Ex Parte KUWABARADownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 30, 201812207112 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 30, 2018) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/207,112 09/09/2008 31780 7590 09/04/2018 Robinson Intellectual Property Law Office, P.C. 3975 Fair Ridge Drive Suite 20 North Fairfax, VA 22033 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Hideaki KUW ABARA 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 0756-8388 1130 EXAMINER CALVETTI, FREDERICK F ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3742 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/04/2018 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): ptomail@riplo.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte HIDEAKI KUW ABARA Appeal2017-000180 Application 12/207, 112 Technology Center 3700 Before MICHAEL L. HOELTER, LYNNE H. BROWNE, and ANNETTE R. REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judges. BROWNE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Hideaki Kuwabara (Appellant) appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the rejection of claims 4--6, 9-12, and 15-22. Appellant's Representative presented oral argument on August 23, 2018. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We reverse. Appeal2017-000180 Application 12/207, 112 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Independent claim 4, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 4. A heating system comprising: a semiconductor device; and a transmission/reception device; the semiconductor device comprising: a sheet containing a fibrous body, a converting circuit over the sheet, a control circuit over the sheet, the control circuit being electrically connected to the converting circuit, an insulating layer over the converting circuit and the control circuit, an antenna over and in contact with the insulating layer, the antenna being electrically connected to the converting circuit, a heater over and in contact with the insulating layer, the heater being electrically connected to the control circuit, a temperature sensor circuit over the sheet, the temperature sensor circuit being electrically connected to the control circuit, a charging circuit over the sheet, and a flexible lithium ion battery over the sheet, electrically connected to the charging circuit, wherein the antenna receives a radio wave transmitted from the transmission/reception device, wherein the converting circuit converts the radio wave into electric power, wherein the heater is heated with the electric power, wherein the temperature sensor circuit measures temperature of the heater, and wherein the transmission/reception device determines whether to heat the heater or not based on the temperature of the heater. 2 Appeal2017-000180 Application 12/207, 112 REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Macher us 6,066,164 May 23, 2000 Wang US 2003/0139142 Al July 24, 2003 Endo US 6,599,659 Bl July 29, 2003 Kuwabara US 2005/0192129 Al Sept. 1, 2005 Kodas US 2006/0001726 Al Jan. 5,2006 Haas US 2006/0060576 Al Mar. 23, 2006 Sata US 2007 /0170170 Al July 26, 2007 Yamazaki US 8,818,497 B2 Aug.26,2014 Sato Tom JP S57-92779 June 9, 1982 JP 2006/311415 A Nov. 9, 2006 REJECTIONS I. Claims 4---6, 9-12, and 15-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over Macher, Haas, and Wang, Sato, or Tom, and Sata. II. Claims 11, 12, 15, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over Macher, Haas, and Wang, Sato, or Tom, and Sata and Kuwabara. III. Claims 17 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over Macher, Haas, and Wang, Sato, or Tom, and Sata and Kodas. DISCUSSION Rejection I: Obviousness of Claims 4-6, 9-12, and 15-22 The Examiner finds that Macher, Haas, Sata, and Wang, Sato, or Tom disclose or suggest all of the limitations of claim 4. See Final Act. 2---6. In particular, the Examiner finds that Macher discloses "a control circuit 42 3 Appeal2017-000180 Application 12/207, 112 provided over a sheet or layer." Final Act. 2 ( citing Macher Fig. 2). The Examiner explains that "figures 5-7 show[] a variety of designs including a strip with components over the sheet. The reference discloses a heater connected to the control circuit (figure 4), and the electric heater 3 is provided over a sheet and insulating layer in figure 2." Id. Appellant contends that "Macher does not teach that the alleged control circuit 42 is over the alleged sheet 16-21 or, for that matter, comprised in the alleged semiconductor device. Contrary to the Examiner's interpretation, Macher explicitly teaches that control module 42 is connected to the heating element 3 through the wire 4." Appeal Br. 8 (citing Macher 7: 5-18, Figs. 2--4) ( emphasis added). Responding to this argument, the Examiner construes the claim term "over" stating that "[i]t can mean above, below, parallel to, identically dimensioned or partially dimensioned." Ans. 10. The Examiner does not identify any source for this definition. See id. Given this definition of "over," the Examiner explains that "[t]he term is not limiting and each recited component is separately recited." Id. In construing claim terms, we apply "the broadest reasonable meaning of the words in their ordinary usage as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, taking into account whatever enlightenment by way of definitions or otherwise that may be afforded by the written description contained in [Appellant's] specification." In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). During examination of a patent application, pending claims are given their broadest reasonable construction consistent with the specification. In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404---05 (CCPA 1969); In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The ordinary and customary meaning of a claim term is the meaning that the 4 Appeal2017-000180 Application 12/207, 112 term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en bane). We are further instructed that "[i]n determining the ordinary and customary meaning of the claim term as viewed by a person of ordinary skill in the art, it is appropriate to consult a general dictionary definition of the word for guidance." Comaper Corp. v. Antee, Inc., 596 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2010)(citing Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1322-23 (Fed. Cir. 2005)(en bane)). An ordinary and customary meaning of the claim term "over" is "3a: [above] ... 3b: so as to cover the whole surface." Merriam-webster.com, http://www.merriam-wbester.com/dictionary/over (last visited Aug. 23, 2018). This definition is consistent with the use of the term "over" in Appellant's Specification. See, e.g. Spec. ,r,r 53, 66, 68, 75. Accordingly, we adopt the above dictionary definition of the claim term "over." Given this definition, the Examiner's claim construction (i.e., the term can mean a variety of positions and "[t]he term is not limiting" (Ans. 10)) is unreasonably broad. As the rejection depends on the Examiner's unreasonably broad definition of the claim term "over," the rejection is not supported by a preponderance of the evidence. For this reason, we do not sustain the Examiner's decision rejecting claim 4. The Examiner's rejection of claim 5 suffers from the same deficiencies. See Appeal Br. 16 (Claims App.). Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's decision rejecting claim 5, and claims 6, 9-12, and 15-22, which depend from either claim 4 or claim 5. 5 Appeal2017-000180 Application 12/207, 112 Rejections II and III Claims 11, 12, and 15-18 depend from either claim 4 or claim 5. See Appeal Br. 17-18 (Claims App.). The rejection of these claims relies upon the same erroneous claim construction as the rejection of claims 4 and 5. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's decisions rejecting claims 11, 12, and 15-18 for the reasons discussed supra. DECISION The Examiner's rejection of claims 4--6, 9-12, and 15-22 are REVERSED. REVERSED 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation