Ex Parte Fujieda et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 20, 2017

13376477 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 20, 2017)

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.
13/376,477 12/06/2011 Yasuhiko Fujieda 390054US41PCT 2910
22850 7590 07/24/2017
OBLON, MCCLELLAND, MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P.
1940 DUKE STREET
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314
EXAMINER
CHEN, KUANGYUE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3742
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/24/2017 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):
patentdocket @ oblon. com
oblonpat @ oblon. com
tfarrell@oblon.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte YASUHIKO FUJIEDA, MASATAKE TOSHIMA, and
YUUICHIROU MIZUTA
Appeal 2015-005144
Application 13/376,477
Technology Center 3700
Before EDWARD A. BROWN, LYNNE H. BROWNE, and
BRANDON J. WARNER, Administrative Patent Judges.
BROWN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Yasuhiko Fujieda et al. (Appellants)1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a)
from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—5. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b). We heard oral argument on July 6, 2017.
We REVERSE.
1 Kobe Steel, Ltd., is identified as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2015-005144
Application 13/376,477
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1 is the sole independent claim and reads as follows:
1. A mold heating device of a tire mold, in which a
green tire is accommodated, comprising:
a pair of ring members opposing each other along a
specific direction and across a space, in which the tire mold
having a ring-shape is disposed on planes perpendicular to the
specific direction;
nonmagnetic members arranged radially outside of the tire
mold and at intervals at a plurality of positions arranged in the
circumferential direction of said ring members, and coupling
both said ring members to each other;
a ferromagnetic non-conductive member provided on a
surface of each of said nonmagnetic members, the surface facing
the center axis side of said ring members; and
a coil supported by said plurality of nonmagnetic members
via said ferromagnetic non-conductive members so as to
surround the space, in which the tire mold is disposed, from the
outside of the direction perpendicular to the specific direction.
Appeal Br. 10 (Claims App.).
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 4, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Okada (JP 2008-100513 A, published May 1, 2008) and
Mitamura (US 2005/0016995 Al, published Jan. 27, 2005).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Okada, Mitamura, and Morgan (US 3,294,606, issued Dec. 27, 1966).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Okada, Mitamura, Morgan, and Manabe (US 4,599,061, issued July 8,
1986).
2
Appeal 2015-005144
Application 13/376,477
ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 4, and 5 as unpatentable over Okada and Mitamura
Claim 1 recites, inter alia, “a pair of ring members opposing each
other along a specific direction and across a space, in which the tire mold . . .
is disposed” and “nonmagnetic members arranged radially outside of the tire
mold . . . coupling both said ring members to each other.'1'’ Appeal Br. 10
(Claims App., emphasis added). The Examiner finds that Okada discloses
ring members P, S and nonmagnetic member 36c coupling ring members P,
S to each other. Final Act. 3 (citing Okada H 71, 73, Figs. 1, 13).2
Appellants contend that Okada does not disclose a connection
between “nonconductive coil covering member 36c”3 and rings opposing
each other across the space in which mold Ml is disposed, and, therefore,
nonconductive coil covering member 36c “cannot ‘[couple] both said ring
members to each other,’” as required by the claim. Appeal Br. 6—7 (citing
Okada annotated Fig. 13).
In response, the Examiner states that “[s]ince the non-magnetic metal
material 36c is arranged at the radial-direction outside of the ferromagnetic
non-conductor member 15b (Okada Fig. 13, Page 16 10071),” the Examiner
interprets paragraph 71 and Figure 13 as disclosing the limitation
“coupl[ling] both said ring members to each other.” Ans. 4.
2 The Examiner cites to an English-language translation of Okada.
3 We note that the Okada translation describes “nonmagnetic metallic
material 36c,” but not “nonconductive coil covering member 36c.” See
Okada 173. We also note, however, that Appellants’ annotation to Okada
Figure 13 identifies element 36c as a “non-magnetic member.” Appeal Br.
7.
3
Appeal 2015-005144
Application 13/376,477
The Examiner has not established by a preponderance of the evidence
that Okada’s non-magnetic metal material 36c couples upper support platen
P and bottom support platen S to each other, as required by claim 1.
Paragraph 71 of Okada does not mention non-magnetic metal material 36c,
much less describe any arrangement between non-magnetic metal material
36c and upper support platen P and bottom support platen S. Further, Figure
13 of Okada depicts heat shield 16b, on which non-magnetic metal material
36c is provided as the radially outermost element, being separated from tire
mold Ml and warming units 100a, 100b by empty space. See also Okada
1171, 73 (describing this figure). Figure 13 does not show that non­
magnetic metal material 36c couples upper support platen P and bottom
support platen S to each other in tire heating apparatus 8.
The Examiner’s use of Mitamura does not cure the deficiencies of
Okada. Final Act. 3. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim
1, and claims 4 and 5 depending therefrom, as unpatentable over Okada and
Mitamura.
Claim 2 as unpatentable over Okada, Mitamura, and Morgan
Claim 3 as unpatentable over Okada, Mitamura, Morgan, and Manabe
The Examiner’s use of Morgan to reject dependent claim 2 (Final Act.
4) and Morgan and Manabe to reject dependent claim 3 (id. at 4—5) fails to
cure the deficiencies of the rejection of claim 1. Accordingly, we do not
sustain the rejections of claims 2 and 3 for the same reasons as for claim 1.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—5 is reversed.
REVERSED
4