Ex Parte Takemata

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 31, 2017

12150664 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 31, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
12/150,664 04/30/2008 Toshiharu Takemata 96790P605 7766
BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN
1279 Oakmead Parkway
Sunnyvale, CA 94085-4040
EXAMINER
CAPOZZI, CHARLES
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1717
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/01/2017 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte TOSHIHARU TAKEMATA
Appeal 2016-002406
Application 12/150,6641
Technology Center 1700
Before WESLEY B. DERRICK, CHRISTOPHER L. OGDEN, and
DEBRA L. DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
DERRICK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the maintained final
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 1, 2, 8, and 14-16 over Siegel2
in view of DeMoore3 and Kusunoki,4 and of claim 11 in further view of
Yoshikawa.5 A prior ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112 is no longer
1 Komori Corporation is identified as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3.
2 Siegel, US 2004/0135159 Al, published July 15, 2004.
3 DeMoore et al., US 2004/0226463 Al, published November 18, 2004.
4 Kusunoki, US 2006/0203024 Al, published September 14, 2006.
5 Yoshikawa, US 5,402,211, issued March 28, 1995.
Appeal 2016-002406
Application 12/150,664
pending.6 An oral hearing was held on August 10, 2017. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.
We AFFIRM.
THE INVENTION
The subject matter of the claims on appeal relates to a liquid curing
apparatus for a liquid transfer device including a liquid transfer device and a
plurality of ultraviolet-emitting diodes. Specification filed April 30, 2008
(“Spec.”), Abstract.
Claim 1—the sole independent claim—is representative.
1. A liquid curing apparatus for a liquid transfer device,
comprising:
a liquid transfer unit which transfers an ultraviolet curing
liquid to a transfer target body;
a plurality of ultraviolet-emitting diodes which are
arranged to oppose the transfer target body and emit only
ultraviolet-wavelength light to irradiate the transfer target body
to which the liquid has been transferred by said liquid transfer
unit, thereby curing the transferred liquid;
wherein said plurality of ultraviolet-emitting diodes are
divided into a plurality of blocks, each of said plurality of
blocks including at least two ultraviolet-emitting diodes and
power is configured to be independently supplied to said at
least two ultraviolet-emitting diodes for each of said plurality of
blocks;
6 While not explicitly listed as being withdrawn in the Answer issued
October 26, 2015 (“Ans.”), we understand the prior pending rejection under
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph to have been obviated by the Rule
41.33(a) amendment filed June 5, 2015, correcting the lack of antecedent
basis identified by the Examiner in the Final Office Action issued October
14, 2014 (“Final Act.”).
2
Appeal 2016-002406
Application 12/150,664
said plurality of ultraviolet-emitting diodes are arranged
in a widthwise direction and a convey direction of the transfer
target body to form a matrix and divided in the widthwise
direction of the transfer target body to form said plurality of
blocks, and
a power supply configured to supply power only to the
blocks of said plurality of ultraviolet-emitting diodes that
correspond to a width of the transfer target body.
Appeal Brief filed June 8, 2015 (“Appeal Br.”), 13.
DISCUSSION7
We have reviewed the grounds of rejection set forth by the Examiner,
Appellant’s arguments, and the Examiner’s response.8 On this record, we
are unpersuaded that the Examiner erred reversibly, and we determine that a
preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner’s conclusion of
obviousness for the reasons expressed by the Examiner in the Final Office
Action and the Examiner’s Answer. We add the following primarily for
emphasis.
The Examiner relies on Siegel’s disclosure of a liquid curing
apparatus having a plurality of ultraviolet-emitting diodes 10—arranged to
oppose and irradiate a web 74 to which liquid has been transferred—wherein
the plurality of ultraviolet-emitting diodes are divided into a plurality of
arrays 21, 23, 25 (blocks), which each include at least two ultraviolet-
7 In this discussion, we refer to the Specification, the Final Office Action
dated October 14, 2014 (“Final Act.”), the Appeal Brief, and the Examiner’s
Answer issued October 26, 2015 (“Ans.”).
8 Our consideration of arguments is limited to that relied upon in the brief.
37 C.F.R. § 41.47(e)(1); cf. Optivus Tech., Inc. v. Ion Beam Appl’ns S.A.,
469 F.3d 978, 989 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[A]n issue not raised by an appellant in
its opening brief... is waived.”). Appellant did not submit a reply brief.
3
Appeal 2016-002406
Application 12/150,664
emitting diodes 10. Ans. 2-3 (citing Siegel 37, 41, Figs. 4-6). The
Examiner concedes that Siegel does not explicitly disclose a power supply
configured to independently supply power to arrays 21, 23, and 25 (blocks)
and a liquid transfer device. Ans. 3.
The Examiner relies on DeMoore for its disclosure of a power supply
supplying power independently to respective mercury vapor lamps 44^19,
which the Examiner determines are analogous to Siegel’s arrays 21, 23, and
25 (blocks), for the benefit of conserving energy and avoiding damage, and
for its disclosure of a liquid transfer device. Ans. 3^1 (citing DeMoore
1122-24, 27, 30, 48, 60-64, Figs. 1-2, 7).
The Examiner relies on Kusunoki for its disclosure that an ultraviolet
LED element array (block) is analogous to a mercury lamp for the benefit of
supplying curing light. Ans. 4 (citing Kusunoki 197).
The Examiner concludes that one of ordinary skill in the art at the
time of the invention, armed with the cited prior art, would have found it
obvious to have configured the light curing apparatus of Siegel with a power
supply to independently supply power to respective ultraviolet LED element
arrays (blocks) of Siegel based on the width of the transfer target body for
the benefit of conserving energy and avoiding damage. Ans. 4.
Appellant contends that Siegel, DeMoore, and Kusunoki teach power
being independently supplied to individual LED elements or mercury lamps.
Appeal Br. 5, 7, 10. None of the prior art, according to Appellant, teaches
independently supplying power to LED element arrays (blocks). Appeal Br.
10. Moreover, Appellant contends that a power configuration that
independently supplies power to a plurality of blocks, which blocks include
at least two UV emitting diodes, would not have been obvious in light of the
4
Appeal 2016-002406
Application 12/150,664
prior art at the time of the claimed invention because none of the references
teach supplying power to blocks of at least two light sources as a block.
Appeal Br. 9-10. Appellant further contends in light of DeMoore’s teaching
to turn off unnecessary light sources extending beyond the width of the
carrying object, “the best technique [would be] to allow controlling ON/OFF
of the ultraviolet-emitting diodes independently” and that this would not
lead to the claimed invention. Appeal Br. 9-10.
On this record, we do not find Appellant’s arguments persuasive of
reversible error because they fail to address the rejection as set forth by the
Examiner and to properly take account of what the prior art would have
taught one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.9
Appellant’s argument grounded on Kusunoki’s teaching of independent
power supply to individual ultraviolet emitting elements (Appeal Br. 6-7,
citing Kusunoki || 19, 117), in particular, fails to squarely address the
Examiner’s rejection grounded instead on the recognition in the same field
of endeavor that an ultraviolet LED element array (block) is equivalent to a
mercury lamp (Ans. 4, citing Kusunoki 197). Cf. In re Keller, 642 F.2d
413, 425 (CCPA) (“The test for obviousness is . . . what the combined
teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill
in the art.”). Further, as to the substance of the Examiner’s reliance on
Kusunoki, we are apprised of no error because, as properly applied, “the
[obviousness] analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the
specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account
9 We further note that we are not apprised of support for Appellant’s
contention that “as the Examiner admits, Siegel merely teaches to ‘switch
ON/OFF the ultraviolet-emitting diodes independently’” (Appeal Br. 5) as to
both what is taught by Siegel and that it is admitted by the Examiner.
5
Appeal 2016-002406
Application 12/150,664
of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill would
employ.” KSRInt’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007); see also
In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826 (CCPA 1968) (“[I]t is proper to take into
account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences
which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw
therefrom.”).
Appellant’s position that the prior art fails to teach independent power
supply to LED element arrays (blocks), as opposed to individual LED
elements, is further unpersuasive in light of DeMoore’s teaching to
independently supply power to individual mercury lamps (DeMoore Ull,
30) and Kusunoki’s teaching, discussed above, that an ultraviolet LED
element array (block) is equivalent to a mercury lamp (Kusunoki 197)
because, collectively, DeMoore and Kusunoki teach independently
supplying power to an LED element array (block). See In re Omeprazole
Patent Litigation, 483 F.3d 1364, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“It is obvious to
those skilled in the art to substitute one known equivalent for another.”).
Appellant’s argument that DeMoore’s teaching to use individual
control of light sources would lead one of ordinary skill to use individual
control of Siegal’s ultraviolet-emitting diodes is unpersuasive of reversible
error because nothing cited by Appellant reasonably leads the skilled artisan
away from the invention. DyStar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland
KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“We will not
read into a reference a teaching away from a process where no such
language exists.”). “A reference does not teach away ... if it merely
expresses a general preference for an alternative invention but does not
‘criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage’ investigation into the invention
6
Appeal 2016-002406
Application 12/150,664
claimed.” DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 567 F.3d
1314, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (quoting In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201
(Fed. Cir. 2004)).
On balance, the evidence of record weighs most heavily in favor of
the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness of claim 1. Claims 2, 8, 11, and
14—16 have not been separately argued and therefore fall with claim 1. See
Appeal Br. 11; 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 8, 11, and 14-16 is
AFFIRMED.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
7