Ex Parte Fukuizumi

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 25, 2010

11010386 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 25, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte MASAHITO FUKUIZUMI
____________

Appeal 2009-009358
Application 11/010,386
Technology Center 2800
____________

Decided: February 25, 2010
____________

Before KENNETH W. HAIRSTON, JOHN A. JEFFERY, and
MARC S. HOFF, Administrative Patent Judges.
HAIRSTON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. §§ 6(b) and 134 from the final
rejection of claims 1 to 3, and 5.
We will reverse the obviousness rejection of claims 1 to 3, and 5.
Appellant has invented a pivotable trash bin lid for a lavatory unit of
an aircraft. When a sensor detects an object near the lid, a control means
outputs a command to a motor to drive a pivoting shaft of the lid via a link
Appeal 2009-009358
Application 11/010,386

2
arm and a rotating lever connected to the motor to thereby pivot the lid
downward. A sensor is used for sensing a fully closed position of the lid and
a fully opened position of the lid. A spring is attached to the pivoting shaft
of the lid for biasing the lid toward the fully closed position. When in the
fully closed position, the lid is air tight (Figs. 2-7; Abstract).
Claim 1 is representative of the claimed invention, and it reads as
follows:
1. An automatic opening/closing trash bin lid equipped in a lavatory
unit of an aircraft, comprising:
a pivotable lid covering a trash passage of a trash bin;
a reflective infrared radiation sensor disposed on an upper portion of a
lid frame;
a means for driving a pivoting shaft of the lid via a link arm and a
rotating lever connected to a motor and an output shaft of the motor;
a control means for outputting a command to the motor when the
reflective infrared radiation sensor detects an object;
a sensor for sensing a fully closed position and a fully opened position
of the lid; and
a spring attached to the pivoting shaft of the lid for biasing the lid
toward the fully closed position,
wherein said pivotable lid opens downward, and
wherein said lid is air tightly closed when in the fully closed position.
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Ono US 3,891,115 June 24, 1975
Appeal 2009-009358
Application 11/010,386

3
Christopher US 5,175,918 Jan. 5, 1993
Studer US 6,211,637 B1 Apr. 3, 2001
Brent US 6,596,983 B2 July 22, 2003
The Examiner rejected claims 1 to 3, and 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
based upon the teachings of Studer, Brent, Ono, and Christopher.
According to the Examiner (Final Rej. 2, 3), Studer describes all of
the claimed automatic opening/closing trash bin lid structure except for a
sensor that senses a fully closed position and a fully opened position of the
lid, a pivotable lid that opens downward, and a lid that is air tightly closed
when in the fully closed position. Based upon the automatic waste container
sensor teachings of Brent, the Examiner is of the opinion (Final Rej. 2, 3)
that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to
“implement a position sensor into the circuitry of Studer” based upon the
teachings of Brent for the advantage of “providing the motor with feedback
to know if the lid is closed so that the system doesn’t waste power and to
inform the system if an obstruction is blocking the opening.” The Examiner
also contends (Final Rej. 3) that it would have been obvious to the skilled
artisan to “implement a lid that opens downward into the inventions of
Studer and Brent for the purpose of saving space in the vicinity of their
garbage cans, as taught [by] Ono,” and that it would have been obvious to
the skilled artisan to “implement an air tightly closed lid to the containers of
Studer, Brent, and Ono, for the advantage of making the container more spill
proof, fire safe, and contain odor better, as taught by Christopher.”
Appellant argues inter alia that: (1) Studer has an upwardly opening
lid 2 that returns to a closed position via gravity and “without a motor”
Appeal 2009-009358
Application 11/010,386

4
(App. Br. 7); (2) “Brent merely discloses sensors which detect that the doors
have reached ‘defined positions’” which are not fully closed positions or
fully opened positions of the doors as set forth in the claims on appeal (App.
Br. 8); (3) “since Studer relies upon gravity rather than a motorized means to
close the lid, there is no potential for the waste of power,” (App. Br. 9); (4)
“[s]ince a motor is not used in the closing operation, there is no need for a
position sensor in Studer to inform the system to ‘ramp down’ rotations of a
motor” as performed by Brent (App. Br. 9, 10); (5) “the sensors would be an
unnecessary expense and drain on battery resources” if added to the Studer
container (App. Br. 10); (6) “[i]n light of Studer’s disclosure of the benefits
of an upward opening lid, one having ordinary skill in the art would not have
been motivated to modify Studer by replacing the upward opening lid with
the downward opening lid of Ono (App. Br. 12); (7) “if Studer were to be
modified by having a downward opening lid instead of an upward opening
lid, it would remove the functionality of the container of Studer” and thereby
render the container lid unsatisfactory for its intended purpose (App. Br. 12);
(8) “the Examiner’s proposed combination of references relies on
‘impermissible hindsight’” (App. Br. 14).

ISSUES
Has Appellant demonstrated that the Examiner erred in finding that it
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Studer
to have a sensor that senses a fully opened position and a fully closed
position of the container lid based on the teachings of Brent?
Appeal 2009-009358
Application 11/010,386

5
Has Appellant demonstrated that the Examiner erred in finding that it
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Studer
to have a downwardly opening container lid as taught by Ono?

FINDINGS OF FACT (FF)
1. Studer describes a mechanized assembly for moving container lid 2
to an upwardly open position. A pulley 25 rotated by motor 22 winds cable
26 onto the pulley, which in turn pulls/pivots lever 29 downward. The
pivoting movement of the lever 29 causes cam 9 to push against links 7 to
thereby move lid 2 in the upward direction A (Figs. 1, 4, 5; col. 2, ll. 25 to
37; col. 3, ll. 6 to 40; col. 4, ll. 19 to 29). The lid 2 is returned to a rest
position via gravity (col. 1, ll. 46, 47; col. 2, ll. 66, 67; col. 4, ll. 30, 31).
2. Brent describes sensors 8 that “provide feedback signals to the
motor drive circuitry to indicate when the doors 2 have achieved defined
positions and corresponding opening or closing rotations of the door drive
motors 34 are to be ramped down” (col. 11, ll. 36 to 41).
3. Ono describes a hinged door 6’ that pivots to an open position in a
downward direction (Fig. 8; col. 3, ll. 48 to 51).
4. Christopher describes an airtight lid on a container (col. 3, ll. 37,
38).

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
The Examiner’s articulated reasoning in the rejection must possess a
rational underpinning to support a legal conclusion of obviousness. In re
Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
Appeal 2009-009358
Application 11/010,386

6
ANALYSIS
We agree with the Examiner’s reasoning (Final Rej. 3) concerning the
advantages of making the container lid 2 in Studer air tight as taught by
Christopher (FF 4). On the other hand, we agree with Appellant that the
Examiner’s suggested modification to Studer to make the container lid 2
open downward as taught by Ono, as opposed to upward, would defeat the
intended gravitational return of the lid 2 to a rest position (FF 1, 3). We also
agree with Appellant that the sensors 8 in Brent are only used to ramp down
the movement of the door drive motor during movement of the doors 2 to
defined positions (FF 2), and that a defined position is neither a “fully closed
position” nor a “fully opened position” of the door as required by the claims
on appeal. “Since a motor is not used in the closing operation [in Studer],
there is no need for a position sensor in Studer to inform the system to ‘ramp
down’ rotations of a motor” as taught by Brent (App. Br. 9, 10). Although
the Examiner indicates that the use of Brent’s sensors in Studer would
prevent waste of power (Final Rej. 2, 3), we additionally agree with
Appellant that sensors would waste power when used in Studer’s container
because gravity, as opposed to a motor, is used to close the lid. In other
words, Studer is not concerned with sensing either a fully opened position or
a fully closed position of the lid 2.
In summary, the obviousness rejection of claims 1 to 3, and 5 is
reversed because the Examiner’s articulated reasoning in the rejection does
not possess a rational underpinning to support a legal conclusion of
obviousness. Kahn, 441 F.3d at 988.

Appeal 2009-009358
Application 11/010,386

7
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Appellant has demonstrated that the Examiner erred in finding that it
would have been obvious to the skilled artisan to modify Studer to have a
sensor that senses a fully opened position and a fully closed position of the
container lid as taught by Brent.
Appellant has demonstrated that the Examiner erred in finding that it
would have been obvious to the skilled artisan to modify Studer to have a
downwardly opening container lid as taught by Ono.

ORDER
The decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1 to 3, and 5 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed.

REVERSED

KIS

WESTERMAN, HATTORI, DANIELS & ADRIAN, L.L.P.
1250 CONNECTICUT AVENUE, NW
SUITE 700
WASHINGTON, DC 20036