Ex Parte Watanabe et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 25, 201512190001 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 25, 2015) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte TOSHIO WATANABE, KATSUHIKO NAKAJIMA, HIDEO NAKAMURA, HIROSHI MORI, SUSUMU FUJITA, and MITSUNOBU NAKATANI ____________ Appeal 2012-008792 Application 12/190,001 Technology Center 1700 ____________ Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, TERRY J. OWENS, and BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judges. FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 3–10, and 12. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Claim 1 is representative of the subject matter on appeal and is set forth below (with text in bold for emphasis): Appeal 2012-008792 Application 12/190,001 2 1. An apparatus for laser welding thermoplastic resin members in which a first member formed of a transmissive thermoplastic resin that transmits a laser beam is brought into contact with a second member formed of an absorptive thermoplastic resin that absorbs the laser beam, and their contact surfaces are melted with the laser beam for joining the members, the apparatus comprising: a laser beam generating means for irradiating the contact surfaces with a laser beam shone from the side of the first member so as to melt at least one of the contact surfaces of the first member and the second member; a pressing means for pressing the first member and the second member together by a pressing force; an adjusting means for adjusting the pressing force applied to the first member and the second member; a detecting means for detecting a temperature or a pressure at a melted portion melted by laser beam irradiation of the first member and the second member, and a controller configured to directly control the adjustment means based on the detected temperature or pressure; wherein the controller controls the pressing force by increasing the pressing force to a first pressing force when a detected temperature or pressure is greater than a predetermined value, and further increasing the pressing force to a second pressing force when another detected temperature or pressure indicates cooling at the melted portion. The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Korte US 6,444,946 B1 Sept. 3, 2002 Matsumoto et al. WO 03/106100 A1 Dec. 24, 2003 (hereafter “Matsumoto '100) Matsumoto et al. US 2006/0153270 A1 July 13, 2006 (hereafter “Matsumoto '270) Appeal 2012-008792 Application 12/190,001 3 THE REJECTIONS 1. Claims 1, 3-6 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102(b) as being anticipated by Matsumoto '270 (the English equivalent to Matsumoto '100). 2. Claims 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Matsumoto in view of Korte. ISSUE Did the Examiner err in finding that Matsumoto '270 anticipates the claimed subject matter, and in particular, with respect to the claim limitation of “an adjusting means for adjusting the pressing force applied to the first member and the second member”? We answer this question in the affirmative and REVERSE. ANALYSIS When the claim terms are written in “means-plus-function” format, they must be interpreted as limited to the corresponding structures described in the Specification or equivalents thereof consistent with 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph. In re Donaldson Co., Inc., 16 F.3d 1189, 1193 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (en banc). The claim limitation of “an adjusting means for adjusting the pressing force applied to the first member and the second member” is depicted in Figures 1–3 of Appellants’ Specification. Therein, adjusting means 30 or 40 is used to adjust the pressing force of the clamp mechanism 20. This adjusting means 40 includes pressure detecting means (pressure sensors) 41 and 43. These pressure sensors 41 and 43 are mounted, for example, at the Appeal 2012-008792 Application 12/190,001 4 piston portions of pressing members 21 to 23. A suitable pressing force (F1 or F2 or F3) is calculated based on the detected pressure, and fed back to the clamp mechanism 20 for controlling the pressing force in real time. Spec. p.14, ll. 17–28. Appellants point out this aspect of their claimed invention on page 4 of their Appeal Brief and on pages 3–4 of the Reply Brief. It is the Examiner’s position that Matusmoto '270 teaches adjusting means that is equivalent to Appellants’ claimed adjusting means. The Examiner finds that Matsumoto '270’s adjusting means is regulators 13 controlled by control unit 70. Ans. 5. However, the Examiner has failed to establish that the regulators in Matsumoto '270 are equivalent to Appellants’ pressure sensors 41 and 43. Ans. 5. Matsumoto '270, para. [0070]. As such, we reverse Rejection 1. Because Korte does not cure this stated deficiency in Matsumoto '270, we also reverse Rejection 2. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION Each rejection is reversed. REVERSED mat Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation