim 3. (Br. 1). We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We affirm. THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Independent claim 3 reads as follows. 3. A lubricant draining device for draining a lubricant from a closed mechanical section provided in a robot, comprising: a wall defining the mechanical section, said wall including a drain port communicating with an interior space of the mechanical section while permitting a lubricant to flow through said drain port; a tube connected at a proximal end thereof to said drain port and permitting a lubricant to flow through said drain port; a blocking member blocking a flow of a lubricant through said tube in a releasable manner; and a retaining section retaining said tube at a location adjacent to said wall with said tube remaining connected to said drain port at said proximal end; wherein said tube is capable of extending outside the robot with said proximal end remaining connected to said drain port and includes a distal end shiftable between said location adjacent to said wall and a location away from the robot, a lubricant being drained from the interior space through said tube extending outside the robot and said distal end of said tube located away from the robot; wherein said retaining section comprises a chamber, provided on said wall, for Appeal 2010-005675 Application 11/011,087 3 accommodating said tube in its entirety with said tube being removable from said chamber; and wherein said chamber is provided with a detachable cover. THE REJECTIONS 1. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over JP 11-254377 ("JP '377"; pub. Sep. 21, 1999)1 and Bantz (US 6,003,635; iss. Dec. 21, 1999). 2. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over JP 60-255388 ("JP '388"; pub. Dec. 17, 1985)2 and Bantz. ANALYSIS Claim 3 â€“ JP '377 and Bantz The Examiner found JP '377 discloses a robot comprising a wall 39 defining a mechanical section and including a drain port 39b (grease discharge hole) communicating with an interior space of the mechanical section, a tube 58 (grease discharge pipe) connected to the drain port 39b, and a retaining section comprising a chamber (indicated by reference number 17) for accommodating the tube 58 in its entirety. (Ans. 3-4; see also JP '377 paras. [0030], [0031], Fig. 5). The Examiner found JP '377 does not disclose the limitation, "wherein said tube is capable . . . said tube located away from the robot," or "a blocking member," as claimed. (Ans. 4). The Examiner found Bantz discloses a tube 22 for draining lubricant from an interior space 12 (oil pan) of a vehicle, which is capable of extending outside the vehicle with the tube's proximal end connected to a 1 All references herein to JP '377 are to the English-language translation thereof dated Dec. 2009. 2 All references herein to JP '388 are to the English-language translation thereof dated Nov. 2009. Appeal 2010-005675 Application 11/011,087 4 drain port 18 and its distal end 26 shiftable between a location adjacent to a wall 20 and a location away from the vehicle; and also a blocking member 172. (Ans. 4; see also Bantz Fig. 2). The Examiner concluded that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, in view of Bantz, to modify JP '377 to include a blocking member; and to make the tube "long and flexible" to "allow for the tube to be extended to a more readily accessible location, thereby providing easier, more convenient, and versatile draining." (Ans. 4-5). Appellants contend that JP '377 does not disclose a blocking member, and the tube is not capable of extending outside the robot. (Br. 3). However, the Examiner did not find that JP '377 discloses these features, but relied on Bantz for disclosure regarding such. Appellants also contend that Bantz has nothing to do with providing a tube that is capable of extending outside a robot, or other mechanical device, with a proximal end remaining connected to the drain port, and that includes a distal end shiftable between the location adjacent to a wall and a location away from the robot. (Br. 3). However, the Examiner found JP '377 teaches a robot, and did not rely on Bantz for that teaching. (See Ans. 9). We agree with the Examiner that Bantz teaches a long, flexible tube used to drain oil from an interior space away from a mechanical device (i.e., vehicle). Figures 1 and 2 show that the tube 22 extends outside the vehicle, with the proximal end 24 connected to the drain port 18 and the distal end 26 located away from the vehicle. Appellants have not provided any persuasive argument why the distal end 26 cannot be shifted between a location adjacent the wall 20 and a location away from the vehicle, such as the location shown. Appeal 2010-005675 Application 11/011,087 5 Appellants further contend that neither JP '377 nor Bantz discloses or suggests "(1) a chamber for accommodating the tube remote from the interior space of the mechanical section; that (2) allows the lubricant to be drained therefrom by extending the tube outside and away from the device." (Br. 4). Claim 3 does not recite that the chamber is remote from the interior space. In addition, Appellants have provided no persuasive reason why the space indicated by reference number 17 in Figure 5 of JP '377 is not a "chamber," or why that space would not allow lubricant to be drained from the interior space by extending the tube outside and away from the robot, when JP '377 is modified as explained by the Examiner. We agree with the Examiner that modifying the JP '377 tube 58 to make it flexible and of a sufficient length to be extended outside of the chamber and away from the robot (after removing cover 25), would allow lubricant to be drained in this manner. The distal end of the modified tube could be detached from grease discharge path 16c to allow this draining. Appellants also contend that the Examiner did not provide any evidence that one of ordinary skill in the art would modify JP '377 to eliminate its drainage system; and make the tube extendible and cover detachable, so that the oil may be drained from the drain port therein. (Br. 4). This contention is not persuasive. Firstly, the Examiner's modification of JP '377 would not eliminate the drainage system, but only modify the tube 58. (Ans. 9). Secondly, Appellants do not explain why the Examiner's finding that the JP '377 cover 25 is detachable from the robot is erroneous. We agree with the Examiner that the combination of JP '377 and Bantz provides sufficient evidence to support the conclusion that it would have been obvious to modify the JP '377 tube 58 to make it long and flexible, as Appeal 2010-005675 Application 11/011,087 6 discussed supra. Hence, we sustain the rejection of claim 3 as unpatentable over JP '377 and Bantz. Claim 3 â€“ JP '388 and Bantz The Examiner found JP '388 discloses a lubricant draining device comprising a wall 20 defining a mechanical section and including a drain port 21 communicating with an interior space of the mechanical section, a tube 24 connected to the drain port 21, and a retaining section comprising a chamber (indicated by reference number 3) for accommodating the tube 24 in its entirety. (Ans. 5-6; see also JP '388 Fig. 3). The Examiner also found that "the walls of element 3 form what can be interpreted as a cover, as broadly recited; see Fig. 3 showing element 3 being detachable via a connecting bolt." (Ans. 6). The Examiner found JP '388 does not expressly disclose the limitation, "wherein said tube is capable . . . said tube located away from the robot," or "a blocking member," as claimed. (Ans. 6). The Examiner's findings regarding Bantz are the same as discussed supra. (Ans. 6). The Examiner concluded that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify JP '388 in the same manner, and for the same reasons, as discussed supra for the rejection of claim 3 over JP '377 and Bantz. (Ans. 7). Appellants present several arguments for patentability, including that the Examiner did not provide any evidence that one of ordinary skill in the art would modify JP '388 to result in a detachable cover. (Br. 5). We find no error in the Examiner's finding that the claim term "chamber" reads on the region indicated by reference number 3 shown in Figure 3 of JP '388. However, we disagree with the Examiner's finding that this chamber "is provided with a detachable cover." The surrounding walls define the Appeal 2010-005675 Application 11/011,087 7 chamber, or can be considered to be the chamber, but Figure 3 does not show any "cover" for the chamber. The Examiner did not identify any other disclosure in JP '388 regarding a cover for the chamber. As the Examiner's conclusion of obviousness relies on a finding that is not supported by a preponderance of the evidence, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 3 as unpatentable over JP '388 and Bantz. DECISION 1. The rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over JP '377 and Bantz is AFFIRMED. 2. The rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over JP '388 and Bantz is REVERSED. 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)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED mls