Ex Parte Elkins et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 30, 2016

11848548 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 30, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
111848,548 08/31/2007
30024 7590 09/01/2016
NIXON & V ANDERHYE, P.C.
901 NORTH GLEBE ROAD, 11 TH FLOOR
ARLINGTON, VA 22203
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Robert B. Elkins
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
JHN-1585-360 3979
EXAMINER
MCGUE, FRANK J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3646
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/01/2016 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):
PTOMAIL@nixonvan.com
pair_nixon@firsttofile.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ROBERT B. ELKINS,
RUSSELL FAWCETT,
DAVID SMITH,
MICHAEL KIERNAN,
RUSSELL STACHOWSKI,
GERALD A. LUCIANO,
MICHAELS. DEFILIPPIS,
CARL TON CLARK, and
RICHARD CARL LONGREN
Appeal2014-003863
Application 11/848,548
Technology Center 3600
Before MICHAEL L. HOELTER, SCOTT A. DANIELS, and
JILL D. HILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOELTER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a decision on appeal, under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), from a non-
final rejection of claims 1--4, 6-12, 21-24, 26, 27, and 29-31. Non-Final
Act. 1 (Office Action Summary). Claims 5, 13-20, 25, and 28 have been
Appeal2014-003863
Application 11/848,548
canceled. App. Br. 25, 27. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The disclosed subject matter "relates to a nuclear fuel assembly
including a fuel bundle and a tie plate for supporting the fuel assembly and,
particularly, relates to a debris shield attached to the Upper Tie Plate (UTP)
of the fuel bundle assembly." Spec. i-f 1. Claims 1, 6, 7, and 29 are
independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of the claims on appeal and is
reproduced below:
1. A nuclear reactor fuel assembly for an operational
nuclear reactor core comprising:
a fuel bundle including full length fuel rods, tie rods and
at least one water rod, wherein the full length fuel rods, tie rods
and at least one water rod are each capped by an upper end
plug, and wherein an upper tie plate is attached to each of the
upper end plugs; and a channel forms a wall extending around
the full length fuel rods, the tie rods, the at least one water rod
and the upper tie plate, wherein the fuel assembly is configured
to be positioned in the operational reactor core;
the upper tie plate includes a planar network of
interconnected apertures adapted to receive the upper end plugs,
and
a debris shield at least partially in the wall of the channel,
adjacent the planar network of the upper tie plate, and above the
full length fuel rods, the tie rods and the at least one water rod,
wherein the debris shield includes a porous surface extending to
or over the wall of the channel, wherein the porous surface of
the debris shield includes pin support apertures each configured
to be aligned with and receive one of the upper end plugs, and
pores in the porous surface are each individually smaller than
each of the pin support apertures.
2
Appeal2014-003863
Application 11/848,548
REFERENCES RELIED ON BY THE EXAMINER
Matzner US 5,483,564 Jan. 9, 1996
Dunlap US 5,809,101 Sept. 15, 1998
Sternberg US 6,032,807 Mar. 7, 2000
Elkins US 2004/0013221 Al Jan. 22, 2004
Kajiwara JP 19770153554 Dec. 22, 1977
Ozawa JP 61083995 A Apr. 28, 1986
Masuhara JP 2003409041 Dec. 8, 2003
REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being
indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject
matter which the inventor regards as the invention. 1
Claims 1--4, 7, 10-12, 21, 22, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Elkins, Kajiwara, and Dunlap.
Claims 6, 9, 23, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Elkins, Kajiwara, Dunlap, Masuhara, and Matzner.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Elkins, Kajiwara, Dunlap, Masuhara, Matzner, and Sternberg.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Elkins, Kajiwara, Dunlap, and Masuhara.
Claims 29 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Elkins, Kajiwara, and Ozawa.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Elkins, Kajiwara, Ozawa, and Masuhara.
1 The rejection of claims 1, 6, 8, 9, 12, 13, 23, 24, 29, and 31 under 35
U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, has been withdrawn. Non-Final Act. 3.
3
Appeal2014-003863
Application 11/848,548
ANALYSIS
The rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S. C. § 112, second paragraph,
as being indefinite
The Examiner notes that line 5 of this claim reads "at least one water
and." Non-Final Act. 3. The Examiner, however, indicates that this has
been interpreted to read "at least one water rod and." Non-Final Act. 3
(emphasis added). The Examiner states, "[a]ppropriate correction is
required." Non-Final Act. 3. Appellants do not "contest the rejection of
claim 7" but instead state that an amendment will be submitted "if and when
this application is returned to the Examiner after a decision on this appeal."
Reply Br. 1. Because no amendment to this claim has been made, we
sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 7 as indefinite.
The rejection of claims 1--4, 7, 10--12, 21, 22, and 26
as unpatentable over Elkins, Kajiwara, and Dunlap
Appellants argue claims 1, 2, 7, 10, 12, 21, 22, and 26 together. App.
Br. 10-19. Appellants also present arguments regarding claim 3 alone (App.
Br. 19) and claims 4 and 11 together (App. Br. 19). We select claims 1, 3,
and 4 for review with the remaining claims standing or falling with their
respectively selected claim. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Claim 1
The Examiner primarily relies on Elkins for disclosing the recited
limitations, but relies on Kajiwara for teaching "a debris shield 30 adjacent
to the upper tie plate 20," and on Dunlap for evidencing "that the debris
shield 30 of Kajiwara can function to shield debris." Non-Final Act. 4--5
referencing Kajiwara Figures 2 and 3; Dunlap 3:34--36, 3:54--59, and 4:4--7.
In short, the Examiner relies on Dunlap for teaching "the importance of
4
Appeal2014-003863
Application 11/848,548
providing debris shielding at the upper portion of the fuel assembly." Non-
Final Act. 5; see also Ans. 18. The Examiner concludes that it would have
been obvious "to construct the upper tie plate with debris shield in the same
manner as the lower tie plate 30 with debris shield 44 of Elkins."2 Non-
Final Act. 5.
Appellants contend, "Dunlap does not [teach] a debris shield
combined with an upper tie plate."3 App. Br. 10. Appellants' contention is
not persuasive of Examiner error for two reasons. First, the Examiner relies
on Kajiwara for teaching "a debris shield 30 adjacent to the upper tie plate
20 (figures 2 and 3)." Non-Final Act. 4--5; see also Kajiwara Abstract.
Second, Dunlap indeed discloses a debris shield combined with an upper tie
plate. See Dunlap 3:32-37, 3:54--56, and 4:4--7 (each discussing an upper
lifting handle that includes structure to prevent debris from escaping the fuel
bundle).
Appellants also contend "Dunlap teaches eliminating the upper tie
plate in a fuel bundle assembly." App. Br. 10; see also App. Br. 15-16, 18
and Reply Br. 5. Dunlap does discuss eliminating a conventional upper tie
plate as Appellants state, but Appellants fail to address Dunlap's follow-up
teaching of eliminating this conventional design "in favor of' Dunlap's
lifting handle which includes a debris shield. See supra; see also Dunlap
4:62---65. Consequently, Appellants' contention, "[b]y eliminating the upper
tie plate, Dunlap teaches away from the claimed invention" (App. Br. 10), is
2 For clarity, Elkins employs reference numeral 30 to identify a "lower tie
plate" and Kajiwara employs reference numeral 30 to identify a "grid plate."
Elkins i-f 16; Kajiwara Abstract.
3 Appellants further contend "Dunlap's rod support member is not a debris
shield." App. Br. 17.
5
Appeal2014-003863
Application 11/848,548
not persuasive of Examiner error in view of the fact that Appellants do not
address Dunlap's teaching of replacing this eliminated device "in favor of'
another that incorporates a debris shield.
Appellants additionally contend, "Dunlap teaches away from adding
an outer support wall to the rod support member." App. Br. 18. However,
the Examiner does not rely on Dunlap for this teaching, but instead relies on
Elkins for disclosing the limitation of "a channel forms a wall." Non-Final
Act. 4 referencing Elkins Fig. 1; see also Ans. 18-19.
Appellants further appear to make a non-analogous art argument
contending, "[t]he inventors addressed a problem of debris flowing in and
above a nuclear reactor core in a flow direction opposite to the normal
upward flow ofmoderator/coolant."4 App. Br. 12; see also App. Br. 14.
Appellants do not explain how the upper debris shield taught by the cited
references does not address this same problem, nor do Appellants explain
how this upper shield does not prevent debris from passing when subjected
to reverse-flow or no-flow situations. Dunlap, in particular, is specifically
concerned with "preventing failed end plugs from escaping the fuel bundle"
(see Dunlap 3:35-37, 3:54--56, and 4:6-7) and Appellants do not explain
how Dunlap's shield fails to likewise provide protective screening in a
reverse-flow or no-flow situation. See also Ans. 19. Hence, Appellants are
not persuasive that the problem addressed by the inventors was unique or
original to them. See also App. Br. 13, 18.
4 Appellants also address periods of no flow, i.e., "[t]he inventors realized
that debris could fall into a fuel bundle assembly while the core is not
operating and coolant does not flow." App. Br. 13.
6
Appeal2014-003863
Application 11/848,548
Appellants further address the need to minimize flow restrictions and,
in support thereof, Appellants reference the "Declarations of Latter, Higgins
and Longren, para. 6."5 App. Br. 13; see also App. Br. 10, 18. However, as
the Examiner points out, "the claim is silent on flow resistance." Ans. 19.
In short, the statements made by Latter, Higgins, and Longren in their
respective Declarations (see ff 6-8 therein) regarding a desire for limited
flow restrictions are not indicative of Examiner error. 6
Further addressing the matter of minimizing flow restrictions so as to
minimize pressure loss, Appellants contend, "it would not have been
obvious to substitute a lower tie plate debris shield with small pores as
shown in Elkins for the upper tie plate grid plate disclosed in Kajiwara."
Reply Br. 4; see also i-fi-1 6-8 of the Latter, Higgins, and Longren
Declarations. However, Appellants' contention concerning only Elkins and
Kajiwara does not take into account the Examiner's finding that "Dunlap et
al. teaches the importance of providing debris shielding at the upper portion
of the fuel assembly" or Dunlap's concern regarding the build-up of high
pressure within the system. Non-Final Act. 5; see also Ans. 18, Dunlap
2:40-42; 3:35-37, 3:54--56, 4:6-7. Appellants' contention which does not
incorporate the teachings of the entire combination of references relied upon
is not indicative of Examiner error. 7
5 Appellants acknowledge, "Dunlap describes the need to reduce flow
resistance at the upper end of a fuel bundle assembly." App. Br. 16
referencing Dunlap 2:40-42.
6 It is noted that paragraph 9 of these same Declarations address the matter
of downwardly flowing debris discussed supra.
7 "Non-obviousness cannot be established by attacking references
individually where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a
7
Appeal2014-003863
Application 11/848,548
Appellants further state, "[i]t was improper for the Examiner to rely
on Dunlap's reference to catching end plugs and ignore its teaching to reduce
coolant flow restrictions." Reply Br. 5. However, a combination of
references may be obvious even if the combination eliminates a benefit of
one of the references. See In re Urbanski, 809 F.3d 1237 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
In Urbanski, we are provided guidance from our reviewing court that
sacrificing one benefit to gain another in a predictable manner does not
amount to teaching away and does not negate a reason to combine (i.e., no
teaching away when one prior art benefit is traded for another).
Additionally, as noted supra, claim 1 does not recite the benefit that is
arguably lost. See Ans. 19. Accordingly, Appellants' argument is not
persuasive of Examiner error.
Appellants also address Elkins, noting that Elkins does not disclose a
debris shield "for an upper tie plate." App. Br. 14. However, the Examiner
relies on the teachings of Kajiwara and Dunlap for this. Non-Final Act. 4--5.
Appellants again address "[t]he problem faced by the inventors" (App. Br.
14), but this contention is not persuasive for the reasons previously
mentioned. See also Ans. 17. Appellants further contend, "[a]n upper tie
plate does not serve the same support function as does a lower tie plate: and
that "[a]n upper tie plate does not support the weight of all of these
components." App. Br. 14; see also Declarations of Latter, Higgins and
Longren, i-f 10. The Examiner finds that these support functions "are neither
found in the claims as written nor in any limitation provided to detail any
combination of references." In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed.
Cir. 1986).
8
Appeal2014-003863
Application 11/848,548
structural differences between the respective upper and lower tie plates."
Ans. 17. Further, Appellants fail to address Dunlap's teaching of a lifting
handle "adapted to support upper ends of the fuel rods and to prevent debris
from escaping the fuel bundle assembly."8 Dunlap 4:4--7 (emphasis added).
In short, Appellants' contentions are not persuasive of Examiner error.
Appellants further address Kajiwara, stating, "Kajiwara does not
disclose a debris shield. Kajiwara does disclose an upper tie plate having a
network of interconnected apertures." App. Br. 15. Appellants do not
address the Examiner's finding that "Dunlap et al. evidences that the debris
shield 30 of Kajiwara can function to shield debris." Non-Final Act. 5
referencing Dunlap 3:34--36, 3:54--59, and 4:4--7. Appellants instead focus
on Kajiwara, and not its teachings in combination with Dunlap. See Non-
final Act. 5. As such, Appellants' contention is not persuasive of Examiner
error. Appellants also argue that Kajiwara's item 30 is not "a separate
element" from Kajiwara's item 20 (App. Br. 15); however, there is no
support for this assertion in the teachings ofKajiwara (see Kajiwara Abstract
and Figs. 2, 3). Appellants further contend that reliance on Kajiwara is
improper because claim 1 "requires the debris shield to have a porous
surface with pores that are smaller than the apertures in the planar network."
App. Br. 15; see also Reply Br. 2-3. However, the Examiner relies on
Elkins for disclosing this limitation. Non-Final Act. 4 (referencing Elkins
Fig. 4). Accordingly, Appellants' contentions regarding Kajiwara are not
persuasive of Examiner error.
8 Dunlap's express disclosure is contrary to Appellants contention, i.e.,
"Dunlap does not teach that the debris shield should be used in conjunction
with the rod support member." App. Br. 18.
9
Appeal2014-003863
Application 11/848,548
Furthermore, Appellants refer to what is identified as "Figure 9 of this
application." App. Br. 16, 17. However, Appellants' present application
only has four figures. See Spec. i-fi-18-11. Appellants' arguments premised
on this "Figure 9 of this application" are not persuasive.
Appellants additionally state, "Dunlap's rod support member does not
have pores/openings smaller than its pin support apertures" (App. Br. 17; see
also Reply Br. 2, 4), but as indicated supra, the Examiner relies on at least
Figure 4 of Elkins for this disclosure. Non-Final Act. 4 ("pores 50 in the
porous surface are each individually smaller than each of the pin support
apertures 46").
Appellants also contend that Dunlap does not recognize the "problem
associated with debris smaller than broken pin ends or debris falling down
into the fuel bundle." App. Br. 17; see also Reply Br. 3. However, claim 1
is silent regarding the size of the debris and hence Appellants' contention is
not persuasive of Examiner error. See Ans. 18 ("the claim does not limit the
type of debris to be caught"). Appellants also state, "the combination of
Elkins '221, Kajiwara and Dunlap do not disclose or suggest a debris shield
having a porous surface 'extending to or over the walls of the channel' as
required by claim 1." App. Br. 19. However, Appellants do not otherwise
explain how the Examiner erred in relying on Elkins for this disclosure. 9
Non-Final Act. 4; Ans. 19.
Regarding the Declarations that were submitted, "[t]he Advisory
Action of December 2, 2013, indicates that the declarations were untimely
9 See also In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (the Board
reasonably requires a more substantive argument than a mere recitation of
the claim elements and a naked assertion that they are not found in the cited
art).
10
Appeal2014-003863
Application 11/848,548
filed." Reply Br. 5. As best understood, the Examiner seems to have made
this decision based on "the declarations attached to the appeal brief' when,
in fact, the submitted Declarations were copies of those submitted earlier.
Reply Br. 5 n2. Nevertheless, the Examiner did not address the content of
these Declarations and as such, Appellants contend, "[t]he failure to consider
the declarations in the final rejection is another error that requires reversal of
the rejections." Reply Br. 5 (citations omitted). However, as indicated
throughout this Decision, and as acknowledged by Appellants, the
"considerations and reasoning [of these Declarations] are discussed on pages
12 and 13 of the Appeal Brief." Reply Br. 6. Because the "considerations
and reasoning" contained therein have been presented to the Examiner, and
the Examiner has addressed such "considerations and reasoning," we are not
persuaded the Examiner's failure to specifically consider duplicative or
redundant language stated in the Declarations warrants reversal of the
Examiner's rejection.
Accordingly, and based on the record presented, we sustain the
Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 2, 7, 10, 12, 21, 22, and 26.
Claim 3
Claim 3 depends indirectly from claim 1 and includes the limitation
"wherein the at least one flat panel is adjacent the upper tie plate."
Appellants contend, "Dunlap does not have an upper tie plate, Elkins '221
does not show a debris shield for an upper tie plate and Kajiwara shows an
upper tie plate but not a debris shield." App. Br. 19. Appellants'
contentions are either incorrect ("Dunlap does not have an upper tie plate"),
or Appellants are not arguing the art relied on for disclosing that feature
("Elkins '221 does not show a debris shield for an upper tie plate"), or
11
Appeal2014-003863
Application 11/848,548
Appellants are arguing the art individually and not in combination
("Kajiwara shows an upper tie plate but not a debris shield"). See supra.
Accordingly, and based on the record presented, Appellants'
contentions are not persuasive of Examiner error. See Non-Final Act. 5;
Ans. 19. We sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 3.
Claim 4
Claim 4 depends indirectly from claim 1 and is directed to the flat
panel abutting the wall of the channel. Appellants recite this limitation in
full contending, "[n]one of these references show" such an arrangement.
App. Br. 19. Appellants' contention is not persuasive in view of Lovin
supra. See also Non-Final Act. 6; Ans. 19. We sustain the Examiner's
rejection of claims 4 and 11.
The rejection of claims 6, 9, 23, and 24
as unpatentable over Elkins, Kajiwara, Dunlap, Masuhara, and Matzner
Appellants argue claims 6, 9, 23, and 24 together. App. Br. 19-20.
We select independent claim 6 for review with dependent claims 9, 23, and
24 standing or falling with claim 6.
Claim 6 includes, among others, a limitation directed to a debris
shield having an upper horizontal rim, "a sloped porous side, and a solid
bottom." The Examiner relies on Matzner for disclosing these rim, side, and
bottom limitations, and identifies the motivation that would cause one
skilled in the art to use a debris shield configured as such. Non-Final Act.
11. Appellants contend, "Matzner does not have a solid bottom" (App. Br.
20), but do not explain how Figures 9 and 10 of Matzner (relied on by the
12
Appeal2014-003863
Application 11/848,548
Examiner at Non-Final Act. 11) fail to disclose this feature. 10 See also Ans.
19. In short, Appellants are arguing the art individually when the Examiner
relied on a combination of references for disclosing the recited limitations. 11
See Merck. Appellants' contentions are not persuasive of Examiner error.
We sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 6, 9, 23, and 24.
The rejection of claim 8 as unpatentable over
Elkins, Kajiwara, Dunlap, Masuhara, Matzner, and Sternberg
Appellants present no argument with respect to this rejection other
than to state that this rejection "Should be Reversed for the Reasons
Stated for Reversing the Rejection of Claim 6 On Which This Claim
Depends." App. Br. 21-22. This contention by Appellants is not persuasive
the Examiner erred in making this rejection. We sustain the Examiner's
rejection of claim 8.
The rejection of claim 27 as unpatentable over
Elkins, Kajiwara, Dunlap, and Masuhara
Appellants contend that the Examiner has not made a prima facie case
of obviousness because the Examiner "does not state how these references
show a removable debris shield." App. Br. 21. Appellants do not address
the Examiner's finding that Elkins teaches a debris shield "above" the planar
network while Masuhara teaches a debris shield "below" the planar network.
Non-Final Act. 14. Nor do Appellants address the Examiner's finding that
"[t]he position of the debris shield in relation to the upper tie plate is a
10 Appellants' also contend that Elkins and Masuhara lack these features
(App. Br. 20) but the Examiner relies on Matzner for this (Non-Final Act.
11).
11 For example, Appellants contend, "Kajiwara does not show a debris shield
that extends over and above its rim" when the Examiner relies on Elkins and
Masuhara for this. Reply Br. 6; Non-Final Act. 10.
13
Appeal2014-003863
Application 11/848,548
matter of design choice." Non-Final Act. 14. The Examiner concludes,
"placing the debris shield above the upper tie plate facilitates the removal
and insertion of the debris shield from/into the fuel assembly." Non-Final
Act. 14. Appellants do not indicate how this reasoning and conclusion, as
well as the Examiner's findings in support thereof, are in error. Instead,
Appellants merely state that Elkins, Kajiwara and Dunlap "do not disclose or
suggest" the claimed feature. App. Br. 22. See also Lovin, 652 F.3d at
1357.
We are not persuaded of Examiner error. We sustain the Examiner's
rejection of claim 27.
The rejection of claims 29 and 31
as unpatentable over Elkins, Kajiwara, and Ozawa
Independent claim 29, and its dependent claim 31, includes the
limitation of a debris shield having a porous region "and pores in the porous
region are individually smaller than each of the second pin support
apertures." In making this rejection, the Examiner relies on Kajiwara for
disclosing "debris shield 30 [that] includes a porous region." 12 Non-Final
Act. 15. However, the Examiner states, "Kajiwara fails to teach that the
porous surface includes pores that are individually smaller than each of the
pin support apertures." Non-Final Act. 15. On this point, the Examiner
references Ozawa for teaching "a porous surface [that] includes pores that
are individually smaller than each of the pin support apertures (figure 1;
pores in ribs)." Non-Final Act. 15. The Examiner also states, "Table 4
shows the holes located at the position marked ["o"] are small (see
12 The Examiner does not address Figure 4 of Elkins illustrating pores 50 in
debris shield 44 as discussed supra.
14
Appeal2014-003863
Application 11/848,548
dimensions). These holes are marked on Fig. 1." Ans. 20. Appellants
disagree stating "[t]he 'o' appears to be a reference symbol and is not an
indication that there is a pore in the rib." App. Br. 22; see also Reply Br. 7.
Appellants also state, "the 'o' symbols on the ribs shown in Figure 1 of
Ozawa refer to the dimensions shown in Table 4 of Ozawa." Reply Br. 6.
Regarding these different interpretations of Ozawa, there is no
English-language translation of Ozawa in the record that would assist us in
ascertaining what this "o" in Ozawa means. The supplied English-language
Abstract does not provide this detail. Failure to provide a complete English-
language translation of Ozawa runs counter to the guidelines expressed in
MPEP § 706.02(II) and also§ 1207.02.
Without an English translation of Ozawa, we are unable to determine
whether the evidence supports the Examiner's views of the alleged teachings
of Ozawa or whether the evidence supports Appellants' views of the alleged
teachings of Ozawa. Lacking an English language translation, we cannot
conclude that the preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner's
findings that form the basis for the rejection. Accordingly, we reverse the
Examiner's decision to reject claims 29 and 31 based on Ozawa.
The rejection of claim 30 as unpatentable over
Elkins, Kajiwara, Ozawa, and Masuhara
Claim 30 depends from claim 29. The additional reference to
Masuhara is not employed by the Examiner in a manner that might cure the
defect of Ozawa as discussed supra with respect to parent claim 29. See
App. Br. 23. We reverse the Examiner's rejection of claim 30.
DECISION
15
Appeal2014-003863
Application 11/848,548
The Examiner's rejections of claims 1--4, 6-12, 21-24, 26, and 27 are
affirmed.
The Examiner's rejections of claims 29-31 are reversed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
16