Ex Parte Ono et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 29, 2016

13381740 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/381,740 12/30/2011 Kenji Ono
22428 7590 10/03/2016
Foley & Lardner LLP
3000 K STREET N.W.
SUITE 600
WASHINGTON, DC 20007-5109
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.
040302-0928 9904
EXAMINER
SPAMER, DONALD R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1799
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/03/2016 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):
ipdocketing@foley.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL
AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KENJI ONO, YUZURU YOSHINAMI, RYUNOSUKE INO, and
KENICHIRO MINAMI
Appeal2014-008704
Application 13/381,740
Technology Center 1700
Before PETER F. KRATZ, BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, and
JENNIFER R. GUPTA, Administrative Patent Judges.
FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants request our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the
Examiner's decision rejecting claims 8-10, and 12. We have jurisdiction
over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). An oral hearing was conducted on
September 15, 2016.
Appeal2014-008704
Application 13/381,740
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claim 8 is illustrative of Appellants' subject matter on appeal and is
set forth below:
8. A fragrance device for a vehicle comprising:
a fragrance holder holding a fragrance;
a blowing device configured to blow air to the fragrance holder to
blow a smell of the fragrance into a vehicle cabin, the blowing device
comprising an air conditioner of the vehicle; and
a fragrance blowing controller installed in the vehicle and
programmed to control the blowing device to sequentially repeat
a repeating, for a predetermined number of times, of a predetermined
cycle of blowing the smell of the fragrance and pausing the blowing of the
smell of the fragrance for a first predetermined time period, and then
a stop time in which the blowing of the smell of the fragrance is
stopped for a second predetermined time period that is longer than the first
predetermined time period,
wherein the fragrance blowing controller is programmed to make the
stop time shorter in an outside air intake mode than in an internal circulation
mode, the outside air intake mode being a ventilation mode of the air
conditioner of the vehicle, configured to introduce outside air into the
vehicle cabin, the internal circulation mode being a ventilation mode of the
air conditioner of the vehicle, configured to not introduce outside air into the
vehicle cabin.
The Examiner relies on the following prior art references as evidence
of unpatentability:
Watkins
Evans, Jr.
Taguchi et al.
("Taguchi")
us 5,591,409
us 5,958,346
JP 2002-283844, A
2
Jan. 7, 1997
Sept. 28, 1999
March 10, 2002
Appeal2014-008704
Application 13/381,740
THE REJECTIONS
1. Claims 8-10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph (written description).
2. Claims 8 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Evans in
view of Taguchi.
3. Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Evans in
view of Taguchi and Watkins.
ANALYSIS
We select claim 8 as representative of all the claims on appeal, based
upon Appellants' presented arguments. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c) (1) (iv) (2014).
We adopt the Examiner's findings and stated position in the record
(except for Rejection 1 ), and add the following for emphasis.
Rejection 1
We are persuaded by Appellants' arguments as set forth on pages 5-8
of the Appeal Brief and on pages 2-5 of the Reply Brief with or without the
supporting evidence including the Declaration under 37 C.F.R. § 1.132 of
Kenji Ono, one of the named co-inventors, that there is adequate written
descriptive support for the controller being programmed as claimed for the
reasons provided by Appellants in the record.
We thus reverse Rejection 1.
3
Appeal2014-008704
Application 13/381,740
Rejection 2
We are unpersuaded by Appellants' arguments regarding the
obviousness rejection of claims 8 and 12 over Evans in view of Taguchi as
set forth on pages 8-17 of the Appeal Brief and on pages 5-10 of the Reply
Brief taken together with the supporting evidence to the extent relied upon
by Appellants in the arguments presented in the Briefs, for the reasons
provided by the Examiner on pages 4--5 of the Answer. We add that, in the
Examiner's response, the Examiner states that Taguchi teaches that changing
release conditions of smell from a fragrance device is a result effective
variable, and that therefore it would have been obvious to have selected the
specific blowing pattern required by Appellants' claims. See Ans. 4--5. We
agree. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276 (CCPA 1980) ("Discovery of an
optimum value of a result effective variable ... is ordinarily within the skill
of the art."). As Appellants' seemingly acknowledge, one of ordinary skill
in the art would have sufficient skill so as to be accustomed to employ a
programmed controller to put into effect a selected blowing pattern. Ono
Declaration i-f f. Thus, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been led to
program the programmable controller for the blower of the modified Evans
device with workable blowing patterns arrived at through routine
experimentation with respect to known result effective variables in light of
the teachings of the combined prior art.
We therefore affirm Rejection 2.
Rejection 3
We are likewise unpersuaded by Appellants' arguments regarding the
obviousness rejection of claims 9 and 10 over Evans in view of Taguchi and
4
Appeal2014-008704
Application 13/381,740
Watkins, for the reasons provided by the Examiner on page 5 of the Answer.
Therein, the Examiner similarly (as in Rejection 2) states that one skilled in
the art would have found it obvious to have programmed the controller to
compensate for a smell that is too weak (result effective variable) by keeping
the fragrance above a minimal threshold.
In view of the above, we affirm Rejection 3.
DECISION
Rejection 1 is reversed.
Rejections 2 and 3 are affirmed.
TIME PERIOD
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
ORDER
AFFIRMED
5