Ex Parte Kozaki

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 17, 2017

12923630 (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.
12/923,630 09/30/2010 Junichiro Kozaki SHM-049A 2976
32628 7590 05/19/2017
KANFSAKA RFRNFR AND PARTNFRN FT P EXAMINER
2318 Mill Road STIMPERT, PHILIP EARL
Suite 1400
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314-2848 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3746
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 JUNICHIRO KOZAKI
Appeal 2014-002096
Application 12/923,6301
Technology Center 3700
Before BART A. GERSTENBLITH, PHILIP J. HOFFMANN,
CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, Administrative Patent Judges.
GERSTENBLITH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Junichiro Kozaki (“Appellant”) appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a)
from the Examiner’s Final Rejection rejecting claim 7.2 We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Claimed Subject Matter
Claim 7, the sole claim on appeal, is reproduced below.
1 Appellant identifies “SHIMADZU CORPORATION” as the real party
interest. Appeal Br. 2.
2 Claims 9 and 10 are objected to as being dependent upon rejected base
claim 7. Final Act. 4 (mailed Mar. 26, 2013).
Appeal 2014-002096
Application 12/923,630
7. A vacuum pump configured to exhaust gas by rotating a
rotor relative to a stator, comprising:
a first ferromagnetic body provided on or near a
rotational axis of an end face of a rotational axis direction of a
rotational body including said rotor, the first ferromagnetic
body having a Curie temperature approximately equal to an
allowable temperature of said rotor;
a second ferromagnetic body provided on or near the
rotational axis of the end face of the rotational axis direction of
said rotor, the second ferromagnetic body having a Curie
temperature higher than the Curie temperature of the first
ferromagnetic body;
a detecting portion provided in such a way as to be
opposed to said first and said second ferromagnetic bodies, and
configured to detect a change in a magnetic permeability of said
fist and said second ferromagnetic bodies as inductance changes
respectively; and
a control unit, for halting rotation of said rotor when the
change in the magnetic permeability of said second
ferromagnetic body is detected, and when an integrated time,
wherein the change of the magnetic permeability of said first
ferromagnetic body is detected, exceeds a predetermined
allowable time based on a creep life design of said rotor.
Appeal Br. 8, Claims App.
Rejection
Appellant seeks review of the following rejection:
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Yamauchi (US 6,416,290 Bl, iss. July 9, 2002) in view of the ’0513
(Japanese Patent No. JP 07005051, iss. Jan. 1995)4.
3 The Examiner and Appellant refer to this reference as the ’051. Final
Act. 2; Appeal Br. 4. For consistency, we refer to it in the same manner.
4 The Examiner relies upon an English translation produced by machine
translation. Final Act. 2 (mailed Mar. 26, 2013).
2
Appeal 2014-002096
Application 12/923,630
SUMMARY OF DECISION
We AFFIRM.
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds Yamauchi discloses most of the limitations of
claim 7, including a vacuum pump that halts rotation of its rotor upon
exceeding a “creep life” of the rotor or upon detecting (via temperature
sensors) that the temperature of the rotor exceeds a threshold. Ans. 2. The
Examiner relies upon ’051 to teach the use of ferromagnetic bodies having a
specific Curie temperatures to detect temperature changes. Id. The
Examiner determines that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art at the time of the invention to replace the temperature sensors
of Yamauchi with the ferromagnetic bodies of ’051 to permit non-contact
temperature sensing. Id. at 2—3. The Examiner considers it a simple
substitution of one known temperature sensor for another. Id.
The Examiner’s findings are supported by a preponderance of the
evidence. Id. at 2—7. Additionally, the Examiner responds in detail to each
of Appellant’s arguments. Id. at 4—7. We hereby adopt the Examiner’s
findings, as set forth in the Final Office Action and Answer, as our own.
In response to the arguments raised in Appellant’s Reply Brief, we
offer the following. First, Appellant contends that placing a ferromagnetic
ring, from ’051, near the base, in Yamauchi, is not “on or near a rotational
axis of an end face of a rotational axis direction of a rotational body
including said rotor” or “on or near the rotational axis of the end face of the
rotational axis direction of said rotor.” Reply Br. 2. Neither claim 7 nor the
Specification define the term “near.” The Examiner finds that each of the
temperature sensors of Yamauchi satisfy the limitation near (Ans. 5), and
3
Appeal 2014-002096
Application 12/923,630
Appellant’s argument that one sensor is near the base, does not persuade us
that it is not also near the rotational axis.
Second, Appellant asserts that because of the distance between the
two temperature sensors in Yamauchi, when replaced with ferromagnetic
rings, the rings will require two detecting portions, rather than one, as
claimed. Reply Br. 2. This argument is not persuasive. In particular,
Appellant does not identify where, if at all, Yamauchi specifies a particular
distance between its two temperature sensors. Additionally, Appellant’s
position that two detecting portions would be required is not supported on
the record by anything other than attorney argument. Further, as the
Examiner finds, multiple coils, as shown in ’051, may be provided and,
jointly, may be considered a single detecting portion. Ans. 7.
Third, Appellant’s argument—that ’051 does not disclose
ferromagnetic rings of different Curie temperatures (Reply Br. 2)—was
addressed by the Examiner (Ans. 4—5). Particularly, in the Examiner’s
proposed combination, each of the rings would have a Curie temperature
adjusted to one of the thresholds taught by Yamauchi. Id. at 5.
Accordingly, Appellant’s argument is not persuasive.
Finally, with respect to Appellant’s two stages argument (see Reply
Br. 2—3), even though the Examiner expressed the view that the argument
was not commensurate in scope with the claims (i.e., claim 7 does not
include the phrase “two stage”) (Ans. 6), the Examiner addressed the
argument and found that Yamauchi discloses both types of control,
characterized by Appellant as two stages. Id. In light of Appellant’s
explanation as to the use of the shorthand phrase two stages, we agree that
claim 7 includes limitations directed thereto; nonetheless, the Examiner’s
4
Appeal 2014-002096
Application 12/923,630
findings that Yamauchi discloses two stage control are supported by a
preponderance of the evidence. See id. (citing Yamauchi, 2:15—20, 9:45—50,
13:39-49, 14:13-23).
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claim 7.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
5