Sharp Kabushiki Kaisha

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardMar 12, 2021

2020002450 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 12, 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. 15/492,041 04/20/2017 Motoyuki ITOYAMA 70404.3517/ka 1087 54072 7590 03/12/2021 SHARP KABUSHIKI KAISHA C/O KEATING & BENNETT, LLP 1800 Alexander Bell Drive SUITE 200 Reston, VA 20191 EXAMINER YI, ROY Y ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2852 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/12/2021 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): JKEATING@KBIPLAW.COM epreston@kbiplaw.com uspto@kbiplaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte MOTOYUKI ITOYAMA Appeal 2020-002450 Application 15/492,041 Technology Center 2800 Before CATHERINE Q. TIMM, BRIAN D. RANGE, and MERRELL C. CASHION, JR., Administrative Patent Judges. TIMM, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 4, and 7. See Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Sharp Kabushiki Kaisha. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2020-002450 Application 15/492,041 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to a powder detection device. Claim 1, reproduced below with the limitation at issue italicized, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A powder detection device comprising: a sensor case that is provided on a wall surface of a powder container which contains powder and that includes a transparent detection surface which is placed so as to face inward in the powder container; an optical sensor that is housed in the sensor case and that detects presence or absence of the powder at an elevation at which the optical sensor is placed, through the detection surface; a cleaning member that slides and rubs on an outer surface of the detection surface; a drive unit that moves the cleaning member; and a control unit that controls the drive unit so as to stop the cleaning member in a region in which the cleaning member does not come into contact with the detection surface, in case where the cleaning member is to be stopped. Appeal Br. 11 (Claims Appendix) (emphasis added). REFERENCES The Examiner relies on the following prior art: Name Reference Date Forward US 4,135,642 Jan. 23, 1979 Ushikubo US 8,032,038 B2 Oct. 4, 2011 Appeal 2020-002450 Application 15/492,041 3 REJECTIONS Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Forward. Final Act. 2. Claims 4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Forward in view of Ushikubo. Final Act. 4. OPINION The issue on appeal is: Has Appellant identified a reversible error in the Examiner’s finding that Forward describes a control unit? Appellant has identified such an error. The Examiner identifies Forward’s groove 76 as the control unit. Final Act. 10. This groove is not a control unit. To understand why, we must properly interpret the claim. See In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1479 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (“[T]o properly compare [the prior art] with the claims at issue, we must construe the term [in dispute] to ascertain its scope and meaning.”). To construe claim terms, we give them “their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification.” In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). “Claim language should be read in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.” Id. The correct interpretation “is an interpretation that corresponds with what and how the inventor describes his invention in the specification.” In re Smith Int’l, Inc., 871 F.3d 1375, 1382–83 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Thus, we look to the Specification to guide us to the correct meaning of the term “control unit” as used in the claims. In every instance, Appellant’s Specification uses “control unit” to describe a component in a computer that manipulates data and outputs instructions to other components of the apparatus. The Specification Appeal 2020-002450 Application 15/492,041 4 describes control unit 11 as receiving data such as toner concentration (Spec. ¶ 16) and outputting instructions such as instructions that trigger hopper 40 to replenish the toner (Spec. ¶ 17). The control unit 11 carries out the motion control of cleaning member 55 (Spec. ¶ 23) and performs algorithms (Figs. 9–10). Thus, we determine that “control unit,” as used in claim 1, refers to the part of a computer processing unit that receives data, performs computing operations, and outputs data and instructions. The contour and inclination of Forward’s grooves may control the range of movement of Forward’s wipers, but the grooves are not a “control unit.” The groove is merely a mechanical structure that translates movement. It is unable to manipulate data and perform control operations in the ordinary and accustomed manner of a “control unit” as that term is understood in the art. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 4, and 7 is REVERSED. DECISION SUMMARY Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1 102(a)(1) Forward 1 4, 7 103 Forward, Ushikubo 4, 7 Overall Outcome 1, 4, 7 REVERSED