11181906 (B.P.A.I. May. 29, 2012)

Ex Parte Nakamura et al

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesMay 29, 2012

11181906 (B.P.A.I. May. 29, 2012)

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. 11/181,906 07/15/2005 Fusao Nakamura SHM-029 6331 32628 7590 05/29/2012 KANESAKA BERNER AND PARTNERS LLP 1700 DIAGONAL RD SUITE 310 ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314-2848 EXAMINER COMLEY, ALEXANDER BRYANT ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3746 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/29/2012 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ________________ Ex parte FUSAO NAKAMURA, OSAMU ASHIDA and KOHEI OUE ________________ Appeal 2009-014238 Application 11/181,906 Technology Center 3700 ________________ Before JOHN C. KERINS, STEVEN D.A. McCARTHY and EDWARD A. BROWN, Administrative Patent Judges. McCARTHY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL 1 The Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s 2 final decision rejecting claims 1, 3-10, 12-15 and 17. The Examiner rejects 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) claims 1, 4-6, 8, 9 and 13-15 as being unpatentable 4 over Okudera (US 6,824,349 B2, iss. Nov. 30, 2004) and Ohtachi (US5 1 The Appellants identify the real party in interest as Shimadzu Corporation. Appeal No. 2009-014238 Application No. 11/181,906 2 6,575,713 B2, iss. Jun. 10, 2003); claims 3, 7 and 12 as being unpatentable 1 over Okudera, Ohtachi and Kawanishi (US 6,752,588 B2, iss. Jun. 22, 2 2004); claims 10 and 14 as being unpatentable over Okudera, Ohtachi and 3 Ishikawa (US 6,899,529 B2, iss. May 31, 2005); and claim 17 as being 4 unpatentable over Okudera, Ohtachi and Burmahln (US 2004/0042873 A1, 5 publ. Mar. 4, 2004). The Examiner has withdrawn claims 2, 11 and 16 from 6 consideration. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). 7 We REVERSE. 8 Claims 1 and 8 are independent claims. Claim 8 is illustrative of the 9 claims on appeal: 10 8. A pump connection structure for 11 connecting first and second flange members for a 12 rotary vacuum pump, comprising: 13 a bolt for connecting the first and second 14 flange members, 15 a through-hole formed in one of the first and 16 second flange members for inserting the bolt and 17 having a diameter larger than that of the bolt, and 18 a gap forming device disposed in the 19 through-hole for forming a gap between the bolt 20 and the through-hole, 21 wherein said gap forming device is a bush 22 inserted between the bolt and the through-hole, and 23 including a bush part and a flange part at one side 24 of the bush part, said bush part having a height less 25 than a thickness of the first or second flange 26 member where the through-hole is formed and 27 being made of iron or stainless steel. 28 Claim 1 claims a rotary vacuum pump including a first gap forming device, 29 wherein said first gap forming device is a 30 bush inserted between the first bolt and the first 31 Appeal No. 2009-014238 Application No. 11/181,906 3 through-hole and including a bush part and a 1 flange part integrally formed together, said bush 2 part having a height less than the thickness of the 3 intake part flange and being made of iron or 4 stainless steel. 5 Figure 5 of Okudera depicts a vacuum pump including a flange 1a 6 mounted to a wall of a process chamber 14 by means of a bolt 15. The 7 flange 1a includes a through-hole 40 having a cylindrical wall. A buffer 8 member 41 positioned in the through-hole 40 receives a bolt shaft 15b 9 through a central bore. (Okudera, col. 6, ll. 20-31 and fig. 5). The buffer 10 member 41 described by Okudera appears to be “formed of a rubber material 11 or the like used for an O-ring.” (Okudera, col. 5, ll. 66-67; see also id., col. 12 4, ll. 11-12). 13 Okudera seeks to prevent a brittle fracture of a fastening bolt that 14 connects a vacuum pump and a process chamber due to damaging torque 15 acting between the pump and the chamber. (Okudera, col. 1, ll. 7-12). 16 Okudera teaches that, when the bolt shaft 15a contacts the buffer member 17 41, the elastically deformable buffer member provides a buffering effect. 18 This buffer effect contributes to the isolation of damaging torque; the 19 protection of the chamber 14 from damage; and the protection of the bolt 15 20 from breakage. (Okudera, col. 6, ll. 35-45; see also id., col. 6, ll. 7-18). 21 Ohtachi describes a vacuum pump including an outer cylindrical 22 portion 16 and a flange member 71 for connection to an external container. 23 (Ohtachi, col. 16, ll. 12-28 and fig. 5). Ohtachi discloses disposing vibration 24 absorbing means including a viscous member 54 and a bellows 57 supported 25 by a supporting member 73 between the outer cylindrical portion 16 and the 26 flange member 71. (Ohtachi, col. 16, ll. 37-43). Ohtachi teaches that this 27 vibration absorbing means, that is, the viscous member 54 and the bellows 28 Appeal No. 2009-014238 Application No. 11/181,906 4 57, attenuates propagated vibrations. (Ohtachi, col. 16, ll. 43-45; see also 1 id., col. 22, ll. 19-22). 2 Ohtachi discloses providing, 3 as restricting means for restricting a position of the 4 flange member 71 to a predetermined range with 5 respect to the outer cylindrical member 16, a 6 restricting screw 58 fixedly threaded into the 7 supporting member 73, and a collar 59 that is 8 mounted around the shaft of the restricting screw 9 58 and that is located between the head of the 10 threading screw 58 and the supporting member 73. 11 (Ohtachi, col. 16, ll. 60-67 and figs. 5 and 6; see also id., col. 18, ll. 31-37). 12 Ohtachi does not appear to describe the stainless steel collar 59 as a 13 component of the vibration absorbing means. 14 The Examiner finds that Okudera does not describe a vacuum pump 15 having a gap forming device including a bush part made of iron or stainless 16 steel. (Ans. 7-8). Instead, the Examiner appears to conclude that one of 17 ordinary skill in the art familiar with the teachings of Ohtachi would have 18 had reason to substitute a buffer member made of stainless steel for the 19 buffer member 41 described by Okudera. (See Ans. 9 and 17-18). The 20 Appellants disagree with this reasoning. (App. Br. 6-7). 21 Okudera’s rubber buffer member 41 elastically deforms to provide a 22 buffering effect to protect the bolt 15 from breaking in response to damaging 23 torque. Ohtachi’s stainless steel collar 59 cooperates with the restricting 24 screw 58 to restrict the movement of a flange member 71 relative to an outer 25 cylindrical member 16. Ohtachi does not appear to attribute any vibration 26 absorbing benefit to the stainless steel collar 59. One of ordinary skill in the 27 art familiar with the teachings of Ohtachi would not have had reason to 28 expect that a stainless steel buffer member substituted for the rubber buffer 29 Appeal No. 2009-014238 Application No. 11/181,906 5 member 41 described by Okudera would have provided a similar degree of 1 either vibration attenuation or buffering effect. Since the Examiner has not 2 provided a persuasive reason why one of ordinary skill in the art would have 3 modified Okudera to provide a gap forming device including a bush part 4 made of iron or stainless steel, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1, 4-5 6, 8, 9 and 13-15 as being unpatentable over Okudera and Ohtachi. 6 The Examiner summarizes the teachings of Kawanishi on pages 12-13 7 of the Answer. None of the teachings cited by the Examiner remedy the 8 deficiencies in the combined teachings of Okudera and Ohtachi regarding 9 the provision of a gap forming device including a bush part made of iron or 10 stainless steel. We do not sustain the rejection of claims 3, 7 and 12 as being 11 unpatentable over Okudera, Ohtachi and Kawanishi. 12 The Examiner summarizes the teachings of Ishikawa on pages 13-14 13 of the Answer. None of the teachings cited by the Examiner remedy the 14 deficiencies in the combined teachings of Okudera and Ohtachi regarding 15 the provision of a gap forming device including a bush part made of iron or 16 stainless steel. We do not sustain the rejection of claims 10 and 14 as being 17 unpatentable over Okudera, Ohtachi and Ishikawa. 18 The Examiner summarizes the teachings of Burmahln on page 15 of 19 the Answer. None of the teachings cited by the Examiner remedy the 20 deficiencies in the combined teachings of Okudera and Ohtachi regarding 21 the provision of a gap forming device including a bush part made of iron or 22 stainless steel. We do not sustain the rejection of claim 17 as being 23 unpatentable over Okudera, Ohtachi and Burmahln. 24 25 Appeal No. 2009-014238 Application No. 11/181,906 6 DECISION 1 We REVERSE the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 3-10, 12-2 15 and 17. 3 4 REVERSED 5 6 7 hh 8