Ex Parte YuuraDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 28, 201411675801 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 28, 2014) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation