NGK Insulators, Ltd.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardApr 14, 20212020005028 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 14, 2021) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation