Ex Parte Okumura et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 24, 2018

13033966 (P.T.A.B. May. 24, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/033,966 02/24/2011
25191 7590 05/29/2018
BURR & BROWN, PLLC
POBOX869
FAYETTEVILLE, NY 13066
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Kensuke Okumura
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.
791_507 9904
EXAMINER
LAU, JASON
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3743
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/29/2018 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):
tpreston@burrandbrown.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KENSUKE OKUMURA and SHUICHI TAKAGI 1
Appeal2017-002986
Application 13/033,966
Technology Center 3700
Before EDWARD A. BROWN, GEORGE R. HOSKINS, and
SEAN P. O'HANLON, Administrative Patent Judges.
O'HANLON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Kensuke Okumura and Shuichi Takagi (Appellants) appeal under
35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 3, 7-10,
and 22, which are the pending claims. We have jurisdiction over this appeal
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
1 The Appeal Brief identifies NGK Insulators, Ltd. as the real party in
interest. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal2017-002986
Application 13/033,966
We REVERSE.
SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
Appellants' disclosure is directed to "a method of drying honeycomb
formed bodies." Spec. i-f 1. Claim 1, the sole independent claim on appeal,
is reproduced below from pages 20-21 (Claims Appendix) of the Appeal
Brief:
1. A method of drying a plurality of unfired honeycomb
formed bodies each comprising a raw material composition
containing a ceramic material, a dispersion medium, an
auxiliary forming agent, and an addition agent, and each having
a plurality of cells partitioned by partition walls, the cells
serving as fluid through channels, the method comprising the
steps of
causing a current to flow, in a dry space, between
opposing electrode plates that are provided at an upper side of
an opening top end surface and at a lower side of an opening
bottom end surface of each honeycomb formed body, to
perform dielectric drying while maintaining throughout the
entire duration of dielectric drying a power density with respect
to each honeycomb formed body to be in a range of 5 to 20
[kW/kg (water)], and
performing at least one of microwave drying and hot-air
drying after performing the dielectric drying,
wherein current is caused to flow between the opposing
electrode plates until a predetermined level of water content
factor of each honeycomb body is reached,
wherein a water content factor of each honeycomb
formed body before dielectric drying is 20 to 25% by mass,
wherein the dielectric drying is performed until a water
content factor of each honeycomb formed body after the
dielectric drying becomes 10 to 40% with respect to the water
content factor before the dielectric drying, and
wherein the method maintains the power density in the
dry space to be in the range of 5 to 20 [kW/kg (water)] by
2
Appeal2017-002986
Application 13/033,966
reducing a filling factor of the honeycomb formed bodies in the
dry space to no more than 60%.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 7-10, and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Takagi, 2 Paice, 3 and Adrian. 4
Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Takagi, Paice, Adrian, and Lamberts. 5
ANALYSIS
Rejection Based on Takagi, Paice, and Adrian
The Examiner finds that Takagi discloses a method of drying unfired
honeycomb bodies substantially as recited in claim 1, including performing
dielectric drying with a power density in the range of 5-20 kW/kg (water).
Final Act. 2-3. The Examiner finds that Takagi does not disclose
performing dielectric drying while maintaining the power density within the
recited range during the entire duration, or maintaining the power density by
reducing a filling factor in the dry space to no more than 60%. Id. at 3. The
Examiner relies on Paice to teach "maintaining the power output even as the
moisture level decreases." Id. at 3--4. The Examiner finds that Adrian
discloses "maintain[ing] the power density in the dry space (122, fig. 3B) by
controlling a filling factor of the ceramic formed bodies in the dry space (RF
2 US 2009/0235552 Al (filed Mar. 11, 2009, published Sept. 24, 2009).
3 US 2010/0236088 Al (filed Aug. 8, 2008, published Sept. 23, 2010).
4 US 2009/0294440 Al (filed May 28, 2009, published Dec. 3, 2009).
5 US 4,221,950 (issued Sept. 9, 1980).
3
Appeal2017-002986
Application 13/033,966
electrode voltage is adjusted based on number of ceramic bodies in the dry
space)." Id. at 4 (citing Adrian i-fi-17-8, 35). The Examiner determines that it
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill "to modify Takagi wherein
the method maintains the power density in the dry space to be in the range of
5 to 20 [kW/kg (water)] ... by controlling a filling factor of the honeycomb
formed bodies in the dry space" in order "to provide for more consistent
drying (para. 35 Adrian) especially during transient conditions (para. 40
Adrian). The result is improved quality of the honeycomb formed bodies."
Id. at 5.
The Examiner also finds "Adrian teaches that, given a set electrode
plate voltage, the filling factor (i.e., number of pieces in the dry space)
affects how much RF energy is absorbed by the honeycomb formed bodies
(i.e., power density)." Id. According to the Examiner, "[i]f the number of
honeycomb formed bodies in the dry space is reduced, then the power
density increases since more RF energy is absorbed by the honeycomb
formed bodies. And if the number of pieces increases then the power
density decreases." Id. Thus, the Examiner reasons, "the limitation where
the filling factor of the honeycomb formed bodies is reduced to no more than
60% is optimization through routine experimentation. Moreover, there is no
criticality of the claimed filling factor percentage." Id.; see also Ans. 11-13.
Appellants argue, inter alia, that Adrian discloses "supply[ing] the
same power output during dielectric drying regardless of the number of
ceramic honeycomb formed bodies in the dry space." Appeal Br. 16.
However, Appellants assert, "there is nothing in the record to teach or
4
Appeal2017-002986
Application 13/033,966
suggest maintaining the power density in a dry space by reducing the filling
factor in the dry space." Id. at 18.
Appellants also argue that "there is nothing in the record to teach or
suggest that the power density is a result-effective variable that can be
maintained by actively reducing the filling factor in a dry space." Id. at 15.
According to Appellants, Adrian desires "to eliminate power density and
filling factor in a dry space as variables during dielectric drying of ceramic
honeycomb formed bodies." Id. at 17.
We are persuaded by Appellants' arguments. Adrian recognizes that
when drying unfired ceramic pieces, such as by dielectric drying,
overheating can occur when the number of pieces fed to the RF applicator
decreases. Adrian i-f 34. Such overheating results in damaged pieces. Id.
Thus, Adrian's control system adjusts the voltage applied to the electrodes
based on the number of pieces present in the electrode region of the RF
applicator. Id. i-fi-139, 41, 65. If the number of pieces present is less than that
needed for maximum power application, the applied voltage is incrementally
reduced by a set amount for each such missing piece. Id. i-f 58. Similarly, as
the number of pieces present increases and approaches the number needed
for maximum power application, the applied voltage is incrementally
increased by the same set amount for each such additional piece. Id. i-f 56.
Thus, Adrian discloses adjusting the applied power such that each piece
present in the RF applicator receives the same amount of power regardless
of the number of pieces present. In other words, Adrian's power density is
maintained constant regardless of the number of pieces present.
5
Appeal2017-002986
Application 13/033,966
Adrian, however, does not disclose controlling the power density (that
is, the power applied to each piece) by reducing the number of pieces
present in the RF applicator. To the contrary, as explained above and as
correctly noted by Appellants (see Appeal Br. 16), Adrian applies the same
amount of power to each unit (that is, maintains a constant power density)
regardless of the number of pieces present. A decrease in the number of
pieces (that is, a reduction of the filling factor) results in a corresponding
incremental decrease in the applied power. The power density is maintained
constant and, therefore, is not dependent on the filling factor. For the same
reasons, the Examiner has not established that the filling factor is a result-
effective variable determinative of power density. See In re Boesch, 617
F.2d 272, 276 (CCPA 1980); In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955).
The rejection is, thus, based on an erroneous factual finding, and the
conclusion of obviousness cannot stand. See In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011,
1017(CCPA1967).
Nor do we agree with the Examiner's interpretation of the subject
claim language. See Ans. 11 (setting forth an "if-then statement"). The
Examiner is correct to the extent that Adrian's power density is constant
regardless of the filling factor. Claim 1, however, requires the power density
to be a function of the filling factor such that it is maintained within the
specified range "by reducing [the] filling factor." Appeal Br. 20 (Claims
App., emphasis added). As discussed above, Adrian's power density is
constant and, thus, would not be maintained within a certain range by
reducing the filling factor.
6
Appeal2017-002986
Application 13/033,966
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the rejection
of claims 1, 7-10, and 22 as being unpatentable over Takagi, Paice, and
Adrian.
Rejection Based on Takagi, Paice, Adrian, and Lamberts
Claim 3 depends directly from claim 1. Id. at 21 (Claims App.). The
Examiner does not rely on Lamberts in any manner that would remedy the
deficiencies noted above with respect to the rejection of independent claim
1. The rejection of claim 3 is therefore not sustained.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1, 3, 7-10, and 22 is
reversed.
REVERSED
7