Ex Parte Ishiyama et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 12, 2017

10244658 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 12, 2017)

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.
10/244,658 09/17/2002 Tomokazu Ishiyama P12-1007 5581
94133 7590 12/15/2017
Tnsihivnki Ynkni
EXAMINER
141 l-H Bellevue way NE
Bellevue, WA 98004
PAIK, SANG YEOP
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3742
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/15/2017 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):
jimu@yokoi.or.jp
yokoicojimu @hotmail.com
y okoi @ yokoi. or .j p
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte TOMOKAZUISHIYAMA, MASATSUGU SAITO,
YASUHIRO HASE, and OSAMU KOIDE
Appeal 2016-001770
Application 10/244,658
Technology Center 3700
Before EDWARD A. BROWN, FREDERICK C. LANEY, and
ANTHONY KNIGHT, Administrative Patent Judges.
BROWN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Tomokazu Ishiyama et al. (Appellants)1 appeal under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 5, 9-12, 22, 24,
25, 27, 30, 32—39, and 43—46, which are the pending claims. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 The Appeal Brief identifies Kurabe Industrial Co., Ltd., as the real party
interest. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2016-001770
Application 10/244,658
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1, 30, and 34 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below,
illustrates the claimed subject matter:
1. A seat heater comprising:
a base cloth which is a non-woven fabric mixed with a
heat bonding filament, said heat bonding filament comprising a
heat bonding resin; and
a heating wire having an outer layer which comprises a
heat bonding layer and being placed in a predetermined pattern
shape on one side of said base cloth,
a heat bonding structure which bonds said heat bonding
layer of said heat wire and said heat bonding filament in said
base cloth,
said base cloth comprises said heat bonding filament in a
range between 5 wt. % and 15 wt. %.
Appeal Br. 33 (Claims App.).
REJECTIONS
I. Claims 1, 5, 9—12, 22, 24, 25, 27, 30, 32—39, and 43^46 are
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite.
II. Claims 1, 9-12, 22, 24, 25, 27, 30, 32, 36—39, and 43^46 are
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kobayashi (US
4,846,916, issued July 11, 1989), Arikawa (US 4,633,061, issued Dec. 30,
1986) or Owers (US 3,548,147, issued Dec. 15, 1970), and Kubo (US
5,068,141, issued Nov. 26, 1991).
III. Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Kobayashi, Arikawa or Owers, Kubo, and Sakai (US 4,429,215, issued
Jan. 31, 1984).
2
Appeal 2016-001770
Application 10/244,658
IV. Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Kobayashi, Arikawa or Owers, Kubo, and Yanagimoto (US 6,479,797
Bl, issued Nov. 12, 2002).
ANALYSIS
I
Claims 1 and 30 both recite “a heat bonding structure which bonds
said heat bonding layer of said heat wire and said heat bonding filament in
said base cloth.” Appeal Br. 33, 34 (Claims App.) (emphasis added). The
Examiner determines that it is unclear what “structure” is meant by this
limitation, and there is no disclosure regarding the features or properties of
the structure, thus making the scope of this limitation unclear. Final Act. 2.
Appellants contend that the recited “heat bonding structure” is not
indefinite. Appeal Br. 14. In support, Appellants point out that the
Specification describes how the non-woven fabric and the heat wire are heat
bonded to each other. Id. (citing Spec. p. 19,1. 30-p. 21,1. 8).
The Specification describes, “a heat bonding layer 9 on the side of the
heating wire 1, and the heat bonding filament on the side of the base cloth
11, that is the low-melting point polyester filament, may be melted and
connected to each other, thereby the heating wire 1 may adhere to and be
fixed on the base cloth 11.” Spec. p. 21,11. 3—8 (emphasis added). We
understand that the portions of the heat bonding layer 9 and the heat bonding
filament that are melted and, consequently, connected (bonded) to each other
by hot-pressing correspond to the claimed “heat bonding structure.” In light
of this description, we agree with Appellants that the meaning of the
3
Appeal 2016-001770
Application 10/244,658
disputed limitation would be sufficiently clear to one of ordinary skill in the
art.
Claim 34 recites “a heat bonding structure which bonds said
polyethylene heat bonding layer of said heating wire and said polyester
sheath of said base cloth on one side where said heating wire faces with said
base cloth.” Appeal Br. 36 (Claims App.) (emphasis added). We
understand that the portions of the polyethylene heat bonding layer and the
polyester sheath that are melted by heating and, consequently, connected
(bonded) to each other correspond to the claimed “heat bonding structure.”
We agree with Appellants that the meaning of the disputed limitation would
be sufficiently clear to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1, 30, and 34, or claims
5, 9-12, 22, 24, 25, 27, 30, 32, 33, 35—39, and 43^46 depending therefrom,
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
II
As to claim 1, the Examiner finds that Kobayashi teaches a seat heater
comprising a base cloth (fabric 4 and layers 15—18, “when bonded, form a
base cloth”) having a heat bonding resin 15, 16, and a heating wire 1 having
an outer layer which comprises a heat bonding layer 7. Final Act. 3. The
Examiner finds Kobayashi does not teach that the base cloth is a non-woven
fabric mixed with a heat bonding filament, or a heat bonding structure which
bonds the heat bonding layer of the heat wire and the heat bonding filament
in the base cloth. Id. at 4. The Examiner states that it is known in the art
that non-woven fabric mixed with a heat bonding filament is used for seat
heaters, as taught by Arikawa or Owers, and non-woven fabric formed of
highly-spinnable, heat bonded filaments is strong and soft, as taught by
4
Appeal 2016-001770
Application 10/244,658
Kubo. Final Act. 4. The Examiner concludes that it would have been
obvious to use a non-woven fabric mixed with a heat bonding filament as the
base cloth in Kobayashi, as taught by Arikawa or Owers and Kubo, to obtain
ideal heating. Id. The Examiner also determines that when the modified
base cloth is heat bonded with the heating wire according to Kobayashi, a
heat bonding structure which bonds the heat bonding layer of the heat wire
and the heat bonding filament in the base cloth, will inherently form. Id.
The Examiner also finds that Kobayashi does not teach that the base
cloth comprises the heat bonding filament in a range between 5 wt.% and 15
wt.%, as claimed. Id. The Examiner finds that Kudo teaches that “the
percentage of the filament affects the property of the fabric.” Id. The
Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to choose a proper
percentage range for the filament according to its specific application. Id. at
5. The Examiner reasons, where the prior art discloses the general
conditions of a claim, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves
only routine skill in the art. Id. (citing In reAller, 105 USPQ 233).
Kobayashi discloses a seat heater comprising a surface cloth material
4, heat-fusible film layers 15, 16, core material 17, metallic foil 18, and a
heating wire 1 having an outer layer which comprises a heat-fusible coating
layer 7. Final Act. 3. Appellants note that Kobayashi discloses an
independent, heat fusible film layer 16 (adhesive layer) to attach the electric
carpet structure including surface cloth material 4, heat-fusible film layer 15,
and metallic foil 18, to heating wire 1. Reply Br. 2; see Kobayashi, Fig. 1.
Arikawa discloses a vehicle seat heater main body 4 comprising a
substrate body 1 consisting of non-woven fabric, a surface cloth 3 having a
thermal fusing adhesive, provided on both sides of substrate body 1, and a
5
Appeal 2016-001770
Application 10/244,658
cord-shaped warming heater 2 on substrate body 1. Arikawa, col. 1,11. 11—
18, Fig. 2. Appellants contend that Arikawa discloses an ordinary non-
woven fabric, with no heat bonding filament, as a base cloth. Appeal Br. 19.
Appellants also contend that Arikawa requires adhesive to fix the base cloth
to a heat wire, and, like Kobayashi, requires a heat fusible layer (thermal
fusing adhesive) to fix a base cloth to a heating wire. Id.', Reply Br. 2.
In contrast to these structures disclosed in Kobayashi and Arikawa
that include a heat fusible layer, claim 1 requires a base cloth, which is a
non-woven fabric mixed with a heat bonding filament, which comprises a
heat bonding resin.
Owers discloses a laminate structure including layers 11 and 12, each
comprising a cotton scrim fabric 13 having on one face a web of rayon fibers
14, and on the opposite face a web of polyvinyl chloride (PVC) fibers 15.
See Owers, Fig. 3, col. 1,11. 58—65. Layers 11 and 12 are laid on top of each
other such that the faces containing PVC fibers 15 contact with each other,
and layers 11 and 12 are subjected to an electric current such that PVC fibers
15 become homogenous, and seal layers 11 and 12 together. Id. at col. 1,11.
66-71, Fig. 3.
Appellants acknowledge that Owers discloses a non-woven fabric
with a heat bonding filament as a base cloth. Appeal Br. 19. However,
Appellants contend that Owers requires at least 50% of the heat bonding
filament to bond both base cloths. Id. at 19-20. In support, Appellants note
the following description in Owers:
[Tjhrough carrying out welding tests we have ascertained
that in order to obtain a satisfactory fusion weld of the required
penetration and strength the quantity of polyvinyl chloride
fibers 15 in each layer [11] and 12 must constitute at least 50
6
Appeal 2016-001770
Application 10/244,658
percent of the total weight offibers in the respective face.
Below this quantity ofpolyvinyl chloride fibers 15 the resultant
weld was round to be imperfect.
Id. at 20 (citing Owers, col. 1,1. 73—col. 2,1. 3, emphasis added). Appellants
interpret this description to mean non-woven fabric with less than 50% of
the heat bonding filament cannot be expected to provide successful results.
Id.
Appellants also contend that Owers welds two base clothes by the
heat bonding filament in the non-woven fabric, and, therefore, both base
clothes require more than 50% of the heat bonding filament. Id. In contrast,
Appellants contend, the claimed invention heat bonds the base cloth and the
outer surface of the heat wire, and thus, the elements of the heat bonding
structure are different than in Owers. Id.
The Examiner responds that the percentage of fibers disclosed in
Owers is only suitable for the particular embodiment or the particular
material used for the non-woven fabric, where the fibers are PVC fibers, and
the base cloth contains cotton and rayon fabrics. Ans. 14.
We note, however, that Owers describes this same percentage of
fibers with respect to “the invention” (see Abstract) and “the present
invention” (see col. 1,11. 6—12). See also, Owers, col. 4,11. 11—24 (claim 1).
The Examiner is incorrect that Owers discloses the above-discussed
percentage of fibers is only suitable for the particular embodiment, or the
particular material used for the non-woven fabric.
The Examiner also states that the percentage requirement in Owers is
of a percentage of PVC fibers in a particular face 15, not of the entire non-
woven fabric. Ans. 14. The Examiner references the description of a
particular embodiment in Owers in which layer 11 comprises a cotton scrim
7
Appeal 2016-001770
Application 10/244,658
fabric 13, rayon fibers 14, and PVC fibers 15 which constitute 100 percent
of the fibers on the other face of fabric 13; and layer 12 comprises a cotton
scrim fabric 13, rayon fibers 14, and the fibers on the opposite side of fabric
13 comprise 1 Vi ounces per square yard of PVC fibers evenly intermixed
with 114 ounces per square yard of rayon fibers. See Owers, col. 1,1. 73—col.
2,1. 16. Id. The Examiner determines that, in layer 11, the weight
percentage of the PVC fibers is 37.5, and, in layer 12, the weight percentage
is 18.75. Id. at 15—16. The Examiner determines that Owers does not teach
the percentage of PVC fibers in the entire non-woven cloth must be over
50%, but can be as low as 18.75%. Id. at 16.
Owers does not, however, disclose that the percentage of the PVC
fibers can be as low as 18.75% in either one of the faces of layers 11,12 that
are fusion welded together, with heating wire 16 disposed therebetween.
Rather, Appellants correctly contend that Owers discloses each opposing
layer 11,12 constitutes from at least 50% up to 100% of the total weight of
the fibers in the respective face. See Reply Br. 4—6. As such, Owers does
not disclose a heat bonding structure, which bonds a heat bonding layer of a
heat wire and a heat bonding filament in a base cloth, where the base cloth
comprises the heat bonding filament in the claimed range.
The Examiner states that Kubo discloses that “when different fiber
(low density fiber) and different base cloth (heavy weight) are used, such
percentage can be much lower and be within the claimed range.” Ans. 16.
However, the Examiner does not direct us to any specific disclosure in Kubo
that supports this finding. Even if Kubo discloses that “the percentage of the
filaments affects the property of the fabric,” this general disclosure does not
provide an adequate reason to modify Kobayashi’s electric carpet to include
8
Appeal 2016-001770
Application 10/244,658
the specific claimed heating bonding structure and base cloth comprising the
recited range of a heat bonding filament mixed with a non-woven fabric.
The Examiner’s application of Aller likewise fails to provide a sufficient
reason to modify Kobayashi’s electric carpet as proposed, especially in view
of the description of Owers’ layers discussed above.
For these reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1, or claims
9-12, 22, 24, 25, 27, 32, 36—39, and 43^46 depending therefrom, as
unpatentable over Kobayashi, Arikawa or Owers, and Kubo.
Claim 30 recites limitations similar to those discussed above for claim
1. Appeal Br. 34 (Claims App.). The Examiner relies on the same findings
and reasoning for claim 30 as for claim 1. Final Act. 5—6. Accordingly, for
the same reasons as for claim 1, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 30
as unpatentable over Kobayashi, Arikawa or Owers, and Kubo.
III-IV
Claims 27 and 33 depend from claim 1. The Examiner’s use of Sakai
to reject claim 27 (Final Act. 8—9) and Yanagimoto to reject claim 33 (id. at
9—10) fails to cure the deficiencies of the rejection of claim 1. Accordingly,
we do not sustain the rejection of claim 27 as unpatentable over Kobayashi,
Arikawa or Owers, Kubo, and Sakai, or the rejection of claim 33 as
unpatentable over Kobayashi, Arikawa or Owers, Kubo, and Yanagimoto.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 5, 9—12, 22, 24, 25, 27,
30, 32—39, and 43^46 is reversed.
REVERSED
9