Ex Parte Yokoyama

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 26, 2012

11723026 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 26, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE 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. 11/723,026 03/16/2007 Yasuhiro Yokoyama FUJ-005A 2391 7590 09/27/2012 KANESAKA BERNER & PARTNERS Suite 310 1700 Diagonal Road Alexandria, VA 22314 EXAMINER SCHATZ, CHRISTOPHER T ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1746 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/27/2012 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 YASUHIRO YOKOYAMA __________ Appeal 2011-004888 Application 11/723,026 Technology Center 1700 ___________ Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, TERRY J. OWENS, and BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judges. HANLON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL A. STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from an Examiner’s decision finally rejecting claims 6 and 7, which are all of the pending claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. Appeal 2011-004888 Application 11/723,026 2 The subject matter on appeal is dire0cted to a vacuum lamination device. Claim 6, reproduced below, is illustrative. 6. A vacuum lamination device for laminating a lamination member, comprising: a base plate for placing the lamination member having a first uneven portion on a surface thereof contacting the lamination member, two opposing frame members fixed to the base plate and each having a discharge port, and a cover member disposed above the base plate and the frame members for forming a processing space together therewith and hermetically sealing the processing space, a gaseous material in the processing space being evacuated through the discharge port in a lamination process, wherein the base plate further includes even portions on the surface thereof at two sides of the first uneven portion perpendicular to the two opposing frame members such that the cover member closely contacts the even portions during the lamination process, and wherein each of the frame members includes an elongated gap forming the discharge port and having a height such that the first uneven portion is disposed in the elongated gap. App. Br., Claims Appendix (emphasis added).1 The Appellant seeks review of the following grounds of rejection: (1) the rejection of claims 6 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Itoyama2 in view of Cathers3 and Rau4; and 1 Appeal Brief dated August 10, 2010. 2 US 6,227,270 B1 issued May 8, 2001. 3 US 4,398,979 issued August 16, 1983. 4 US 5,814,175 issued September 29, 1998. Appeal 2011-004888 Application 11/723,026 3 (2) the rejection of claims 6 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Yoshino5 in view of Itoyama, Cathers, and Rau. B. DISCUSSION Claim 6 recites a vacuum lamination device comprising, inter alia, “two opposing frame members fixed to the base plate and each having a discharge port . . . wherein each of the frame members includes an elongated gap forming the discharge port.” App. Br., Claims Appendix (emphasis added). In both rejections on appeal, the Examiner relies on Itoyama as disclosing an elongated gap as recited in claim 6. Ans. 5, 6.6 In particular, referring to an annotated version of Itoyama Fig. 4 (reproduced below), the Examiner contends “[t]he shaded region reads on the appellant’s claimed ‘discharge port’. The discharge port extends longitudinally along each side of the frame [102] and thus the gap between the frame [102] and the base 101 is an ‘elongated gap’.” Ans. 8 (emphasis added). Annotated Itoyama Fig. 4 depicts a portion of a vacuum lamination device. 5 US 5,993,582 issued November 30, 1999. 6 Examiner’s Answer dated October 27, 2010. Appeal 2011-004888 Application 11/723,026 4 The Appellant contends the elongated gap identified in annotated Itoyama Fig. 4 is “under” the frame, “between the frame and the base,” or “beside the frame 102” which is separate from the frame and thus is not included in the frame as required by claim 6. Reply Br. 1-27; see also App. Br. 5, 10. The Appellant’s argument is supported by the record. Therefore, the § 103(a) rejections on appeal will not be sustained. C. DECISION The decision of the Examiner is reversed. REVERSED sld 7 Reply Brief dated December 22, 2010.