Ex Parte Lam

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 12, 2013

10248729 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 12, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________
Ex parte WEI CHAK JOSEPH LAM
____________________

Appeal 2011-005454
Application 10/248,729
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before: CHARLES N. GREENHUT, BRETT C. MARTIN, and
PATRICK R. SCANLON, Administrative Patent Judges.

GREENHUT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-005454
Application 10/248,729
2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims
22-34. App. Br. 4. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

The claims are directed to an efficient layout and design of a
production facility. Claim 22, reproduced below, is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter:
22. An enclosed production layout comprising:
an enclosed structure comprising a production area and a
production support area, the production area abuts the
production support area, wherein the production and production
support areas are distinct areas within the enclose structure, the
production area includes,
a hub having an outer boundary with first and
second contiguous portions, the first portion abuts the
production support area which is within the enclosed
structure, wherein the hub is physically separated from a
controlled environment of the production area and
provides a direct line of sight to monitor manufacturing
process in the production area,
a production corridor having first and second ends
for performing processing, the production corridor
completely surrounding the second portion of the hub to
form a U-shaped production corridor, the production
corridor includes first and second ends abutting the
production support area which is within the enclosed
structure, wherein the production corridor is enclosed in
an environmentally controlled area, wherein the first and
second ends facilitates inflow of raw materials for
processing from the production support area and outflow
of processed goods into the production support area, and
a barrier physically separating the environmentally
controlled area of the production corridor from the hub,
wherein at least a portion of the barrier is transparent to
Appeal 2011-005454
Application 10/248,729
3
sufficiently enable personnel in the hub to visually
monitor the processing in the production corridor without
interrupting the environmentally controlled area of the
production corridor; and
the production support area which is within the enclosed
structure serves as an area for storage of material for processing
and processed products, the production support area is
separated from the controlled environment of the production
corridor, the production support area facilitates movement of
material into the production area for processing and processed
products from the production area for shipping through the first
and second ends of the production corridor which abut the
production support area.

REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Kudo US 2002/0193972 A1 Dec. 19, 2002
Benjaafar, et al., Design of Next Generation Factory Layouts, Regents
of Minnesota, p.12 (2001), found at http://www.me.umn.edu/labs/
ngfl/description.htm (hereafter “Next Generation”).
Feld, Lean Manufacturing: Tools, Techniques, and How to Use Them,
St. Lucie Press, p.74 (2001) (hereafter “Lean Manufacturing”).

REJECTION
Claims 22-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kudo, Next Generation and Lean Manufacturing. Ans. 3.

OPINION
The Examiner finds in Kudo a “production support area” and
“production area” according to the claims, but no “hub.” The Examiner
Appeal 2011-005454
Application 10/248,729
4
cites Next Generation and Lean Manufacturing, in the alternative, as
teaching a “hub” generally according to the claims, but without certain
aspects for which the Examiner relies on Official Notice. Ans. 6-8.
The first issue with the Examiner’s rejection is that the Examiner is
not clear what structure in each of Next Generation and Lean Manufacturing
is interpreted as the recited “hub.” The term “hub,” read in isolation, can
mean a variety of things. The Specification states that “the hub serves as a
control area or center, enabling the manufacturing process to be monitored,
identified, and verified easily and efficiently therefrom.” Spec. 7, para.
[0024]. Thus, we understand the term “hub” to refer to some such area. In
the Response to Argument section of the Examiner’s Answer the Examiner
indicates that the area in between the modules or cells “wherein operators
work” is interpreted as the recited “hub.” Ans. 9. However, neither Next
Generation nor Lean Manufacturing indicates that any workers are present,
or any activity takes place, in the areas identified by the Examiner. The
figures of Next Generation and Lean Manufacturing relied upon by the
Examiner appear to be schematic rather than physical representations of the
production layout. Thus, we are unable to conclude anything about the
empty space depicted but not discussed in those figures. Therefore, we
cannot agree with the Examiner’s finding that each of these references
teaches a “hub” according to the claims. App. Br. 15-17.
The Examiner also relies on design choice rationale and Official
Notice without any supporting evidence for the remainder of the claim,
which defines the location of the hub and the barrier around it. As Appellant
points out (App. Br. 17-20) official notice is intended to be used judiciously
in limited circumstances. It is reserved for facts of a notorious character
capable of instant and unquestionable demonstration as being well-known.
Appeal 2011-005454
Application 10/248,729
5
And, certain procedures associated with the taking of official notice must be
followed to provide an applicant a fair opportunity to traverse and respond.
MPEP § 2144.03. At this point we have Appellant challenging the Official
Notice, as is allowed by MPEP § 2144.03(C), with no supporting evidence
offered by the Examiner, nor any indication that the Examiner followed the
appropriate procedures for the taking of official notice and that Appellant
waived the opportunity to challenge it. This issue must be resolved in favor
of Appellant. See, e.g., In re Beasley, 117 Fed.Appx. 739 (Fed. Cir. 2004).

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection is reversed.

REVERSED

mls