Ex Parte TANG

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 16, 2017

13662205 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 16, 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.
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