Ex Parte Fujiwara

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 8, 2016

10572718 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 8, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
10/572,718 03/21/2006
28289 7590 03/10/2016
THE WEBB LAW FIRM, P,C
ONE GATEWAY CENTER
420 FT. DUQUESNE BL VD, SUITE 1200
PITTSBURGH, PA 15222
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Yoshiyasu Fujiwara
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.
0388-060453 4614
EXAMINER
SUGLO, JANET L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2864
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/10/2016 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):
patents@webblaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL
BOARD
Ex parte YOSHIY ASU FUJIWARA
Appeal2014-002180
Application 10/572,718
Technology Center 2800
Before KAREN M. HASTINGS, GEORGE C. BEST, and
JULIA HEANEY, Administrative Patent Judges.
HASTINGS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's final
rejection of claims 1--4 and 6-9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable by
Fujiwara (US Pat. Pub. 2002/0052716 Al, published May 2, 2002) and further in
view of Bekedam (US Pat. 4,258,668, issued May 31, 1981 ). We have jurisdiction
over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 The real party in interest is identified as TL V CO., LTD. (App. Br. 2).
Appeal2014-002180
Application 10/572,718
Claim 1 is representative of the claimed invention:
1. An aggregating system for use with diagnosing a target
steam piping system equipped with a steam trap and a steam-using
device wherein steam is supplied to the steam-using devices through
the steam piping equipped with a steam trap, the system comprising:
inputting means for receiving inputs of a total receiving steam
amount (Qi) and a total necessary steam amount ( Qo) of the
evaluation target steam piping or an input of a total unknown steam
amount ( Qx = Qi - Qo) which is a difference between the total
receiving steam amount and the total necessary steam amount and is a
total steam loss amount in the evaluation target steam piping;
calculating means for:
determining a total receiving steam amount (Qi) which is a total
amount of steam supplied to an evaluation target steam piping system
equipped with a steam trap and a steam using device wherein steam is
supplied to the steam using device through the steam piping equipped
with a steam trap and a total necessary steam amount (Qo) which is a
total amount of steam required by a steam-using device in the
evaluation target steam piping system or determining a difference
between said total receiving steam amount and said total necessary
steam amount as a total unknown steam amount (Qx = Qi - Qo)
which is a total steam loss amount in the evaluation target steam
p1pmg;
determining a total amount of steam loss which can be solved
by a predetermined system improvement in the evaluation target
steam piping as a total improvable steam loss amount (Qx - Qxx);
based on said determined total amount of steam loss:
obtaining a ratio ((Qx-Qxx) I Qx) of said total improvable
steam loss amount relative to the total unknown steam amount which
is the difference between the total receiving steam amount and the
total necessary steam amount as an improvable unknown steam ratio
(Kts = (Qx -Qxx) I Qx); or
obtaining a ratio (Qx I Qi) of the total unknown steam amount
(Qx) relative to the total receiving steam amount and a ratio
(Qxx I (Qi-(Qx-Qxx))) of a total basis unknown steam amount
(Qxx) relative to a value (Qi- (Qx - Qxx)) obtained by subtracting
2
Appeal2014-002180
Application 10/572,718
the total improvable steam loss amount from the total receiving steam
amount as an unknown steam ratio (Kx = Qx I Qi) and an improved
unknown steam ratio (Kxx = (Qxx I (Qi- (Qx-Qxx)))), respectively,
said total basis unknown steam amount (Qxx = Qx-(Qx-Qxx))
being a value obtained by subtracting said total improvable steam loss
amount from said total unknown steam amount; or
obtaining a ratio (Qx I Qi) of the total unknown steam amount
relative to the total receiving steam amount and a ratio (Qxx I Qi) of a
total basis unknown steam amount (Qxx) relative to the total receiving
steam amount as an unknown steam ratio (Kx = Qx I Qi) and an
apparent improved unknown steam ratio (Kxx' = Qxx I Qi),
respectively, said total basis unknown steam amount
(Qxx = Qx-(Qx-Qxx)) being a value obtained by subtracting said
total improvable steam loss amount from said total unknown steam
amount;
evaluating via a computer inputting, calculation and display
system the effectiveness of the predetermined system improvement on
the steam loss reduction on the basis of one of:
the improvable unknown steam ratio indicating the ratio of
reduction in the total unknown steam amount realized by the
predetermined system improvement;
the combination of the unknown steam ratio and the improved
unknown steam ratio indicating the ratio of reduction in the total
unknown steam amount realized by the predetermined system
improvement; and
the combination of the unknown steam ratio and the apparent
improved unknown steam ratio indicating the ratio of reduction in the
total unknown steam amount realized by the predetermined system
improvement; and
outputting the predetermined system improvement of the steam
piping system.
Appellant presents arguments for independent claim 1. See Appeal Brief,
generally. Appellant does not present separate arguments for claims 2--4 and 6-9.
Id. Claims not argued separately will stand or fall with independent claim 1.
3
Appeal2014-002180
Application 10/572,718
ANALYSIS
Upon consideration of the evidence on this record and each of Appellant's
contentions, we find that the preponderance of evidence supports the Examiner's
conclusion that the subject matter of Appellant's claims are unpatentable over the
applied prior art for essentially the reasons set out by the Examiner. We add the
following for emphasis.
It is axiomatic that "the PTO must give claims their broadest reasonable
construction consistent with the specification . . . . Therefore, we look to the
specification to see if it provides a definition for claim terms, but otherwise apply a
broad interpretation." In re ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379
(Fed. Cir. 2007). "[A]s applicants may amend claims to narrow their scope, a
broad construction during prosecution creates no unfairness to the applicant or
patentee." Id.
Appellant argues that the claimed invention requires that the method of
steam loss calculation includes loss due to condensation within the piping structure
outside the steam trap, as well as the loss of steam due to the steam trap itself. The
Appellant contends that the cited portions of neither Fujiwara nor Bekedam teach
calculation of steam loss due to condensation and steam loss outside the steam
trap, as well as within the steam trap (See Appeal Br. 8-9).
The Examiner responds that the arguments are not commensurate with the
scope of claim 1 (Ans. 2). Claim 1 does not specifically recite "calculation of
steam loss due to condensation and steam loss outside the steam trap" and thus is
much broader than argued by Appellant (id.). The Examiner aptly points out that
Appellant's argument relies upon claim limitations that are not recited (Ans. 2-3).
It is well established that limitations not appearing in the claims cannot be relied
upon for patentability. In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982).
4
Appeal2014-002180
Application 10/572,718
It has also been established that "the [obviousness] analysis need not seek
out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged
claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a
person of ordinary skill in the art would employ." KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). Likewise, it is also well settled that a reference stands
for all of the specific teachings thereof as well as the inferences one of ordinary
skill in the art would have reasonably been expected to draw therefrom. See In re
Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264---65 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
The Examiner cites Fujiwara as teaching "calculating, based on said
diagnostic result data, a first total steam loss amount due to malfunction of steam
traps." (Fujiwara i-fl4). The Examiner also cites Bekedam as teaching "steam traps
will experience a percentage loss due to condensation" (Bekedam col. 1, 11. 7-19
and col. 2, 11. 5-9; Ans. 3). The Examiner reasonably determined that the amount
of steam intended for the system would have been known (Qo ), and "simple
mathematical manipulation" would yield the resultant variable of total receiving
steam amount (Qi) after measuring the steam/leak loss (Qx) (Ans. 3).
Given that a steam system as disclosed in Fujiwara comprises a steam
amount added to the overall steam system and further an aggregate amount of
steam lost by the traps, it reasonably follows that a person of ordinary skill in the
art at the time of the invention would have been able to derive, using basic
mathematical calculation, the variables recited in claim 1, including total receiving
steam amount (Qi), and a total necessary steam amount ( Qo) of the evaluation
target steam piping, or an input of a total unknown steam amount
(Qx = Qi-Qo).
Condensation is a factor in considering overall steam loss as exemplified in
the Bekedam reference. Condensation is therefore not an unexpected or unknown
5
Appeal2014-002180
Application 10/572,718
variable. Even assuming that steam losses argued by Appellant also need to be
considered, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably expected
that determining the amount of condensation would have been obvious if not at
least implicit from the teachings of the references.
By subtracting the aggregate amount of steam lost by the traps from the
difference of the amount of total steam added to the system initially and the
amount of steam that reaches the end of the system, a person of ordinary skill in
the art would have ascertained the final loss in steam difference. One of ordinary
skill would have readily appreciated that amount would have included
condensation (or other steam losses) as fairly taught by Bekedam.
After evaluating the references, taking into account the specific teachings
and inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw
therefrom, we have found no error in the Examiner's obviousness determination.
KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (2007); see also id. at 421 ("A person of ordinary skill is also
a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton."); see also In re Keller, 642 F.2d
413, 425-26 (CCPA 1981) ("The test for obviousness ... is what the combined
teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the
art."); In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) ("Non-
obviousness cannot be established by attacking references individually where the
rejection is based upon the teachings of a combination of references.").
Accordingly, for all the reasons stated above and in the Answer, Appellant
has not shown reversible error in the Examiner's obviousness determination.
The Examiner's decision is affirmed. 2
2 Should there be further prosecution of this application (including any review for
allowance), the Examiner may wish to review the claims for compliance under 35
U.S.C. § 101 in light of the most recent preliminary examination instructions on
6
Appeal2014-002180
Application 10/572,718
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this
appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
patent eligible subject matter. See "Preliminary Examination Instructions in view
of the Supreme Court Decision in Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank
International, et al.," Memorandum to the Examining Corps, June 25, 2014.
7