Ex Parte Sawa

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 18, 2010

11032907 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 18, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte KOHEI SAWA
____________

Appeal 2009-010803
Application 11/032,907
Technology Center 1700
____________

Decided: March 18, 2010
____________

Before ROMULO H. DELMENDO, LINDA M. GAUDETTE, and
JEFFREY B. ROBERTSON, Administrative Patent Judges.

DELMENDO, Administrative Patent Judge
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 6 and 7 (Amended Appeal Brief filed November 7, 2007, hereinafter
“App. Br.,” at 2; Final Office Action mailed October 6, 2006). We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

Appeal 2009-010803
Application 11/032,907

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s invention relates to a method of dry cleaning, which
avoids contaminating a wash with contaminated detergent (Specification,
hereinafter “Spec.,” at 3, l. 23 to 4, l. 1).
Claim 6 reads as follows:
Claim 6. A method of dry cleaning which comprises the
steps of:
supplying washing to be dry cleaned and detergent into a
washing tank;
dry cleaning the washing;
using a contamination detector to detect detergent
contamination level just after dry cleaning, while treating used
detergent in a filtering tank and reusing the detergent in the
washing tank; and
terminating the supply of reused detergent to the filtering
tank and supplying fresh detergent to the washing tank to
prevent detergent contamination from exceeding a prescribed
threshold level when the detergent contamination is detected as
reaching the prescribed threshold level.
(App. Br. 15; Claims App’x.)
The Examiner relied upon the following as evidence of
unpatentability (Supplemental Examiner’s Answer mailed April 27, 2009,
hereinafter “Ans.,” 3):
Privat 4,601,181 July 22, 1986
Legrand (“FR ‘149”) FR 2594149 August 14, 1987
Kakumoto (“JP ‘196”) JP 04-141196 May 14, 19921

1 We refer to the English language electronic translation of FR ‘149 and to
the English language abstract of JP ‘196 (as a partial translation) because it
appears that the Examiner’s consideration of the references in support of the
rejection was limited to these documents (Ans. 3-4; Office Action at 4 and
PTO-892, both mailed April 21, 2006).
Appeal 2009-010803
Application 11/032,907

3
Appellant relies on the following evidence submitted with their
Appeal Brief (App. Br. 9 and 16, Evidence App’x.):
Ex. A: Bibliographic citation from Energy Citations Database (ECD) for
Deepwell disposal of transuranic contaminated liquid waste at the Nevada
Test Site,
http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/product.biblio.jsp?osti_id=7348219
(visited July 3, 2007).
Ex. B: Publication title and keywords from Business Communications
Company, Inc. for Types of Radioactive Wastes – LLW in Nuclear Power
Plants: Liquid Radioactive Wastes, URL unknown.

Ex. C: Radioactive Waste: Liquid Radioactive Waste,
http://www.niehs.nih.gov/odhsb/wasteman/rad/rad1.htm
(visited July 3, 2007).
The Examiner rejected claims 6 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combined teachings of Privat and either FR ‘149 or JP
‘196 (Ans. 3-4).

ISSUES
The Examiner found that Privat describes a method of detecting
particulate contaminants, including both radioactive and non-radioactive
particulates, in a dry cleaning system and that such detection necessarily
requires the use of a particulate “contamination detector” (Ans. 3-10).
Assuming arguendo that Privat describes “manually observing
contamination [i.e., visual observation without a detector]” rather than
automatically detecting contamination with a detector, the Examiner
concluded that FR ‘149 and JP ‘196 both provide reasons for incorporating a
contamination detector into Privat’s system for automatic detection (id.).
Appeal 2009-010803
Application 11/032,907

4
Appellant contends that Privat’s description of observing
contamination “only discusses the function of detecting contaminants and
does not provide a teaching of any particular type of contamination detector”
(App. Br. 7; emphasis added). Also, Appellant asserts that there is no
suggestion to combine either FR ‘149 or JP ‘196 with Privat because Privat
is concerned with radioactive contamination while FR ‘149 and JP ‘196 are
concerned with non-radioactive particulate contamination (App. Br. 11-12).
Specifically, Appellant contends that the proposed combination would
destroy the teachings of Privat because the detectors of FR ‘149 or JP ‘196
are not sensitive to radioactive contamination as required by Privat (App. Br.
12).
Thus, the issues are:
Does the claim term “contamination detector” encompass a
radioactive particulate contamination detector?
Does Privat describe the use of a contamination detector in water
separator 23?
Does Privat disclose or suggest the detection of non-radioactive
particulate contamination in addition to or in lieu of radioactive particulate
contamination?
Do the collective teachings of the prior art provide a reason for
combining FR ‘149 or JP ‘196 with Privat in the manner claimed?

Appeal 2009-010803
Application 11/032,907

5
FINDINGS OF FACT (“FF”)
1. Privat’s Figure 1 is reproduced below:

Figure 1 above depicts a dry cleaning installation including a
tank 10 for cleaning and decontaminating articles of clothing,
wherein the tank includes a radioactive sensor a “for
automatically initiating the locking of the cleaning tank in the
event of unsatisfactory decontamination,” and a water separator
23 with drain-off valve 31 (Col. 3, l. 61 to col. 4, l. 7; col. 4, ll.
37-40).
2. Privat is entitled “INSTALLATION FOR CLEANING
CLOTHES AND REMOVAL OF PARTICULATE
CONTAMINANTS ESPECIALLY FROM CLOTHING
CONTAMINATED BY RADIOACTIVE PARTICLES”
(emphasis added) and discloses an invention that “relates to an
Appeal 2009-010803
Application 11/032,907

6
installation for cleaning and removal of particulate
contaminants from clothing and is primarily applicable to
clothing contaminated by radioactive particles” (Col. 1, ll. 1-10;
emphasis added).
3. Privat discloses (Col. 8, ll. 13-21):
Should the presence of contamination be
observed in any solvent container such as, for
example, the water separator 23, it is only
necessary to open the hand-operated drain-off
valve 31 in order to empty the separator . . . thus
making it possible to fill the separator with freshly
distilled solvent. The operation is then repeated
until no further contamination can be detected
within the separator.
4. Privat teaches that “[r]adiation-measuring instruments can be
mounted within the clean module portion in order to permit
appreciation of the quality of decontamination obtained at the
end of a cleaning operation” (Col. 7, ll. 26-29).
5. FR ‘149 teaches that visual inspection of soiling (i.e., non-
radioactive contamination) in a dry cleaning operation is
unreliable and, as a solution to this problem, describes the use
of a sensor (i.e., detector) for monitoring soiling of the solvent
by measuring density and transmission index (FR ‘149 at 2-3).
6. JP ‘196 describes a turbidity detector for monitoring excess
soap, excess water, or pollution in a solvent used for dry
cleaning (Abstract).
7. Appellant’s Specification describes the combination of a CCD
camera and a light emitting element as the contamination
Appeal 2009-010803
Application 11/032,907

7
detector in a preferred embodiment (Spec. 10, l. 4 and 12, ll.
11-14).

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
It is well settled that the United States Patent and Trademark Office
(PTO) is obligated to give claim terms their broadest reasonable
interpretation, taking into account any enlightenment by way of definitions
or otherwise found in the specification. In re ICON Health and Fitness, Inc.,
496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“[T]he PTO must give claims their
broadest reasonable construction consistent with the specification.
Therefore, we look to the specification to see if it provides a definition for
claim terms, but otherwise apply a broad interpretation.”) (Citation omitted).
“[I]f a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of
ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar
devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual
application is beyond his or her skill.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550
U.S. 398, 417 (2007).

ANALYSIS
We start with claim construction. Claim 6 recites “a contamination
detector.” While the Specification describes the combination of a CCD
camera and a light emitting element as the contamination detector in a
preferred embodiment, Appellant does not direct us to any special definition
in the Specification that restricts this phrase to a particular type of
contamination detector (FF 7). Therefore, we construe the term “a
contamination detector” to encompass the any type of detector for any type
Appeal 2009-010803
Application 11/032,907

8
of solvent contamination, including radioactive or non-radioactive
contamination. ICON Health, 496 F.3d at 1379.
It is undisputed that Privat explicitly discloses the monitoring of
contamination in “any solvent container such as . . . the water separator 23”
to determine whether drain-off valve 31 should be opened to empty the
separator and refill it with freshly distilled solvent (FF 1 and 3). That
disclosure supports the Examiner’s factual finding (Ans. 7) that Privat
requires some contamination detection means in water separator 23.
Even if we assume that Privat’s monitoring of solvent contamination
in water separator 23 is performed visually without the use of a detector,
Appellant’s arguments fail. If, as Appellant contends, Privat’s disclosure is
limited to radioactive particulate contamination, a person of ordinary skill in
the art would have found it obvious to provide a radiation sensor (such as
that shown in tank 10) in water separator 23 in order to monitor radioactive
contamination as explicitly disclosed in Privat, thus arriving at a method
encompassed by claim 6 (FF 1, 3, and 4).
Moreover, it is undisputed that FR ‘149 and JP ‘196 describe sensors
within the scope of the claim term “contamination detector” (FF 5-6).
Regarding these references, we are in complete agreement with the
Examiner that Privat’s disclosure is not limited to a dry cleaning method that
removes solely radioactive particulates (Ans. 8-9; FF 2). A person of
ordinary skill in the art would have understood from the collective teachings
of the prior art references that non-radioactive particulate contamination is
also undesirable (FF 2, 5, and 6). The known undesirability of non-
radioactive particulates in soiled clothing would have prompted a person of
ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the non-radioactive particulate sensors
Appeal 2009-010803
Application 11/032,907

9
described in FR ‘149 or JP ‘196 into Privat’s dry cleaning method in order to
ensure clean clothing following dry cleaning.
We have considered Appellant’s contentions with respect to the
exhibit evidence, (App. Br. 9-10), but do not find them relevant to the
dispositive issues discussed herein.
For these reasons, we find no basis to reverse the Examiner’s
rejection.

CONCLUSION
The claim term “contamination detector” encompasses a radioactive
particulate contamination detector.
Privat discloses or suggests the use of a contamination detector in
water separator 23.
The collective teachings of the prior art references provide a reason
for a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the particulate detector
of either FR ‘149 or JP ‘196 in Privat’s method of dry cleaning.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 6 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as unpatentable over the combined teachings of Privat and either FR
‘149 or JP ‘196 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(v).

AFFIRMED

Appeal 2009-010803
Application 11/032,907

10

rvb

BUTZEL LONG
IP DOCKETING DEPARTMENT
350 SOUTH MAIN STREET
SUITE 300
ANN ARBOR, MI 48104