Ex Parte Yuura

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 28, 2014

11675801 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 28, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte TAKASHI YUURA
____________

Appeal 2012-010488
Application 11/675,8011
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before ROMULO H. DELMENDO, KAREN M. HASTINGS, and
DONNA M. PRAISS, Administrative Patent Judges.

DELMENDO, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
The Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of a final
rejection of claims 1-3, 7-9, 17, and 18. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6.
We AFFIRM.

1 According to the Appellant, the Real Party in Interest is “Kabushiki Kaisha
Tokai Rika Denki Seisakusho” (Appeal Brief filed March 13, 2012,
hereinafter “Br.,” 1).

Appeal 2012-010488
Application 11/675,801

2
BACKGROUND
The invention relates to a case and a portable device formed by laser
welding two synthetic parts, in which a light reflector in the form of an
inclined surface is provided on a peripheral portion of a first part to reflect
light away from the peripheral portion and prevent the synthetic resin fused
by the laser from being extruded between the joined surfaces of the two parts
(Specification, hereinafter “Spec.,” 1, ll. 6-8; 7, ll. 3-18; 12, ll. 5-19).
According to the Appellant, the case is part of the portable device, which
may be a wireless device for locking and unlocking the doors of a vehicle or
a cellular phone (id. at 1, ll. 21-27; 22, ll. 10-12).
Representative claim 1 is reproduced from page 13 of the Appeal
Brief (Claims App’x), as follows:
1. A case for accommodating an object, the case
comprising:
a resin first case part transmissive to laser light and
including a peripheral portion;
a resin second case part that absorbs laser light joined
with the first case part;
a light reflector reflective to laser light formed in the
peripheral portion of the first case part, wherein the light
reflector reflects laser light away from the peripheral portion
and stops entrance of laser light into the peripheral portion;
a laser welding portion formed inward from the light
reflector between the first case part and the second case part
and located at a region reachable by laser light transmitted
through the first case part without being reflected by the light
reflector, wherein the laser welding portion is for welding the
second case part to the first case part with laser light and
wherein an edge of the laser welding portion is defined by
reflection of laser light by said light reflector; and
Appeal 2012-010488
Application 11/675,801

3
a non-welding portion arranged outward from the edge of
the laser welding portion between the first case part and the
second part at a region corresponding to the light reflector,
wherein the non-welding portion is free from resin fused
by laser light.

The Examiner rejected the claims as follows:
I. Claims 1-3 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by
Beer;2
II. Claims 1-3, 7-9, 17, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Tat;3 and
III. Claims 1-3, 7-9, 17, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Tat in view of Beer.
(Examiner’s Answer entered April 13, 2012, hereinafter “Ans.,” 4-13.)

DISCUSSION
I.
A dispositive issue for Rejection I is whether the Appellant identified
(Br. 6-9) reversible error in the Examiner’s finding that Beer describes “a
light reflector,” as specified and arranged in claims 1-3 and 17.
Relying on the description found at page 7, lines 13-18, of the current
Specification, the Examiner construed the recited “light reflector” to read on
an inclined surface on a part to be welded (Ans. 9). The Examiner then

2 United States Patent Application Publication 2002/0104614 A1 published
August 8, 2002.
3 United States Patent Application Publication 2004/0237422 A1 published
December 2, 2004.
Appeal 2012-010488
Application 11/675,801

4
found that Beer’s Figures 1 and 2 describes such a “light reflector” (id. at 4-
5 and 9-11).
We discern no error in the Examiner’s construction of the term “light
reflector.” We disagree, however, that Beer describes a “light reflector” as
arranged and specified in claim 1. Specifically, the Examiner failed to
demonstrate that the inclined surface shown in Beer’s Figures 1 and 2 would
reflect laser light away from the peripheral portion of the first case part and
stop entrance of the laser light into the peripheral portion, as required by
claim 1. Indeed, contrary to the Examiner’s belief, we find no inclined
surface of any kind in the vicinity of laser light beam 8.
For these reasons, we cannot uphold Rejection I.

II.
With respect to Rejection II, the Appellant argues the claims together.
Br. 9-10. Therefore, we confine our discussion of Rejection II to claim 1,
which we select as representative pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Claims 2, 3, 7-9, 17, and 18 stand or fall with claim 1.
The dispositive issue for Rejection II is whether the Appellant
identified (Br. 6, 9-10) reversible error in the Examiner’s finding that Tat
describes “a light reflector,” as specified and arranged in claim 1.
As in Rejection I, the Examiner construed the limitation “light
reflector” to read on an inclined surface (Ans. 11). The Examiner then
found that Tat describes such a “light reflector,” as arranged and specified in
claim 1 (id. at 12).
App
App

(i.e.,
6). A
The
corre
incid
for in
Exam

rever
681
obvi
eal 2012-0
lication 11
We find
a case) fo
n embodi
Figure abo
ctly found
ent on an
clined sur
iner’s vie
The Exa
In
element
ordinary
article o
outside o
prevent
Because
sible error
F.2d 792,
ousness).

10488
/675,801
no error in
rmed by la
ment of T
ve depicts
by the Ex
inclined p
face “S” i
w that Tat
miner stat
the event
of claims
skill in th
f Tat by in
f the weld
damage an
we found
in the Ex
794 (CCPA
the Exam
ser weldin
at’s Figure
a design f
aminer, th
ortion of B
n the Appe
anticipate
ed (Ans. 8
that Tat do
1 and 7, it
e art at the
cluding a n
ing portio
d distortio
Tat to ant
aminer’s o
1982) (a
5
iner’s ana
g A cover
6 is repro
or “housin
e laser bea
cover in a
llant’s Fig
s claim 1.
III.
):
es not ant
would hav
time of in
on-weldin
n as taugh
n to the ed
icipate clai
bviousnes
nticipation
lysis. Tat
with B co
duced as f

g part ove
m shown
manner s
ure 2. Th

icipate eac
e been ob
vention to
g portion
t by Beer i
ges of the
m 1, we n
s rejection
is the epi
describes
ver (¶¶ 29
ollows:
rlaps” (¶ 2
in the Figu
imilar to t
erefore, w
h and eve
vious to on
modify th
located
n order to
case parts
ecessarily
. In re Fr
tome or ul
a housing
, 35; Fig.
9). As
re is
hat shown
e share the
ry
e of
e

.
find no
acalossi,
timate of

Appeal 2012-010488
Application 11/675,801

6
ORDER
Rejection I is reversed.
Rejections II and III are 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)(1).
AFFIRMED

lp