Ex Parte Kitabata

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 17, 2017

12656042 (P.T.A.B. May. 17, 2017)

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.
12/656,042 01/14/2010 Atsushi Kitabata FUJ-089 8065
32628 7590 05/19/2017
KANFSAKA RFRNFR AND PARTNFRN FT P EXAMINER
2318 Mill Road STRIMBU, GREGORY J
Suite 1400
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314-2848 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3634
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/19/2017 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):
office@uspatentagents.com
docketing @ ipfirm. com
pair_lhhb @ firsttofile. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ATSUSHI KITABATA
Appeal 2014-005019
Application 12/656,042
Technology Center 3600
Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, JAMES J. MAYBERRY, and
RICHARD H. MARSCHALL, Administrative Patent Judges.
MARSCHALL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Atsushi Kitabata (Appellant) seeks our review under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134(a) of the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—4, 6, and 8—11. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Appeal 2014-005019
Application 12/656,042
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant’s claimed subject matter relates to a “device for
automatically opening and closing a door of a vehicle such as a train.” Spec.
1:5—7. Claims 1 and 11 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter and is reproduced below.
1. A movable body driving device, comprising:
a sliding door;
first and second linearly movable bodies disposed in upper
and lower portions of a housing portion, said second linearly
movable body being connected to the sliding door so as to be
movable in a lengthwise direction of the housing portion;
a first rotation transmission body which is located in a first
position between movement paths of the first and second linearly
movable bodies and which engages one of the first and second
linearly movable bodies;
a second rotation transmission body which is located in a
second position between the movement paths of the first and
second linearly movable bodies and which always engages the
first and second linearly movable bodies; and
a rotation actuator which has a power shaft connected to
the first rotation transmission body;
wherein in one end position of the sliding door, the first
rotation transmission body is positioned at a substantially central
portion of the second linearly movable body, and the second
rotation transmission body is positioned away from the first
rotation transmission body and above one edge area of the second
linearly movable body.
Appeal Br. 10 (Claims App.).
2
Appeal 2014-005019
Application 12/656,042
THE EVIDENCE
The Examiner relied upon the following prior art references in
rejecting the claims on appeal:
Cossey US 1,023,723 Apr. 16, 1912
Zappa US 6,708,448 B2 Mar. 23, 2004
THE REJECTIONS
Appellant seeks review of the following rejections:
1. Claims 1—4, 6, 8, 9, and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Cossey and Zappa.
2. Claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Cossey, Zappa, and Appellant’s Admitted Prior Art in Figures 2A and 2B of
the Specification.
ANALYSIS
Claims 1 and 11 both require “the second rotation transmission body
[be] positioned . . . above one edge area of the second linearly movable
body.” Appeal Br. 10, 13 (Claims App.). The specification depicts this
requirement in Figure IB, with driven pinion 27 (the claimed “second
rotation transmission body”) above the rightmost edge area of lower rack 23
(the claimed “second linearly movable body”). See Spec. Fig. IB, 7:5—6,
8:10—12 (“[DJriven pinion 27 is located to engage ... a right end portion of
the lower rack 23 when the door 1 is opened.”).
The Examiner found that Cossey discloses a “second rotation
transmission body 14 [that] is positioned . . . above one edge area (not
numbered, but comprising the bottom edge of 13) of the second linearly
3
Appeal 2014-005019
Application 12/656,042
movable body.” Final Act. 3. In the Answer, the Examiner provided a
figure illustrating this finding. Ans. 4. The Examiner’s annotated version of
Cossey’s Figure 1 is reproduced below.
14n&ste&e#
The annotated version of Figure 1 shows toothed wheel 14 spaced well to
the right of, but higher than, the lowermost end of bracket 13. See Cossey
Fig. 1, 1:68—79. The Examiner found that the “second linear movable body
includes the bracket 13,” and the “second rotation transmission body 14 is
shown positioned above at least the lower most portion of the bracket 13.”
Ans. 3.
Appellant argues that “it is not clear what is meant” by the Examiner’s
finding that second rotation transmission body 14 appears above the
lowermost portion of bracket 13. Reply Br. 3. According to Appellant,
Cossey does not disclose this limitation because the transmission body 14 is
located far away from the door and bracket 13. Id.
We agree with Appellant that the Examiner’s finding with respect to
this limitation lacks adequate support. Whether Cossey’s structure discloses
a transmission body “positioned . . . above one edge area of the second
linearly movable body” turns on the construction of the term “above.”
4
Appeal 2014-005019
Application 12/656,042
The Examiner found that Cossey meets the “above” requirement
because toothed wheel 14 is higher than the bottom edge of bracket 13, even
though toothed wheel 14 is not directly above any portion of the second
linearly movable body. Ans. 3^4. “Above” in some contexts can mean
“higher,” and in other contexts “overhead,” which suggests directly above.
See www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/above. In the context of the
claims at issue here, the term “above” suggests a narrower meaning than
“higher.” Claims 1 and 11 both require a first rotation transmission body
above a particular portion of the second linearly movable body—above the
“one edge area.” Claim 11 also requires a “first rotation transmission body
positioned above a substantially central portion of the sliding door,” a
second rotation transmission body positioned “above one edge area of the
sliding door” in one door position, and the same second rotation
transmission body positioned “above another edge area of the sliding door.”
Appeal Br. 10, 13 (Claims App.). In other words, when the claims refer to
“above” they do so in relation to specific portions of structures, such as the
central portion of a door or the edge areas of the door and second linearly
movable body. See Spec. Fig. IB (showing transmission bodies 25, 27
directly above the portions of the structures called out in the claims).
Reading the claims so broadly that they merely require a structure mounted
higher than another, as the Examiner did,1 even if not directly above any
portion of the structure called out in the claims, effectively reads these
1 The Examiner found that each of these limitations were met by structures
that were merely higher than these features of the linearly movable body and
sliding door, even if they were not strictly “above” any portion of the
movable body or sliding door, much less the specific portions of the called
for in the claims. See Final Act. 3^4; Ans. 3—6.
5
Appeal 2014-005019
Application 12/656,042
limitations out of the claims. We conclude that the more reasonable
interpretation, in the context of these claims and consistent with Appellant’s
specification, results in the term “above” meaning overhead, that is, directly
above the portions and areas of structures called out in the claims.
Accordingly, by calling out a specific area of the second linearly
movable body—the “one edge area”—the claim requires a second rotation
transmission body positioned directly above the “one edge area.” This
reading aligns with the specification and Figure IB depicting the
transmission body (27) directly above, and not merely higher than, the
rightmost edge area of the second linearly movable body (23). See Spec.
Fig. IB.
In Cossey, toothed wheel 14 lies below the rack bar 12 and well to the
right of bracket 13. See Cossey Fig. 1; Final Act. 3 (relying on the
combination of rack bar 12 and bracket 13 as the “second linearly moving
body”). No portion of toothed wheel 14 overlaps any portion of the rack bar
12/bracket 13 combination from directly above, much less directly above
one edge area. Based on the foregoing, we do not sustain the rejection of
independent claims 1 and 11 or the remaining dependent claims, which all
depend from claim 1.
DECISION
We reverse the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1—4, 6, and
8-11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
REVERSED.
6