Akira SUGIYAMA

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 22, 2021

2021003107 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 22, 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.
16/021,901 06/28/2018 Akira SUGIYAMA 3245.P0001US 1816
23474 7590 09/22/2021
FLYNN THIEL, P.C.
2026 RAMBLING ROAD
KALAMAZOO, MI 49008-1631
EXAMINER
DIAB, YASIR A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3722
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/22/2021 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):
DOCKET@FLYNNTHIEL.COM
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte AKIRA SUGIYAMA

Appeal 2021-003107
Application 16/021,901
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before MICHAEL J. FITZPATRICK, MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, and
JEREMY M. PLENZLER, Administrative Patent Judges.

FITZPATRICK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appellant, Akira Sugiyama,1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from
the Examiner’s final decision rejecting claims 1–5, 7, and 9. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 “Appellant” refers to the applicant as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42, and
Appellant is the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2021-003107
Application 16/021,901

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Specification
The disclosure “relates to a table apparatus capable of flexibly
recombining two or more machine tables (5) with respect to a machine base
(3) in accordance with machining contents of a workpiece in a machine tool,
for example, a portal type machining center.” Spec. ¶1.
The Rejected Claims
Claims 1–5, 7, and 9 are rejected; no other claims are pending. Final
Act. 1. Claim 1 is representative and reproduced below.
1. A flexible multi-table system comprising:
two or more machine tables movably supported between
a workpiece machining position and a workpiece change over
position separated from said workp[ie]ce machining position on
longitudinal linear ways of a machine base,
one or more machine heads movable in multiple axial
directions of the machine base,
a rack and pinion driving system for moving the two or
more machine tables, the rack and pinion driving system
comprising rack gear ways installed in a longitudinal direction
of the machine base, pinion gears engaged with the rack gear
ways, a respective feed servo motor attached to each respective
machine table for driving the pinion gears and
a control unit for controlling the movement of the
machine tables,
wherein unprocessed workpieces are attached to the
machine tables at the workpiece change over position, the
unprocessed workpieces are machined by the one or more
machine heads at the workpiece machining position and
machined workpieces are removed at the workpiece change
over position and, in a table linkage mode, a large unprocessed
workpiece is attached to two or more machines at the workpiece
change over position, the large unprocessed workpiece
Appeal 2021-003107
Application 16/021,901

3
machined by the one or more machine heads at the workpiece
machining position and removed from the two or more machine
tables at the workpiece change over position,
the control unit being configured to move each of the
machine tables independently in a table independent mode and,
in the table linkage mode, move the two or more machine tables
in the same direction, at the same speed and in the same
movement amount in a synchronized state.
Appeal Br. Claims App. 1. (paragraphing added).
The Examiner’s Rejection
The Examiner rejected claims 1–5, 7, and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)
as indefinite. Final Act. 2–4. The Examiner additionally rejected claims 1–
5, 7, and 9 as unpatentable over prior art but withdrew those rejections.
Compare Final Act. 4–8, with Ans. 5–6.
DISCUSSION
A claim is indefinite if, after applying the broadest reasonable
interpretation in light of the specification, the metes and bounds of a claim
are not clear because the claim contains words or phrases whose meaning is
unclear. In re Packard, 751 F.3d 1307, 1310 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (per curiam);
see also Ex parte McAward, No. 2015-006416, 2017 WL 3669566, at *5
(PTAB Aug. 25, 2017) (precedential) (adopting the approach for assessing
indefiniteness approved by the Federal Circuit in Packard).
The Examiner determined claim 1 was indefinite based on at least the
following recitations: “wherein unprocessed workpieces are attached to the
machine tables at the workpiece change over position,” “the unprocessed
workpieces are machined by the one or more machine heads at the
workpiece machining position,” “machined workpieces are removed at the
workpiece change over position,” “a large unprocessed workpiece is
Appeal 2021-003107
Application 16/021,901

4
attached to two or more machines at the workpiece change over position,”
and “the large unprocessed workpiece machined by the one or more machine
heads at the workpiece machining position and removed from the two or
more machine tables at the workpiece change over position.” Final Act. 2–
3.
Due to these recitations, the Examiner determined that it was “unclear
. . . if the apparatus (the flexible multi-table system) of claim 1 requires the
processed and unprocessed workpieces, let alone requiring the workpieces to
be attached, machined, and thereafter removed.” Final Act. 3. Elaborating
as to this determination, the Examiner posed the following questions:
Does the flexible multi-table system definitely require such a
workpiece and also require the workpieces to be manipulated as
such? Are the workpieces and their movements considered an
integral part of the structure of the flexible multi-table system?
Do they fall within the metes and bounds of the apparatus
claimed?
Id.
The Appeal Brief utterly fails to respond to, let alone rebut, the
Examiner’s determination that it is unclear whether the recited processed
and unprocessed workpieces are part of the claimed invention. Appeal Br.
3–4. Appellant’s entire argument with respect to claim 1 is the following:
In the present situation, in Claim 1, the structural elements
are two or more machine tables that are movably supported
between two different positions along longitudinal linear ways, a
rack and pinion driving system for moving the two or more
machine tables and comprising rack gear ways installed in a
longitudinal direction of a machine base, pinion gears engaged
with the rack gear ways, a respective feed servo motor attached
to each respective machine table for driving the pinion gears and
a control unit for controlling the movement of the machine
tables, the control unit being configured to move the machine
Appeal 2021-003107
Application 16/021,901

5
tables independently in a first mode or at the same speed, in the
same direction and in the same movement amount in a second
mode.
Id. at 3. Appellant’s response does not even speak to the recited processed
and unprocessed workpieces, let alone provide clarity with respect thereto.
Because Appellant fails to show Examiner error, we affirm the
indefiniteness rejection of claim 1, as well as that of claims 2–5, 7, and 9,
which ultimately depend from claim 1.

SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–5, 7, 9 112(b) Indefiniteness 1–5, 7, 9

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED