Ex Parte TANGDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 16, 201713662205 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 16, 2017) Copy Citation 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. 13/662,205 10/26/2012 Ming TANG 5174-0142PUS1 3261 127226 7590 03/20/2017 Birch, Stewart, Kolasch & Birch, LLP P.O. Box 747 Falls Church, VA 22040-0747 EXAMINER SAFAIPOUR, HOUSHANG ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2677 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/20/2017 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): mailroom @ bskb. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte MING TANG Appeal 2016-000205 Application 13/662,205 Technology Center 2600 Before JAMES R. HUGHES, SCOTT E. BAIN, and STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judges. HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s non-final decision rejecting claims 1—3 and 5—8. Claim 4 has been canceled. Final Act. 1; App. Br. 2.* 1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 We refer to Appellant’s Specification (“Spec.”), filed Oct. 26, 2012 (claiming benefit of Japanese Patent Application JP 2011-240035, filed Nov. 1, 2011) and Appeal Brief (“App. Br.”) filed Mar. 24, 2015. We also refer to the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”) mailed July 15, 2015, and Non-Final Office Action (Non-Final Rejection) (“Non-Final Act.”) mailed Nov. 3, 2014. Appeal 2016-000205 Application 13/662,205 Appellant’s Invention The invention concerns an image reading apparatus including a fan and a housing, in which the fan circulates air within the housing. Spec. 1:10-12; 3:12—6:4; Abstract. Representative Claim Independent claim 1, reproduced below with key disputed limitations emphasized, further illustrates the invention: 1. An image reading apparatus, comprising: a light emitting unit emitting light; a light receiving unit receiving light reflected from a document irradiated with light from said light emitting unit; an air blower unit blowing out sucked air to one direction; and a housing unit housing said light emitting unit, said light receiving unit and said air blower unit; wherein said air blower unit circulates air in a space formed by said housing unit; said housing unit has a rectangular parallelepiped shape having an upper surface, a lower surface opposite to said upper surface and four side surfaces; said air blower unit is arranged between said light receiving unit and one of the side surfaces of said housing unit; and air blowing direction of said air blower unit is along said side surface opposite to said light receiving unit with said air blower unit positioned in between. Rejections on Appeal 1. The Examiner rejects claims 1 and 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Nomura et al. (JP 02-293730, published Dec. 4, 1990) (“Nomura”). 2 Appeal 2016-000205 Application 13/662,205 2. The Examiner rejects claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Nomura and Beegle et al. (US 8,228,571 B2, issued July 24, 2012 (filed Dec. 8, 2008)) (“Beegle”). 3. The Examiner rejects claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Nomura and Iimori (US 5,138,375, issued Aug. 11, 1992) (“Iimori”). 4. The Examiner rejects claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Nomura andNaoshi et. al. (JP 8-102822, published Apr. 16, 1996) (“Naoshi”). 5. The Examiner rejects claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Nomura and Chen et al. (US 7,256,914 Bl, issued Aug. 14, 2007) (“Chen”). 6. The Examiner rejects claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Nomura and Hiroshi (JP 2002-203426, published July 19, 2002) (“Hiroshi”). ISSUES Based upon our review of the record, Appellant’s contentions, and the Examiner’s findings and conclusions, the issues before us follow: 1. Did the Examiner err in finding that Nomura discloses an “air blower unit circulates air in a space formed by said housing unit,” as recited in Appellant’s claim 1? 2. Did the Examiner err in finding that Nomura and Beegle are properly combinable and collectively would have taught or suggested that the “housing unit forms a substantially sealed space,” as recited in Appellant’s claim 2? 3 Appeal 2016-000205 Application 13/662,205 ANALYSIS The 35 U.S.C. § 102 Rejection of Claims 1 and 3 Appellant contends that Nomura does not disclose the disputed features of representative claim 1. See App. Br. 4—7. Specifically, Appellant contends Nomura describes a frame body (element 1) including louvers (element 9) and that the air (arrows A and C) flowing from the fan (element 8) through the frame flows out through the louvers (see Nomura Figs. 1 and 2). App. Br. 6—8. Thus, according to Appellant, “the flow of air in the directions shown by arrows A and C does not ‘circulate,’ as required in claim 1.” App. Br. 6. The Examiner finds that Nomura meets each limitation of Appellant’s claim 1. Non-Final Act. 2—3; Ans. 2—3. Specifically, the Examiner finds that Nomura describes air flow cooling each of the elements within Nomura’s frame body and not all air that flows through Nomura’s frame body will be exhausted, such that some air will remain and be circulated. Ans. 2—3 (citing Nomura Figs. 1 and 2). We agree with the Examiner and decline to adopt Appellant’s overly narrow construction of the claim term “circulate,” as well as Appellant’s unsupported interpretation of Nomura. We find Appellant’s contentions unpersuasive of Examiner error. We give claim language its “broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the [Specification” in accordance with our mandate that “claim language should be read in light of the [Specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Am. Acad, of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). We broadly but reasonably construe “circulates” to simply mean “to move about or flow freely, as air.” Webster’s New World College 4 Appeal 2016-000205 Application 13/662,205 Dictionary, 4th Ed. (1999), available at http://www.yourdictionary.com/. Nomura describes such a free flow of air. Appellant seems to suggest the claim term “circulates” requires the blown air to move in a circuit around a frame — “the air blower unit 170 circulates air along the side surfaces 94, 96, as shown in Fig. 4” (App. Br. 5; see Spec. 21; Fig. 4). Appellant, however, never proffers a particular definition for the term “circulates,” and does not explain why at least some of the air in Nomura’s frame body is not exhausted and continues to flow around the frame body as pointed out by the Examiner {supra). Even if we were to apply a narrower construction to the claim term “circulates,” as Appellant suggests, we agree with the Examiner {supra) that Nomura describes such circulation. Further, Appellant failed to file a Reply Brief addressing the Examiner’s clarified interpretation of the disputed limitation, or otherwise rebutting the findings and responsive arguments made by the Examiner in the Answer. Thus, Appellant does not persuade us of error in the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of representative independent claim 1. Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of representative claim 1 and dependent claim 3, not separately argued with particularity (App. Br. 7). The 35 U.S.C. § 103 Rejection of Claims 2 and 5—8 The Examiner rejects claim 2 as being obvious in view of Nomura and Beegle. Non-Final Act. 3. Appellant reiterates the argument made with respect to claim 1 {supra). App. Br. 8. Appellant also contends that Nomura and Beegle cannot properly be combined (App. Br. 7—8) because Nomura draws air from the outside and discharges the air through the louvers, while Beegle forms a substantially sealed space preventing air from 5 Appeal 2016-000205 Application 13/662,205 entering its frame, and such combination would render “Nomura unsatisfactory for its intended purpose” (App. Br 8). App. Br. 7—8. We disagree with Appellant. Appellant misconstrues the Examiner’s rejection as well as Beegle. The Examiner cites Beegle to suggest a substantially sealed enclosure (Non- Final Act. 3) and explains that such an enclosure is sealed except for a fan inlet (Ans. 3). The Examiner’s findings are consistent with Beegle, which describes a cooling unit (element 19) with a baffle unit (element 9) directing airflow (element 5) from outside the enclosure (element 101) into the enclosure. See Beegle Fig. 4. Appellant does not address the Examiner’s rejection (Non-Final Act. 3) with respect to the combined teachings of Nomura and Beegle — i.e., that the combination of Nomura and Beegle at least suggests a “housing unit [that] forms a substantially sealed space” (claim 2). Further, as with claim 1 {supra), Appellant failed to file a Reply Brief addressing the Examiner’s clarified interpretation of the disputed limitation, or otherwise rebutting the findings and responsive arguments made by the Examiner in the Answer. Thus, Appellant does not persuade us of error in the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of dependent claim 2. With respect to the obviousness rejections of dependent claim 5 (rejected as obvious over Nomura and Iimori), dependent claim 6 (rejected as obvious over Nomura and Naoshi), dependent claim 7 (rejected as obvious over Nomura and Chen), and dependent claim 8 (rejected as obvious over Nomura and Hiroshi) we affirm the Examiner’s obviousness rejections for the same reasons set forth with respect to claim 1 {supra). 6 Appeal 2016-000205 Application 13/662,205 Appellant does not address these rejections or the Examiner’s findings with specific separate arguments. See App. Br. 8—9. Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 2 and 5—8. CONCLUSIONS Appellant has not shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1 and 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). Appellant has not shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 2 and 5—8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—3 and 5—8. 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation