Ex Parte Nakashima

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 28, 2011

11090081 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 28, 2011)

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.
11/090,081 03/28/2005 Takeshi Nakashima 015 4178
58459 7590 07/28/2011
JOHN K. CORBIN
307 LORRAINE DRIVE
ROCKVILLE, MD 20852
EXAMINER
REIFSNYDER, DAVID A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1778
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/28/2011 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte TAKESHI NAKASHIMA
____________

Appeal 2010-004940
Application 11/090,081
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before TERRY J. OWENS, PETER F. KRATZ and JEFFREY T. SMITH,
Administrative Patent Judges.

SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-004940
Application 11/090,081

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the final rejection of
claims 1 through 4, 7 and 18. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.
Appellant’s claimed invention relates to a method to produce
activated liquid containing micro gas bubbles. App. Br. 2. Claims 1 and 2
are illustrative:

1. Method to produce activated liquid which contains
micro gas bubbles by means of a rotor which is installed inside
a fixed tube formed with inner and outer walls and rotated by
a motor, at least one water inlet and at least one gas inlet
formed through the walls of said fixed tube near one of its
ends, a connecting chamber connected to the other end of the
fixed tube, a pumping means driven by means of the said
motor, said method including the steps of;

pumping exterior liquid and gas into the said fixed tube
through the said water and gas inlets,

mixing the liquid and the gas by means of at least one stirrer to
provide activated liquid flow which contains sufficient amount
of activated micro bubbles,

passing the mixture of the liquid and gas flow through a
shearing path formed between zigzag shaped surfaces along
circumferential and linear surface in the directions of the
rotation axis formed on the inner surface of the said fixed tube
and the outer surface of the said rotor, with both the inner and
the outer surfaces provided with a plurality of protuberances
that have a trapezoidal cross sectional shape, and a plurality of
permanent magnets on the inner surface of the said fixed tube
and another set of permanent magnets on the outer surface of
the said rotor, and wherein at least 30% of the permanent
magnets located at the same axial position generate a repulsive
Appeal 2010-004940
Application 11/090,081

3
magnetic field in the space where the mixture of the liquid and
the gas flows.

2. Method to produce activated liquid which contains micro
gas bubbles by means of a rotor which is installed inside a
fixed tube formed with inner and outer walls and rotated by a
motor, at least one water inlet and at least one gas inlet formed
through the walls of the said fixed tube near one of its ends, at
least one connecting chamber connected to the other end of
the fixed tube, a pumping means driven by means of the said
motor, said method including the steps of;

pumping exterior liquid and gas into the fixed tube through the
said water and gas inlets,

mixing the liquid and gas by means of at least one stirrer and
converted into an activated liquid flow which contains
sufficient amount of activated micro bubbles,

passing the mixture of the liquid and gas flows through a
shearing path formed between zigzag shaped surfaces along
circumferential and linear surface in the directions of the
rotation axis formed on the inner surface of the said fixed tube
and the outer surface of the said rotor with both the inner and
the outer surfaces provided with a plurality of permanent
magnets, and

directing far infrared radiation from an annular activator
which is substantially composed of far infrared emission
materials to activate molecular oscillation of the liquid
molecules, placed in the path before the said path.

Appeal 2010-004940
Application 11/090,081

4
The Examiner relied on the following references in rejecting the
appealed subject matter:
Happ et al. US 3,680,705 Aug. 1, 1972
Whyte et al. US 4,519,919 May. 28, 1985
de la Torre Barreiro US 5,468,378 Nov. 21, 1995
Nakajima JP 2003-53373A Feb. 25, 20031

Appellant requests review of the following rejections (App. Br. 3)
from the Examiner’s final office action:
1. Claims 2, 4/2, 7/2 and 18/2 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Nakajima.
2. Claims 1, 3, 4, 7, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Nakajima in view of either Barreiro, Whyte, or
Happ.

OPINION

Rejection of Claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) and
Rejection of Claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) based on Nakajima2

The dispositive issue for this rejection is: Did the Examiner err in
determining that Nakajima describes a step of directing far infrared radiation

1 For the purposes of this decision, we are relying on a translation of this
reference submitted by Appellant as an attachment to the Appeal Brief. We
note that the Examiner acknowledges that this translation was previously
submitted by Appellant on March 28, 2005. Ans. 6.
2 We will focus our discussion on independent claim 2 for this section of the
present appeal.
Appeal 2010-004940
Application 11/090,081

5
from an annular activator as required by the subject matter of claims 2 and
3? 3
We answer this question in the affirmative and REVERSE.
With respect to the anticipation rejection of independent claim 2 over
Nakajima, the Examiner bears the initial burden of establishing a prima facie
case of anticipation. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1326-27 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102 requires that “each and every element as
set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a
single prior art reference.” In re Robertson, 169 F.3d 743, 745 (Fed. Cir.
1999) quoting Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co., 814 F.2d 628, 631
(Fed. Cir. 1987).
Appellant argues that Nakajima “does not teach the step of directing
far infrared radiation from an annular activator which is substantially
composed of far infrared emission materials to activate molecular oscillation
of the liquid molecules placed in the path before the shearing path.” App.
Br. 2.
The Examiner found that Nakajima anticipates the subject matter of
claim 2. Ans. 3-4. The Examiner found that Nakajima describes a plurality
of ceramic stirrers (61, 63) that “are annular and made of tourmaline.” Ans.
6. According to the Examiner, “tourmaline is an infrared emitting material.”
Id. The Examiner concludes that the stirrers (61 and 63) function both as
stirrers and activators and therefore are the same as the annular activator

3 A discussion of the Barreiro, Whyte and Happ references will be
unnecessary for disposition of this section of the present appeal. The
Examiner relied upon these references for describing features not related to
the dispositive issue.

Appeal 2010-004940
Application 11/090,081

6
recited in independent claim 2. Id. The Examiner does not adequately
address Appellant’s arguments above. While Nakajima describes stirrers 61
and 63 as optionally provided with ion generation means (Nakajima, para.
0050), the Examiner does not point to any section of Nakajima that describes
this ion generator means or the operating conditions for the ion generator to
direct infrared radiation to activate molecular oscillation of the liquid
molecules as required by the subject matter of claim 2.
Under these circumstances, we cannot conclude that the Examiner has
met the minimum threshold of establishing anticipation under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b).
We also cannot sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim
3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Nakajima and either Barreiro, Whyte or
Happ for the same reasons. The subject matter of independent claim 3 also
requires an annular activator. The secondary references, cited to address the
arrangement of magnets (Ans. 5), do not remedy the shortcoming of
Nakajima discussed above.
Therefore, the rejection of claims 2, 4/2, 7/2 and 18/2 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) over Nakajima and the rejection of claims 3, 4/3, 7/3 and 18/3
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Nakajima and either Barreiro, Whyte or Happ
are reversed.

Rejection of Claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a)

The dispositive issue for this rejection is: Did the Examiner err in
determining that the combination of Nakajima and Barreiro would have led
one skilled in the art to modify Nakajima’s device by arranging the magnets
Appeal 2010-004940
Application 11/090,081

7
of Nakajima located at the same axial position as required by the subject
matter of claim 1? 4
We answer this question in the negative and AFFIRM.
The Examiner found that Nakajima “does not disclose the direction of
the poles of his permanent magnets (35, 37) and therefore does not disclose
that like-poles of his permanent magnets face each other.” Ans. 5. The
Examiner relies on Barreiro to “disclose methods of producing an activated
liquid[ ] including the use of permanent magnets with like-poles facing each
other.” Id. Claim 1 of Barreiro specifically requires like poles to face each
other. Barreiro, col. 5, ll. 45-50. Barreiro uses the magnets to “prevent the
formation of crust and scales on the inner wall of the pipes through which
the liquid circulates, ionize water for human consumption, intensify the
combustion process, etcetera.” Barreiro, col. 1, ll. 12-16. The Examiner
concludes that “it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in
the art at the time of the invention for [Nakajima] to have arranged the poles
of the permanent magnets (35, 37) so that like-poles face each other, as
taught by Barreiro.” Ans. 5. The Examiner also states that “there are only
three ways to position permanent magnets. (i.e. with like-poles facing each
other, opposite poles facing each other or some combination of the two).”
Id.

4 The Examiner relies on each of the secondary references Barreiro, Whyte
and Happ for describing the orientation of magnets utilized in the production
of activated liquids. Ans. 5. We find the references to Barreiro, Whyte and
Happ to be cumulative. We select the Barreiro reference as representative of
the secondary references. Accordingly, we will limit our discussion to the
Barreiro reference.
Appeal 2010-004940
Application 11/090,081

8
Appellant argues that Nakajima “does not disclose the orientation of
the magnetic poles as providing a repulsive magnetic field where the liquid
and gas flows. This is an important advance over [Nakajima] because
bubble formation is greatly enhanced as described on pages 9-11 of the
original specification.” App. Br. 2. Appellant further argues that “Barreiro
[is] not concerned with a method of producing gas bubbles as required in the
claims on appeal and therefore are not properly combinable with” Nakajima.
Id.
We agree with the Examiner’s reasoning and, therefore, find
Appellant’s arguments unpersuasive. We are unpersuaded by Appellant’s
argument as it only generally asserts that the references cited by the
Examiner cannot be combined. As indicated above, Barreiro teaches the use
of magnets with like poles opposing each other to condition a liquid. In
addition, as pointed out by the Examiner, there are only a limited number of
options for the arrangement of magnets facing each other. Based on the
descriptions of Barreiro a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
reasonably been led to arrive at, through no more than routine
experimentation, the arrangement claimed by Appellant. See KSR Int'l. Co.
v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007). Appellant has not specifically
addressed or explained why the Examiner’s reasoning is in error.
For the foregoing reasons and those presented by the Examiner, we
affirm the stated rejection.

ORDER
The rejection of claims 2, 4/2, 7/2 and 18/2 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b)as anticipated by Nakajima is reversed.
Appeal 2010-004940
Application 11/090,081

9
The rejections of claims 3, 4/3, 7/3 and 18/3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as unpatentable over Nakajima and either Barreiro,
Whyte or Happ are reversed.
The rejections of claims 1, 4/1, 7/1 and 18/1 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a)
as unpatentable over Nakajima and either Barreiro, Whyte or Happ are
affirmed.

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

ssl