Ex Parte Egawa

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 25, 2013

10809364 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 25, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte KIYOAKI EGAWA
____________

Appeal 2010-000435
Application 10/809,364
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before CHARLES N. GREENHUT, BRETT C. MARTIN and
TIMOTHY J. O’HEARN, Administrative Patent Judges.

O’HEARN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-000435
Application 10/809,364

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 involving claims to a storage
medium transporting apparatus. The Examiner has rejected claims 1-5 and
8-17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Claims 6 and 7 have been cancelled. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.

THE INVENTION
Appellant’s claimed invention relates to a device picking and
transporting storage medium. Claims 1, 16 and 17 are independent. Claim
1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal.
1. An apparatus for transporting a storage medium from a
holder to a storage device, said apparatus comprising:
a base;
a carriage driven by a first driving force, said carriage being
movable relative to said base between said holder and said storage
device;
a picker provided on said carriage and driven by a second
driving force, said picker selectively loading and unloading said
storage medium;
a first driving device generating said first driving force;
a second driving device provided on said base and generating
said second driving force; and
a transmission mechanism transmitting said second driving
force from said second driving device to said picker allowing
movement of said carriage,
wherein said picker has a gripper which includes first and
second parts which are linked to each other rotatably around an axis,
wherein said carriage has cams which make said gripper open
or close in response to the movement of said picker,
Appeal 2010-000435
Application 11/809,364

3

wherein said first parts move pivotally about said axis and
opens for hooking notches of said storage medium by said cams.

THE REJECTIONS
Claims 1-3 and 11-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Takeshi (JP 2002025167, pub. Jan. 25, 2002) in view of
Yoshieda (US 4,655,662, iss. Apr. 7, 1987).
Claims 4, 5, and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Takeshi in view of Yoshieda and Ono (also known as
Iizuka) (JP 03-147564, pub. Jun, 24, 1991).

ANALYSIS
Rejection of Claims 1-3 and 11-17.
The principal reference relied upon by the Examiner is Takeshi.
Appellant argues that a proper obviousness rejection has not been made out
because Takeshi lacks the following feature recited in the claims: “wherein
said carriage has cams which make said gripper open or close in response to
the movement of said picker.” App. Br. 11-13. Appellant further argues
that this deficiency is not made up by Yoshieda as the Examiner asserts
since the movement of gripper 17 is not related to the movement of the
gripper mechanism 10 in Yoshieda. Id.
The Examiner proposes to use Yoshieda’s technique of using a
cam/follower arrangement 38/36 to actuate Takeshi’s hooks 34. Ans. 5.
Appeal 2010-000435
Application 11/809,364

4

The Appellant points out that Takeshi discloses no mechanism whatsoever,
let alone cams, which operate the gripper fingers. 1 App. Br. 11-13.
Appellant also argues that Yoshieda does not show a relationship between
the opening and closing of grippers in response to movement of the picker.
Id. However, Yoshieda shows that gripper 10 and gripper holder 15 move
left to right to engage cam 38 and cam follower 36, which in turn closes
gripper 17 jaws 18 and19. “[I]f a technique has been used to improve one
device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would
improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious
unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill.” KSR Int’l Co. v.
Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007). Furthermore, “[I]t is not necessary
that the inventions of the references be physically combinable to render
obvious the invention under review.” In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1550 (Fed.
Cir. 1983). Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that it would have
been obvious to combine the references to arrive at the claimed invention
and we sustain the rejection of claims 1-3 and 11-17 as unpatentable over
Takeshi and Yoshieda.
Rejection of claims 4, 5, and 8-10.
The Examiner relies on the same combination of prior art discussed
above, with Ono added to address the rotary shaft having a
polygonal/rectangular shape in cross section, and to address a drive belt.

1 The Examiner initially appears to dispute this point (Ans. 5) but, in any
case, ultimately relies upon Yoshieda for teaching the cam arrangement as
broadly recited (Ans. 5, 8).
Appeal 2010-000435
Application 11/809,364

5

Appellant does not present arguments regarding these claims separate from
the arguments addressed above. Therefore, the same conclusion applies and
we sustain the rejection of claims 4, 5, and 8-10 as unpatentable over
Takeshi, Yoshieda, and Ono.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-5 and 8-17 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) is affirmed.

AFFIRMED

mls