NGK Insulators, Ltd.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 14, 2021

2020005028 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 14, 2021)

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.
15/921,876 03/15/2018 Kensuke OKUMURA 791_881 3451
25191 7590 04/14/2021
BURR & BROWN, PLLC
PO BOX 869
FAYETTEVILLE, NY 13066
EXAMINER
LAU, JASON
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3762
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/14/2021 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):
tpreston@burrandbrown.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte KENSUKE OKUMURA
____________

Appeal 2020-005028
Application 15/921,876
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, BENJAMIN D. M. WOOD, and
MICHAEL L. WOODS, Administrative Patent Judges.

STAICOVICI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE.
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision in the Final Office Action (dated Oct. 28, 2019, hereinafter “Final
Act.”) rejecting claims 1–5, which constitute all the claims pending in this
application. We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

SUMMARY OF DECISION
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. NGK Insulators, Ltd. is identified as the real party in interest
in Appellant’s Appeal Brief (filed Apr. 7, 2020, hereinafter “Appeal Br.”).
Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2020-005028
Application 15/921,876

2

INVENTION
Appellant’s invention relates “to a method for manufacturing a
honeycomb structure.” Spec. para. 1.
Claim 1, the sole independent claim, is representative of the claimed
invention and reads as follows:
1. A method for manufacturing a honeycomb structure,
comprising:
a step of manufacturing a honeycomb formed body to
manufacture a non-fired honeycomb formed body including a
cell wall that defines a plurality of cells extending from a first
end face as one end face to a second end face as the other end
face, the non-fired honeycomb formed body including a raw
material composition containing a ceramic raw material, 0.5 to
5.0 mass% of pore former and water;
an induction drying step of drying the manufactured non-
fired honeycomb formed body by induction drying to obtain a
honeycomb dried body; and
a firing step of firing the obtained honeycomb dried body
to obtain a honeycomb structure, wherein the induction drying
step is to remove 20 to 80% of the entire water that the non-
fired honeycomb formed body contained before drying by
induction drying to obtain a first dried honeycomb formed
body, then tum the first dried honeycomb formed body upside
down and remove the residual water by further induction drying
to obtain the honeycomb dried body.

REJECTIONS

I. The Examiner rejects claims 1–3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Takagi,2 Kamei,3 Wendt,4 and Katsu.5

2 Takagi et al., US 2009/0235552 Al, published Sept. 24, 2009.
3 Kamei, US 2011/0240205 Al, published Oct. 6, 2011.
4 Wendt et al., US 5,006,684, issued Apr. 9, 1991.
5 Katsu, US 2005/0178022 Al, published Aug. 18, 2005.
Appeal 2020-005028
Application 15/921,876

3

II. The Examiner rejects claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Takagi, Kamei, Wendt, Katsu, and
Okumura.6
III. The Examiner rejects claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Takagi, Kamei, Wendt, Katsu, and
Terazawa.7

ANALYSIS
Rejection I
The Examiner finds Takagi discloses a method for manufacturing a
honeycomb structure including, inter alia, an induction drying
step(dielectric drying) to obtain a first honeycomb dried body, but does not
disclose, “turning the first dried honeycomb formed body upside down and
remov[ing] the residual water by further induction drying to obtain . . . [a]
honeycomb dried body.” Final Act. 2–3 (citing Takagi, paras. 5, 32, 51, Fig.
4). Nonetheless, the Examiner finds, “Wendt teaches heating a food item
with microwaves, turning the food item upside down, and removing the
residual water by further induction drying (microwave).” Id. at 3 (emphasis
added). Thus, the Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to a
person of ordinary skill in the art “to modify Takagi to further comprise the
step of turning the first dried honeycomb formed body upside down and
remove the residual water by further induction drying to obtain the
honeycomb dried body,” as taught by Wendt, in order “to reduce

6 Okumura et al., US 2011/0227256 Al, published Sept. 22, 2011.
7 Terazawa et al., US 2006/0042116 Al, published Mar. 2, 2006.
Appeal 2020-005028
Application 15/921,876

4

deformation and cracks in the honeycomb formed body during the drying
process.” Id. at 3–4 (emphasis added).
Appellant argues that “induction drying and microwave drying are not
the same” and “microwave drying is not . . . a direct replacement for,
induction drying” because “Takagi clearly discloses that induction drying
and microwave drying operate at entirely different frequencies and produce
different moisture content distributions within a honeycomb structure after
drying.” Appeal Br. 9 (citing Takagi, paras. 32, 33, Figs. 4, 5, 8, 9). For
example, Appellant notes that microwave drying employs a frequency of
2.45 GHz, whereas induction drying (i.e., dielectric heating), uses a lower
frequency of 13–40 MHz. Reply Brief (filed June 24, 2020, hereinafter
“Reply Br.”) 3 (citing Takagi, paras. 32, 33, 64, 65; Wendt, col. 21, ll. 9–10,
col. 29, ll. 8–11; col. 44, ll. 25–27). Accordingly, Appellant contends that
“the Examiner is required to interpret ‘induction drying’ consistent with the
present [S]pecification.” Appeal Br. 9 (citing MPEP § 2111).
The Examiner responds that “[i]nduction (i.e., dielectric)
drying/heating is any type of heating method that uses electromagnetic
radiation to cause molecules in the substrate to vibrate, thereby creating
heat.” Examiner’s Answer (dated May 1, 2020, hereinafter “Ans.”) 11. The
Examiner takes the position that because “[m]icrowave heating is induction
heating that operates in the microwave frequency range,” “[m]icrowave
heating is a subcategory of dielectric heating.” Id.
During examination of a patent application, pending claims are given
their broadest reasonable construction consistent with the Specification. In
re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
“While the Board must give the terms their broadest reasonable construction,
Appeal 2020-005028
Application 15/921,876

5

the construction cannot be divorced from the specification and the record
evidence.” In re NTP, Inc., 654 F.3d 1279, 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2011). “Prior art
references may be ‘indicative of what all those skilled in the art generally
believe a certain term means . . . [and] can often help to demonstrate how a
disputed term is used by those skilled in the art.’” In re Cortright, 165 F.3d
1353, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (quoting Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc.,
90 F.3d 1576, 1584 (Fed. Cir. 1996)). In this case, we agree with the
Examiner that “the term induction heating, as used in the present application,
is more commonly referred to as dielectric heating.” Ans. 8. Such an
interpretation is consistent with Appellant’s Specification, which describes
an “induction drying method” as “apply[ing] electric current between
electrodes [15, 16] disposed above and below . . . [a] honeycombed formed
body [1] so as to generate high-frequency energy there . . . [to] dry the
honeycomb formed body,” wherein the frequency is in the range of 10–50
MHz, in particular, 40MHz. Spec. paras. 4, 47, 59, Fig. 1. A similar
description is provided by Takagi, which describes a “dielectric drying
method” as applying “a high-frequency current of about 2 MHz or more and
100 MHz or less . . . across electrodes 31, 32 disposed above and below the
formed honeycomb article 1.” Takagi, para. 52 (emphasis omitted), Fig. 8.
As such, in light of Appellant’s Specification, and the understanding of a
person of ordinary skill in the art, we agree in a first instance with the
Examiner’s construction of the term “induction drying,” as recited in
independent claim 1, to mean “dielectric drying.”
Furthermore, Appellant’s Specification lists “microwave drying” as a
drying method separate from “induction drying,” i.e., dielectric drying. See
Spec. para. 4. Similarly, Takagi also differentiates between “dielectric
Appeal 2020-005028
Application 15/921,876

6

drying” and “microwave drying.” In particular, Takagi discloses that in a
“microwave drying method” “the formed honeycomb article 1 is irradiated
with a microwave having . . . a frequency . . . [of] about 300 MHz or more
and 30 GHz or less . . . [in order] to [h]eat and dry the formed honeycomb
article 1.” Takagi, para. 55, Fig. 9. Takagi further discloses that when the
moisture content of the object being dried is below 30% mass, it is
preferable to use “microwave drying” because non-uniform drying results at
a higher moisture content as the microwave does not penetrate deep enough
into the object (penetration depth is inversely proportional to the frequency).
Id. paras. 56, 58. In contrast, when the moisture content of the object being
dried is above 10% mass, it is preferable to use “dielectric drying” because
at a lower moisture content the impedance of the system increases and the
efficiency decreases. Id. para. 59. Thus, not only are the frequencies of the
applied electromagnetic field in the “dielectric drying” and “microwave
drying” methods widely different, but each drying method is suitable for
drying a different moisture content. As such, to construe the term “induction
drying” to encompass both “dielectric drying” and “microwave drying”
would be inconsistent with both of Appellant’s Specification and the
understanding of a skilled artisan, as evidenced by Takagi’s teachings.
“[I]nterpretation of claim terms should not be so broad that it conflicts with
the meaning given to identical terms in other patents from analogous art.”
Cortright, 165 F.3d at 1358 (emphasis added).
Accordingly, although we appreciate that both dielectric and
microwave drying methods employ electromagnetic radiation to dry an
object (see Ans. 11), nonetheless, we do not agree that in light of
Appellant’s Specification, and the understanding of a person of ordinary
Appeal 2020-005028
Application 15/921,876

7

skill in the art, the term “induction drying” encompasses both “dielectric
drying” and “microwave drying.” The Examiner correctly determines that
Takagi discloses “induction drying,” i.e., dielectric drying, “to obtain a first
dried honeycomb formed body,” as called for by independent claim 1. See
Final Act. 2–3; see also Appeal Br. 13 (Claims App.). The Examiner is also
correct that Takagi does not disclose “further induction drying to obtain the
honeycomb dried body.” Final Act. 3; see also Appeal Br. 13 (Claims
App.). However, because the term “induction drying” does not encompass
“microwave heating,” we do not agree with the Examiner’s finding that
Wendt discloses “removing the residual water by further induction drying
(microwave).” Final Act. 3 (emphasis added). In other words, because
Wendt discloses “microwave drying,” for the reasons discussed supra,
Wendt does not disclose “induction drying,” as understood by a skilled
artisan, in light of Appellant’s Specification.
In conclusion, the combined teachings of Takagi and Wendt do not
disclose a method including a step of “further induction drying to obtain the
honeycomb dried body,” as called for by independent claim 1. The
Examiner’s use of the Kamei and Katsu disclosures does not remedy the
deficiency of the Takagi and Wendt combination discussed supra. See Final
Act. 3–4. Therefore, for the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claim 1, and its dependent claims 2 and 3,
as unpatentable over Takagi, Kamei, Wendt, and Katsu.

Rejections II and III
The Examiner’s use of the Okumura and Terazawa disclosures does
not remedy the deficiency of the Takagi and Wendt combination discussed
Appeal 2020-005028
Application 15/921,876

8

supra. See Final Act. 4–6. Therefore, for the same reasons discussed above,
we also do not sustain the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claim 4 as
unpatentable over Takagi, Kamei, Wendt, Katsu, and Okumura; and of
claims 5 as unpatentable over Takagi, Kamei, Wendt, Katsu, and Terazawa.

CONCLUSION

Claim(s)
Rejected
35
U.S.C. §
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–3 103 Takagi, Kamei,
Wendt, Katsu
1–3
4 103 Takagi, Kamei,
Wendt, Katsu,
Okumura
4
5 103 Takagi, Kamei,
Wendt, Katsu,
Terazawa
5
Overall
Outcome
1–5

REVERSED