Manabu Ikeya et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 12, 2019

14122086 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 12, 2019)

APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/122,086 11/25/2013
65565 7590 09/12/2019
SUGHRUE-265550
2000 PENNSYLVANIA A VE. NW
SUIIB 900
WASHINGTON, DC 20006
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Manabu Ikeya
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONERFORPATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO.
Q208455
CONFIRMATION NO.
5394
EXAMINER
HOWELL, MARC C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1774
NOTIFICATION DATE DELNERYMODE
09/12/2019 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):
PPROCESSING@SUGHRUE.COM
SUGHRUE265550@SUGHRUE.COM
USPTO@sughrue.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MANABU IKEY A et al.
Appeal 2018-002605
Application 14/122,086
Technology Center 1700
ERRATUM
The Decision on Appeal for the above-identified application mailed
September 12, 2019 contains errors. Claims 3 and 4 are missing from the
claim listing on pages 2 and 12 of the decision (wherein claims 1 and 5-13
are listed).
In the first line on page 2 of the Decision, "all pending claims 1 and
5-13" is removed and rep laced with "all pending claims 1, 3, 4, and 5-13."
On page 12 of the Decision under the heading "Order," the sentence is
removed and replaced with "It is ORDERED that the rejection of claims 1,
3, 4, and 5-13 is reversed."
All other portions the Decision on Appeal remain unchanged. Any
confusion caused regarding this matter is regretted. If there any questions
pertaining to this Erratum, please contact the Patent Trial and Appeal Board
at 571-272-9797.
BAR
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MANABU IKEY A, 1
MAKOTO ISHIKAWA, REO FUJITA, SEIJI TAKAMOTO,
and SHIGEKI INOUE
Appeal2018-002605 2
Application 14/122,086
Technology Center 1700
Before MARK NAGUMO, GEORGE C. BEST, and JEFFREY R. SNAY,
Administrative Patent Judges.
NAGUMO, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Manabu Ikeya, Makoto Ishikawa, Reo Fujita, Seiji Takamoto, and
Shigeki Inoue ("Ikeya") timely appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
1 The real party in interest is identified as The Japan Steel Works, Ltd.
(Appeal Brief, filed 15 June 2017 ("Br."), 2.)
2 Heard 22 August 2019. The Official Transcript will be made of record in
due course.
Appeal2018-002605
Application 14/122,086
Final Rejection3 of all pending claims 1 and 5-13. 4 We have jurisdiction.
35 U.S.C. § 6. We reverse.
OPINION
A. Introduction 5
The subject matter on appeal relates to processes of kneading
materials such as plastics, especially in a twin screw extruder. According to
the '086 Specification, in prior art twin-screw extruders, before the material
is kneaded, it is completely melted by holding the material in the melt-
kneading portion as long as possible. When the production quantity is
diminished, however, excessive kneading energy may be applied to the
material to be kneaded, which may lead to increased production costs and
degraded melted material. (Spec. 4, 11. 2-5.) Prior art attempts to alleviate
this problem are said to include shortening the melt-kneading portion of the
3 Office Action mailed 14 November 2016 ("Final Rejection"; cited as
"FR").
4 Claims 2 and 14 were cancelled in an amendment filed 14 February 2017,
under 37 C.F.R. § 1.116, after the Final Rejection. Independent claims 1, 5,
and 10 were amended to incorporate the limitations recited in claim 2.
These amendments were entered, and notice was given that the rejection
based on anticipation by Heck of the independent claims and certain
dependent claims would be converted to an obviousness rejection, further in
view of Vandergrift. (Advisory Action entered 17 March 2017; full cites
infra at nn. 11-13.)
5 Application 14/122,086, Material kneading apparatus and material
kneading method, filed 25 November 2013 as the national stage under
35 U.S.C. § 371 of PCT/JP2012/063908, filed 30 May 2012, claiming the
benefit of an application filed in Japan on 30 May 2011. We refer to the
'"086 Specification," which we cite as "Spec."
2
Appeal2018-002605
Application 14/122,086
apparatus, and altering the twisting angle of the return blade portion. (Id.
at 11. 5-15.) However, when the quantity of material to be processed is
increased, the kneading energy is said to become insufficient, and "it
becomes difficult to completely melt the material to be kneaded, which leads
to an increased failure of the melted material." (Id. at 11. 21-24.)
Ikeya seeks patent protection for an apparatus (independent claims 1
and 10) and a method of kneading material (independent claim 5) that are
said to overcome these problems. A comparison of the specific energy
(power consumption/processing capability) (Spec. 17, 1. 18) at low quantities
(200 kg/h) and at high quantities (500 kg/hr) for an apparatus of the
invention (see Figure 7, not reproduced here) shows relatively small changes
compared to an apparatus having a conventional melt-kneading section.
Thus, processing by the inventive apparatus is said to be more efficient, and
is said to result in a higher quality product.
An embodiment of the claimed apparatus 16 is illustrated in Figure 4,
below.
UPSTREAM ----------------+ DOWNSTREAM
SID': SiOE
{Figure 4 shows a twin screw extruder in cross section}
6 Throughout this Opinion, for clarity, labels to elements are presented in
bold font, regardless of their presentation in the original document.
3
Appeal2018-002605
Application 14/122,086
Material (e.g., plastic pellets) is introduced at material loading
opening 22 and transported downstream by transporting blades 31 of
screw 3B7 to melt-kneading portion 52, which comprises kneading
element 521 (which in tum comprises sending blades 32A and 32B), and
kneading element 522 (which in tum comprises returning blades 33).
Sending blades 32A are "end-face coupled" with returning blades 33, as
further illustrated in Figure 5, below.
521
328
32A
328
32A
32A
328
32A
328
521
I I I
l La 11 Lb 1
1 ... C .l..! C ~:
I I I
522
33
522
{Figure 5 illustrates melt-kneading sections 52 of screw 3A (top) and of
screw 3B (bottom), showing the downstream end of sending screw 32A
engaging the upstream side of return screw 33 at 7. The downstream end of
sending screw 32B is separate from, i.e., does not engage, the upstream side
of return screw 33}
7 Screw 3A is behind screw 3B in this projection, and rotates in the opposite
direction, with the helicity of all elements inverted relative to screw 3B.
4
Appeal2018-002605
Application 14/122,086
That is, the "terminal ends of the blades ( downstream side end portions of
sending blades 32A) coincide with corresponding beginning ends of the
returning blades 33." (Spec. 13, 11. 5-9.) Sending blades 32A are said to
"engage" the upstream end of return blade 33. (Id. at 11. 9-11.) In contrast,
the downstream end of sending blades 32B are separated from the upstream
end of return blade 33: sending blades 32B do not engage with return
blade 33.
Gases evolved during the melt-kneading in section 52 are released
through ventilation opening 23; the material is kneaded again in kneading
section 54; and the kneaded material is extruded through material
discharging opening 24 in discharging portion 55. (Spec. 10, 11. 16-24;
see also Figures 2 and 3, not reproduced here).
Claim 1 is representative and reads:
A material kneading apparatus [1] comprising:
a screw [3] inserted into a cylinder [2],
an inside [21] of which a material is loaded, and
the screw is rotatably supported at both
an end portion [ 4A] on an upstream side and
an end portion [ 4B] on a downstream side or
at the end portion [ 4A] on the upstream side, in the
cylinder;
a first kneading blade [521] comprising
a plurality of sending blades [32] that are
helically provided on the screw and
configured to send the material toward the
downstream side upon rotation of the screw; and
a second kneading blade [522] comprising
a return blade [33] that is helically provided on the
screw and is configured to return the material,
5
Appeal2018-002605
Application 14/122,086
which has been sent toward the downstream side by
the first kneading blade [521],
toward the upstream side,
the second kneading blade [522] having a smaller
number of starts of screw threads than the number of
starts of screw threads of the first kneading blade [521],
wherein a plurality of the return blades [33] are
provided on the screw,
wherein the plurality of sending blades [32] comprises a
first blade [32A] and a second blade [32B],
wherein an end of the return blade [33] at the
upstream side engages [7] an end of the first
blade [32A] at the downstream side, and
wherein the end of the return blade [33] at the
upstream side is separated from an end of the
second blade [32B] at the downstream side.
(Claims App., Br. 12; some formatting, emphasis, and bracketed labels to
elements in Figures 3-5 added.)
It may be noted that, aside from bearings 4A and 4B, all recited
limitations refer to elements in melt-kneading section 52.
6
Appeal2018-002605
Application 14/122,086
The Examiner maintains the following grounds of rejection: 8, 9, 10
A. Claims 1, 3, and 5-13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) in view of the combined teachings of Heck 11 and
Vandergrift. 12
Al. Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) in view of
the combined teachings of Heck, Vandergrift, and Womer. 13
8 Examiner's Answer mailed 24 November 2017 ("Ans.").
9 Because this application claims the benefit of an application filed
before 16 March 2013, the effective date of the America Invents Act, we
refer to the pre-AIA version of the statute.
10 See n.4, supra at 2.
11 Ernst Heck et al., Process for the preparation of a foodstuff by extrusion,
U.S. Patent No. 5,891,503 (1999).
12 Frank C. Vandergrift, Extrusion apparatus, U.S. Patent No. 1,762,368
(1930).
13 Timothy W. Womer et al., Plasticating process, apparatus and screw with
mixing, U.S. Patent No. 6,497,508 Bl (2002).
7
Appeal2018-002605
Application 14/122,086
B. Discussion
The Board's findings of fact throughout this Opinion are supported by
a preponderance of the evidence of record.
Heck describes a two-section extruder, illustrated in Figure 1, below,
8
FIG.1
{Figure 1 shows a two-section twin-screw extruder with external cooker 4}
Material (food) is introduced to section 1 of the extruder, where it is
processed and pushed out at outlet 8 of compartment iv at the location of the
dynamic-separation device 3. The processed food is cooked in cooker 4, and
returned to the second section 2 of the extruder at inlet 9 of compartment v,
where it is further processed.
In more detail, the screw in section 1 comprises, as illustrated from
right to left, in Figure 3, below:
..... ·~ ~ ~·~ ~-..::~ .. ,, . '
:; ...... · ~n:~:1 .... ~);::.:~
( ,·; ~~~ .. ~~~ ,.·,~:
{Heck Figure 3 shows the screw of the extruder. Annotations added;
small labels according to Heck; large labels according to the Examiner}
8
Appeal2018-002605
Application 14/122,086
transport zone 11, compacting zone 12, compression zone 13, intermediate
transport zone 14, compression zone 15, kneading zone 16, compression
zone 17, expulsion zone 18, and blocking zone 3. Notably, all zones have
the same handedness of the thread or blade, but for kneading zone 16 and
blocking zone 3, which have the opposite handedness (Heck col. 4, 11. 38-
41), and expulsion zone 18, which comprises "three-off 12.5 bilobes"
(id. at 1. 18).
The Examiner finds that Heck describes, in Figure 3, a twin screw unit
having "a plurality of return blades provide on the screw (figure 3, reverse
thread sections 3 and 16)." (Ans. 3, 11. 12-13.) The Examiner finds further
that Heck describes "an end of the return blade at the upstream side being
separated from an end of the second blade at the downstream side (figure 5,
space between sending blades in section 17 and return blades in section 3)."
(Id. at 11. 13-15.) Thus, using the terminology of Heck, the Examiner
identifies expulsion zone 18 as a "space" between compression zone 17 and
blocking zone 3. The Examiner finds that Heck "is silent to an end of the
return blade at the upstream side engaging an end of the first blade on the
downstream side." (Id. at 11. 15-17.)
The Examiner finds that Vandergrift teaches such an engagement
between [ sending] thread 34 and reverse thread 35 in the extrusion apparatus
illustrated in Figure 1, reproduced on the next page.
9
Appeal2018-002605
Application 14/122,086
{Vandergrift Figure 1 is shown below}
l ..
1·: I
0,
~~!L ·-·------------·------------3
{Vandergrift Figure 1 shows reverse thread 35 (shading added) joining
forward thread 34}
The Examiner concludes that "it would have been obvious to have
provided the apparatus of Heck with the connected blades, as in Vandergrift,
for the purpose of reducing dead space in the apparatus in which blades
cannot work on the material." (Ans. 3, last three lines.)
Ikeya objects that in the device described by Heck, effective discharge
is achieved by expanding the outlet (8) of the expulsion zone (18) toward the
blocking zone (3). (Br. 7, 11. 1-3, citing Heck, col. 4, 11. 60-67.) Ikeya urges
that modifying Heck to connect the screw of blocking zone 3 directly to the
screw of compression zone 17, would result in the elimination of expulsion
zone 18, "and would result in a reduction in size of the outlet (8), thereby
preventing the 'effective discharge' requirement of Heck." (Br. 7, 11. 4--7.)
The Examiner responds (Ans. 12, 11. 1-5) that Heck teaches that "it is
essential" for opening 8 "to overlap the blocking zone 3, ... so that the
substance taken up by the first flight or flights of the opposite-handed screw
10
Appeal2018-002605
Application 14/122,086
can be discharged and expelled effectively" (Heck, col. 4, 1. 64---col. 5, 1. 2).
The Examiner concludes that the full quote shows that "the effective
discharge and expulsion is not based on the expulsion zone, as alleged by the
Appellant, but is instead based on the overlap between the blocking zone and
the discharge opening." (Ans. 12, 11. 6-8.)
The weight of the evidence supports Ikeya. It is, on its face,
extremely difficult to substantiate a statement that effective discharge and
expulsion of material is not based on a zone positioned for that purpose and
labeled "the expulsion zone." The Examiner has not done so on the facts
before us. Moreover, as Ikeya points out in the Reply, 14 the Examiner has
not come forward with evidence or analysis showing that the routineer
would have regarded expulsion zone 18 as "dead space." The overwhelming
weight of the evidence of record is that the bilobes in expulsion zone 18 are
designed to push processed food materials out of section 1 of the twin screw
extruder into cooker 4. Nor has the Examiner explained with any reasonable
specificity why the teaching by Vandergrift of the engagement of reverse
thread 35 with thread 34 would have been expected to perform satisfactorily
the expulsion function of expulsion zone 18 when adapted for use in the
extruder described by Heck.
The Examiner makes no findings regarding limitations recited in the
remaining claims that cure the defects discussed supra. In summary, we are
persuaded of harmful error in the appealed rejections, and we reverse.
14 Reply Brief, filed 12 January 2018 ("Reply").
11
Appeal2018-002605
Application 14/122,086
C. Order
It is ORDERED that the rejection of claims 1 and 5-13 is reversed.
REVERSED
12