Akinori Ishizuka et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 6, 2021

2020004392 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 6, 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.
14/123,174 11/29/2013 Akinori Ishizuka 244729.000002 9530
6980 7590 07/06/2021
TROUTMAN PEPPER HAMILTON SANDERS LLP
600 PEACHTREE ST NE
STE 3000
ATLANTA, GA 30308
EXAMINER
MAYEKAR, KISHOR
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1795
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/06/2021 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):
jim.schutz@troutman.com
patents@troutman.com
ryan.schneider@troutman.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_______________
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
_______________
Ex parte AKINORI ISHIZUKA, IWAO YOSHINO,
and KUNITAKA MOMOTA
_______________
Appeal 2020-004392
Application 14/123,174
Technology Center 1700
_______________

Before DEBRA L. DENNETT, LILAN REN, and
MERRELL C. CASHION, JR., Administrative Patent Judges.

DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 4–6, 9, 10, 13, 16, and 20–36 of
Application 14/123,174. See Final Act. 1; Appeal Br. 1. We have

1 In our Decision, we refer to the Specification filed Nov. 29, 2013 (“Spec.”)
of Application 14/123,174 (“the ’174 Application”); the Final Office Action
dated June 24, 2019 (“Final Act.”); the Appeal Brief filed Dec. 2, 2019
(“Appeal Br.”); the Supplemental Appeal Brief filed Jan. 3, 2020 (Supp.
Appeal Br.”); the Examiner’s Answer dated Feb. 28, 2020 (“Ans.”); and the
Reply Brief filed May 26, 2020 (“Reply Br.”).
2 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant
identifies Microwave Chemical Co., Ltd. as the real party in interest.
Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2020-004392
Application 14/123,174

2
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.
For the reasons set forth below, we REVERSE.
BACKGROUND
The subject matter of the ’174 Application relates to horizontal flow-
type chemical reaction apparatuses capable of efficiently irradiating material
inside the reactor with microwaves. Spec. ¶¶ 5–6.
Claim 1 is representative of the ’174 Application’s claims and is
reproduced below with the limitation at issue italicized.
1. A chemical reaction apparatus, comprising:
a horizontal flow reactor configured to flow a content
horizontally, comprising:
an upstream side with an inlet configured to
receive unreacted raw material;
a downstream side with an outlet to discharge a
reacted produced material;
a plurality of chambers continuously arranged in series
between the upstream side and the downstream side;
a plurality of partition plates, partitioning the inside of
the reactor into the plurality of chambers, comprise a recess
portion on an upper side of the partition plates;
a flow path, provided through the recess portion in the
plurality of partition plates, through which the content flows
from the upstream side to the downstream side; and
an unfilled space provided above the horizontal flow
reactor continuous above the upstream side to the downstream
side and continuous above the plurality of partition plates in
the reactor;
a plurality of microwave generators configured to
generate microwaves;
Appeal 2020-004392
Application 14/123,174

3
a plurality of waveguides configured to transmit the
microwaves generated by the plurality of microwave generators
to the unfilled space in the reactor, respectively;
at least one thermometer configured to measure a
temperature inside the reactor;
a microwave generator controller configured to control
the plurality of microwave generators according to the
temperature measured by the at least one thermometer; and
an agitation unit comprising a rotation member
configured to agitate the content inside the reactor using
rotating agitation and the rotation member reflects microwaves
to assist in the heating in the unreacted raw material.
Supp. Appeal Br. Claims App. 2–3.
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies on the following prior art in rejecting the claims
on appeal:
Name Reference Date
Stiles et al.
(“Stiles”)
US 3,170,769 Feb. 23, 1965
Nordine et al.
(“Nordine”)
US 6,484,539 B1 Nov. 26, 2002
Xia et al. (“Xia”) US 2003/0066792 A1 Apr. 10, 2003
Jakes et al.
(“Jakes”)
US 2004/0056026 A1 Mar. 25, 2004
Borgstadt US 2010/0172202 A1 July 8, 2010
Soga et al. (“Soga”)
(as translated)
JP 2008-302281 Dec. 18, 2008

Appeal 2020-004392
Application 14/123,174

4
REJECTIONS3
The Examiner maintains the following rejections under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a):
A. Claims 1, 4, 6, 9, 10, 13, 20, 21, 27, and 30 over Jakes in view
of Borgstadt, either Stiles or Xia, and Soga;
B. Claims 5, 16, 22–26, 28, 29, 31, and 32 over Jakes in view of
Borgstadt and Soga;
C. Claim 33 over Jakes in view of Borgstadt, either Stiles or Xia,
Soga, and further in view of Nordine;
D. Claims 34 and 35 over Jakes in view of Borgstadt, Soga, and
Nordine; and
E. Claim 36 over Jakes in view of Borgstadt, either Stiles or Xia,
and Soga.
Final Act. 2–12; Ans. 3.
DISCUSSION
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellant and in light of the arguments and evidence produced
thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential)
(cited with approval in In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011))
(“[I]t has long been the Board’s practice to require an applicant to identify
the alleged error in the [E]xaminer’s rejections.”). After considering the
evidence and briefing presented in this Appeal, we are persuaded that
Appellant identifies reversible error in the Examiner’s rejections of the

3 The rejection of claim 36 as indefinite (see Final Office Action 2) is
rendered moot by Appellant’s Amendment After Final, filed Nov. 27, 2019.
Appeal 2020-004392
Application 14/123,174

5
pending claims. Thus, we reverse the Examiner’s rejections for the reasons
expressed in the Appeal Brief and Reply Brief. We add the following
primarily for emphasis.
The dispositive issue in this appeal is whether Jakes teaches the
limitation “an unfilled space provided above the horizontal flow reactor
continuous above the upstream side to the downstream side and continuous
above the plurality of partition plates in the reactor,” a limitation present in
all of the pending claims. See Supp. Appeal Br. Claims App. 2–10; see also
Final Act. 4.
Regarding this limitation, the Examiner finds that Jakes discloses an
apparatus comprising first and second chambers 102, 112, wherein the first
and second chambers can be positioned abutting each other within a suitable
peripheral container, relying on Jakes Figure 1 and paragraph 37. Final Act.
3–4.
Figure 1 of Jakes is reproduced below:

Jakes’s Figure 1 is an embodiment of the heat treatment apparatus
disclosed in the reference. Jakes ¶ 14. Apparatus 100 comprises a first
Appeal 2020-004392
Application 14/123,174

6
chamber 102 including first chamber crucible 104, first chamber inlet 106, at
least one first chamber microwave generator 108, and first chamber outlet
110. Jakes ¶ 18. Apparatus 100 has at least a second chamber 112 including
a second chamber crucible 114, an inlet 116 for receiving the melt from the
first chamber leading to the second chamber crucible 114, at least one
second chamber microwave generator 118, and a second chamber outlet 120.
Jakes ¶ 18. Apparatus 100 also has one or more baffles 122 or cascades 124
arranged within the apparatus. Jakes ¶ 18.
Paragraph 37 of Jakes states
The first chamber and second chamber can be positioned
abutting each other within a suitable peripheral container. As
shown in the exemplary apparatus 100 of FIG. 1, the first
chamber 102 and second chamber 112 are in direct
communication between the first chamber outlet 110, from
which melt can exit the first chamber 102, and the second
chamber inlet 116 for receiving the melt.
Jakes ¶ 37.
The Examiner finds
Although Jakes does not detail much of the two or more second
chambers in the heating zone II, however in view of Jakes’
teachings that the two or more second chambers can be in the
heating zone II and that the first and second chambers can be
positioned abutting each other within the suitable peripheral
container, it appears that Jakes’ teachings would lead one of
ordinary skill in the art to the provision of the plurality of
second chambers in the heating zone II abutted each other
within a container and with a single unfilled space . . . .
Final Act. 4 (emphasis added).
Appellant argues that Jakes fails to disclose an unfilled space that is
continuous in the reactor. Appeal Br. 8; Reply Br. 3. Our review of the
record indicates that Appellant’s position is correct.
Appeal 2020-004392
Application 14/123,174

7
The premise of the Examiner’s rejection is that Jakes teaches a
“plurality of second chambers in the heating zone II abut[] each other within
a container and with a single unfilled space and the flow path for the melt to
flow from one of the two second chambers to the other second chamber.”
Ans. 13. However, as the Examiner accurately states, “Jakes does not detail
much of the two or more second chambers in the heating zone II.” Final
Act. 4. Indeed, all that Jakes discloses in relation to the second chambers is
“two or more chambers can be in heating zone II.” See Jakes ¶ 19.
According to Jakes, the first chamber (in heating zone I) and the second
chamber (in heating zone II) may abut each other, and may be in “direct”
communication via an outlet from the first chamber and an inlet to the
second chamber. Jakes ¶ 37. This relationship is illustrated in Figure 1.
However, Figure 1 does not illustrate “two or more chambers” in heating
zone II in an abutting arrangement. Thus, the information the Examiner
relies upon is insufficient to support the Examiner’s determination that “it
appears that Jakes’ teachings would lead one of ordinary skill in the art to
the provision of the plurality of second chambers . . . with a single unfilled
space.”
The Examiner bears the initial burden, on review of the prior art or on
any other ground, of presenting a prima facie case of unpatentability. In re
Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992). When the references cited
by the Examiner fail to establish a prima facie case of obviousness, the
rejection is improper and will be overturned. In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071,
1074 (Fed. Cir. 1988). “[R]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be
sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some
articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal
Appeal 2020-004392
Application 14/123,174

8
conclusion of obviousness.” In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006),
quoted with approval in KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418
(2007).
Here, no prima facie case of obviousness is established, thus we
reverse the rejection of each pending claim as obvious.
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§ Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 4, 6, 9, 10,
13, 20, 21, 27,
30
103(a) Jakes, Borgstadt, Stiles, Xia, Soga
1, 4, 6, 9,
10, 13, 20,
21, 27, 30
5, 16, 22–26,
28, 29, 31, 32 103(a)
Jakes, Borgstadt,
Soga
5, 16, 22–
26, 28, 29,
31, 32
33 103(a) Jakes, Borgstadt, Stiles, Xia, Nordine 33
34, 35 103(a) Jakes, Borgstadt, Soga, Nordine 34, 35
36 103(a) Jakes, Borgstadt, Stiles, Xia, Soga 36
Overall
Outcome
1, 4–6, 9,
10, 13, 16,
20–36
REVERSED