KlKUSUI SEISAKUSHO LTD.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 19, 2021

2020003161 (P.T.A.B. May. 19, 2021)

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.
15/422,292 02/01/2017 Naoshige KITAMURA F2-16KKS5382US 9340
21254 7590 05/19/2021
MCGINN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP, PLLC
8321 OLD COURTHOUSE ROAD
SUITE 200
VIENNA, VA 22182-3817
EXAMINER
HAUTH, GALEN H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1742
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/19/2021 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte NAOSHIGE KITAMURA, JUN OYAMA, and
MASAOKI MURAKOSHI

Appeal 2020-003161
Application 15/422,292
Technology Center 1700
Before LINDA M. GAUDETTE, JEFFREY B. ROBERTSON, and
JAMES C. HOUSEL, Administrative Patent Judges.
GAUDETTE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

The Appellant2 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), from the
Examiner’s decision finally rejecting claims 1–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Vandenbroucke (US 2016/0243781 A1, pub. Aug. 25,

1 The following documents are of record in this appeal: Specification filed
Feb. 1, 2017 (“Spec.”); Final Office Action dated June 11, 2019 (“Final
Act.”); Appeal Brief filed Nov. 25, 2019 (“Appeal Br.”); Examiner’s
Answer dated Feb. 12, 2020 (“Ans.”); and Reply Brief filed Mar. 17, 2020
(“Reply Br.”).
2 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. The
Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Kikusui Seisakusho Ltd.
Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2020-003161
Application 15/422,292

2

2016) in view of Vogeleer (US 2005/0200038 A1, pub. Sept. 15, 2005) and
Boeckx (US 2010/0094449 A1, pub. Apr. 15, 2010). Final Act. 3.3
We Affirm.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The invention relates to a molded product production system (claims
1–4 and 9–16) and a method of producing a compression-molded product
(claims 5–8 and 17–20). Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter:
1. A molded product production system, comprising:
a powdery material mixing and feeding device
configured to feed mixed powdery materials including at least
two types of powdery materials;
a filler configured to fill, with the mixed powdery
materials fed by the powdery material mixing and feeding
device, a die bore of a compression-molding machine
configured to compress a powdery material to mold a molded
product;
a sensor configured to measure, prior to filling the die
bore, a mixing degree of the mixed powdery materials fed by
the powdery material mixing and feeding device; and
a molded product removal mechanism configured to,
based on a result of a measurement of the sensor prior to filling
the die bore, distinguish a molded product obtained by
compression molding mixed powdery materials having a
mixing degree measured by the sensor out of a predetermined
range from a molded product obtained by compression molding
mixed powdery materials having a mixing degree within the
predetermined range.

3 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

Appeal 2020-003161
Application 15/422,292

3

Appeal Br. 11 (Claims App.).
OPINION
The Appellant’s arguments in support of patentability are based on
similar claim 1 and claim 5 limitations. See, e.g., Appeal Br. 6. For
convenience, we reference the claim 1 limitations.
Vandenbroucke discloses a tabletting system in which “a PAT sensor
50 is provided in the transition tube 46 above the tablet press feeder 67 to
verify the uniformity of the blend. This can be a NIR sensor . . . .”
Vandenbroucke ¶ 34. The Specification likewise describes using “a near
infrared [(NIR)] sensor as a process analytical technology (PAT) sensor
configured to measure a mixing degree and the like of powdery materials.”
Spec. 21:3–5. Vandenbroucke discloses that “means for controlling the
tablet press according to desired settings may be provided.” Vandenbroucke
¶ 23.
Vogeleer discloses a control system for a rotary tablet press in which
“at least one control signal is either fed forward or backward between”
compression degree and power quantity regulation loops. See Vogeleer
Abstract, ¶ 95. Vogeleer measures piston displacement in a tablet pre-
compression stage. Id. ¶ 86. This measurement, which “corresponds to the
compressed tablet’s weight,” is compared with pre-determined rejection
tolerance limits. Id. ¶ 87. If the measured displacement indicates that a tablet
is outside the tolerance limits, a control unit sends a rejection signal to a
rejection device associated with a tablet discharge device, and the tablet is
separated from the remaining tablets, when it reaches the rejection device.
Id.
Appeal 2020-003161
Application 15/422,292

4

Boeckx discloses “[a] system for rejecting tablets produced in a rotary
tablet press.” Boeckx Abstract. “Control unit 27 decides whether a tablet is
defective and should be sorted out on the basis of a monitoring of
operational parameters of the tablet press . . . . The monitored parameters
may by indicative of qualities of the compressed tablets such as weight . . .
and active dose, among others.” Id. ¶ 42. According to Boeckx, “[t]his
monitoring is well-known in the art.” Id.
The Examiner determined that the ordinary artisan would have
modified Vandenbroucke to include Vogeleer’s control means and molded
product removal mechanism to remove products identified by
Vandenbroucke’s sensor as falling outside a desired mixing degree, as
“Boeckx teaches that a variety of measured variables may be used in
determining whether a tablet should be discarded including active dose
measurements and other known values.” Final Act. 4–5.
The Appellant argues that the Examiner reversibly erred in finding
that the combined teachings of Vandenbroucke, Vogeleer, and Boeckx
disclose or suggest (1) a sensor configured to measure a mixing degree of
mixed powdery materials prior to filling a die bore with the mixture, and (2)
a molded product removal mechanism configured to use the sensor’s
measurement to distinguish a subsequently molded product made from a
powder having an acceptable mixing degree from a subsequently molded
product made from a powder having an unacceptable mixing degree. See
Appeal Br. 6–7. The Appellant also argues that the Examiner relied on
improper hindsight reasoning in finding that the ordinary artisan would have
Appeal 2020-003161
Application 15/422,292

5

been motivated to modify Vandenbroucke to achieve the claimed invention.
See id. at 7–9.
The Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive of reversible error in
the Examiner’s fact finding and reasoning (see Final Act. 3–5) for the
reasons explained in the Answer (see Ans. 7–9). As noted by the Examiner,
the Appellant focuses on deficiencies in each reference rather than
considering what the ordinary artisan would have understood from their
collective teachings. See Ans. 7. In the Reply Brief, the Appellant disagrees
that it has attacked the references individually, and argues that it has
demonstrated that the Vandenbroucke-Vogeleer-Boeckx combination “fails
to teach or suggest the removal of the defective molded products in a
downstream side [of the die bore], based on the measurements results of a
sensor placed and measuring the powdery material in an upstream side and
prior to pressing the powdery material in a press table.” Reply Br. 3. In
support of this argument, the Appellant notes that Vandenbroucke does not
disclose “a molded product removal mechanism” (claim 1), and Vogeleer
and Boeckx remove defective products based on measurements by a sensor
located downstream rather than upstream of the die bore as required by
claim 1. Id. at 2. These arguments fail to explain why it was erroneous or
unreasonable for the Examiner to find that the ordinary artisan would have
employed a known removal mechanism, such as Vogeleer’s, in
Vandenbroucke’s system to remove products identified by Vandenbroucke’s
sensor—located upstream of the die bore—as falling outside a desired
mixing degree. See Vandenbroucke ¶ 4 (explaining that a goal of the
invention is to reduce segregation of different-sized particles as “segregation
Appeal 2020-003161
Application 15/422,292

6

may have a large impact on the content uniformity of the tablets and there is
a risk of producing tablets of an inferior quality or at least outside
specification if not attended to”); id. ¶ 23 (noting that the tabletting system
may include “means for controlling the tablet press according to desired
settings”); Vogeleer ¶ 87 (describing a control system for removing tablets
that are outside tolerance limits); Boeckx ¶ 42 (noting that a control system
may use active dose measurement in sorting out defective tablets).
Appellant’s assertion that the Examiner relied on improper hindsight
reasoning in determining that the ordinary artisan would have combined the
references to achieve the claimed system is likewise unpersuasive. The
Appellant argues that
the skilled person would not have considered press molding a
defective powdery material detected in the upstream side by the
sensor 50 of Vandenbroucke, and then, after compression
molding, removing the defective molded material in the
downstream side. This operation would be ineffective and make
no sense to the skilled [artisan].
Reply Br. 4. The Appellant argues that, instead, the ordinary artisan would
have removed “the defective powdery material in the upstream side and
prior to the compression molding, to remove the defective materials from the
final molded product more efficiently, less costly, with less waste of
material, energy, etc.” Reply Br. 3–4.
As noted by the Examiner, this argument is not persuasive because the
Appellant has not provided evidence to support its assertions that the
ordinary artisan would have viewed the proposed modification of
Vandenbroucke’s system as less efficient and more costly. Ans. 8–9; see In
re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1471 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (explaining that argument
Appeal 2020-003161
Application 15/422,292

7

by counsel cannot take the place of evidence); cf. In re Farrenkopf, 713 F.2d
714, 718 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (explaining that just because a particular
modification would not have been made by a businessperson for economic
reasons does not mean that one of ordinary skill would not have made the
modification). We add that the Appellant’s argument seems inconsistent
with Vandenbroucke’s positioning of the blender’s (material mixer’s)
discharge end as close as possible to the tablet press to minimize material
segregation during transfer from the blender to the tablet press. See
Vandenbroucke ¶¶ 26–27. In other words, inserting a removal system
between the blender’s discharge—the location of the sensor—and the tablet
press would increase the distance between these two components, thereby
increasing the likelihood of material segregation.
In sum, the Appellant has not convinced us of reversible error in the
Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness as to claims 1–20.
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–20 103 Vandenbroucke,
Vogeleer, Boeckx
1–20
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED