Ex Parte Arishiro et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Oct 28, 2005

09893399 (B.P.A.I. Oct. 28, 2005)

1 Application for patent filed June 29, 2001
1
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written for
publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte MASATOSHI ARISHIRO,
MASAMI YAMAGUCHI
and TETSURO SAITO

_____________
Appeal No. 2005-2500
Application No. 09/893,3991
______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before PAK, KRATZ, and TIMM, Administrative Patent Judges.
PAK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from
the examiner’s final rejection of claims 1, 3 and 5 through 9,
which are all of the claims pending in the above-identified
application.
Appeal No. 2005-2500
Application No. 09/893,399
2
APPEALED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1, 5 and 6 are representative of the subject matter
on appeal and read as follows:
1. A manufacturing apparatus for manufacturing
electronic monolithic ceramic components, the
manufacturing apparatus comprising:
a sheet supplier for supplying a plurality of
types of ceramic green sheets in a predetermined order,
the sheet supplier including a plurality of trays, each
tray being adapted to hold at least one ceramic green
sheet, the plurality of ceramic green sheets being held
in the plurality of trays according to type, a rack for
vertically aligning the plurality of trays, a tray
drawer device for drawing trays from the rack according
to a predetermined order, and rails arranged to guide a
tray drawing operation of the tray drawer device;
a laminator for laminating the plurality of
ceramic green sheets supplied by the sheet supplier;
a conveyor device for picking up a single ceramic
green sheet from a drawn tray and conveyed the single
ceramic green sheet to the laminator;
a processor unit adapted to receive data
concerning at least a type, an order in lamination, and
a quantity of ceramic green sheets necessary for a
laminate for a desired electronic monolithic component;
the sheet supplier including a drive for driving
the rack to be raised and lowered in a vertical
direction; and
the tray drawer device being arranged to draw a
particular tray from the rack when, as a result of the
rack being at least one of raised and lowered by the
drive, the particular tray is positioned at a
predetermined height.
5. A manufacturing apparatus for manufacturing
electronic monolithic ceramic components, the
manufacturing apparatus comprising:
a sheet supplier for supplying a plurality of
types of ceramic green sheets in a predetermined order,
the sheet supplier including a plurality of trays, each
Appeal No. 2005-2500
Application No. 09/893,399
3
tray being adapted to hold at least one ceramic green
sheet, at least two of the trays holding two different
types of ceramic green sheet, respectively, the
plurality of ceramic green sheets being held in the
plurality of trays according to type, a rack for
vertically aligning the plurality of trays, a tray
drawer device for drawing the at least two trays from
the rack according to a predetermined order, and rails
arranged to guide a tray drawing operation of the tray
drawer device;
a laminator for laminating the plurality of
ceramic green sheets supplied by the sheet supplier;
a conveyor device for picking up a single ceramic
green sheet from a drawn tray and conveying the single
ceramic green sheet to the laminator;
a processor unit adapted to receive data
concerning at least a type, an order in lamination, and
a quantity of ceramic green sheets necessary for a
laminate for a desired electronic monolithic component;
the sheet supplier including a drive for driving
the rack to be raised and lowered in a vertical
direction; and
the tray drawer device being arranged to draw a
particular tray from the rack when, as a result of the
rack being at least one of raised and lowered by the
drive, the particular tray is positioned at a
predetermined height.
6. A manufacturing apparatus for manufacturing
electronic monolithic ceramic components, the
manufacturing apparatus comprising:
a sheet supplier for supplying a plurality of
types of ceramic green sheets in a predetermined order,
the sheet supplier including a plurality of trays, in
each tray the ceramic green sheets being sorted
according to the respective typed thereof and a
plurality of ceramic green sheets of the same type
being stored on each tray, a rack for vertically
aligning the plurality of trays, each of the trays
including the plurality of ceramic green sheets of the
same type, a tray drawer device for drawing trays from
Appeal No. 2005-2500
Application No. 09/893,399
4
the rack according to a predetermined order, and rails
arranged to guide a tray drawing operation of the tray
drawer device;
a laminator for laminating the plurality of
ceramic green sheets supplied by the sheet supplier;
a conveyor device for picking up a single ceramic
green sheet from a drawn tray and conveying the single
ceramic green sheet to the laminator;
a processor unit adapted to receive data
concerning at least a type, an order in lamination, and
a quantity of ceramic green sheets necessary for a
laminate for a desired electronic monolithic component;
the sheet supplier including a drive for driving
the rack to be raised and lowered in a vertical
direction; and
the tray drawer device being arranged to draw a
particular tray from the rack when, as a result of the
rack being at least one of raised and lowered by the
drive, the particular tray is positioned at a
predetermined height.

RIOR ART REFERENCES
The prior art references relied upon by the examiner in
support of the Section 103 rejection before us are:
Baccini 6,109,323 Aug. 29, 2000
Yoshimura Hei 4-239604 Aug. 27, 1992
(Published Japanese patent application)
Takane et al. (Takane) Hei 10-321457 Dec. 04, 1998
(Published Japanese patent application)

REJECTION
Claims 1, 3, and 5 through 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over the combined disclosures of
Yoshimura, Takane and Baccini.
Appeal No. 2005-2500
Application No. 09/893,399
5
OPINION
We have carefully reviewed the claims, specification and
prior art, including all of the arguments advanced by both the
examiner and the appellants in support of their respective
positions. This review has led us to conclude that the
examiner’s Section 103 rejection is not well founded.
Accordingly, we reverse the examiner’s Section 103 rejection for
essentially the reasons set forth at pages 12 through 18 of the
Brief. We add the following primarily for emphasis.
As is apparent from pages 4 through 14 of the Answer, the
examiner acknowledges that Yoshimura, Takane and Baccini do not
teach “a tray drawer device for drawing trays from the rack [for
vertically aligning the plurality of trays] according to a
predetermined order, and rails arranged to guide a tray drawing
operation of the tray drawer device” and “a driver for driving
the rack to be raised and lowered in a vertical direction” in the
claims on appeal. See claims 1, 5 and 6. To remedy these
deficiencies, the examiner asserts (Answer, pages 6 and 7) that:
One skilled in the art would have readily
appreciated that while Takane et al has a rack (31)
with slots for holding individual ceramic green sheets
(10) and a sheet drawing device (35) for drawing the
individual sheets from the slots, such a rack would be
readily capable and/or adaptable for the slots to hold
trays with a plurality of ceramic green sheets inside
Appeal No. 2005-2500
Application No. 09/893,399
6
and that such a drawing device would be readily capable
and/or adaptable for drawing out trays . . . .
. . .
. . . One skilled in the art would have readily
appreciated that the drawing device would have guide
rails . . .
One skilled in the art would have readily
appreciated that in the above combination that either
the tray drawing device needs to be movable up and down
to remove each tray from the magazine or the vertical
rack must be movable up and down to position each tray
adjacent the tray drawing device . . . .
In other words, it is the examiner’s position that the “common
knowledge and common sense” of a person having ordinary skill in
the art would have motivated such person to employ the above
missing features in the manner claimed. See the Answer, pages 10
and 11. However, no factual evidence is supplied to support such
a position. In re Lee, 277 F.3d 1338, 1343-44, 61 USPQ2d 1430,
1434 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (“This factual question of motivation is
material to patentability, and could not be resolved on
subjective belief and unknown authority.”); W.L. Gore & Assoc. V.
Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1553, 220 USPQ 303, 312-13 (Fed.
Cir. 1983)(“To imbue one of ordinary skill in the art with
knowledge of the invention in suit, when no prior art reference
or references of record convey or suggest that knowledge, is to
fall victim to the insidious effect of a hindsight syndrome
wherein that which only the inventor taught is used against its
Appeal No. 2005-2500
Application No. 09/893,399
7
teacher.”). Thus, we are constrained to agree with the
appellants that the examiner has not established a prima facie
case of obviousness regarding the claimed subject matter within
the meaning of Section 103. In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472,
223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984)(The examiner bears the initial
burden of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness.)
CONCLUSION
In view of the foregoing, we reverse the examiner’s decision
rejecting claims 1, 3 and 5 through 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
REVERSED

CHUNG K. PAK )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
PETER F. KRATZ ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
)
CATHERINE TIMM )
Administrative Patent Judge )
CKP/sld
Appeal No. 2005-2500
Application No. 09/893,399
8
PLATON N. MANDROS
BURNS, DOANE, SWECKER & MATHIS, L.L.P.
P.O. BOX 1404
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22313-1404