Ex Parte Ikeda

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 13, 2018

14156068 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 13, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/156,068 01/15/2014 Yuji Ikeda
38834 7590 07/17/2018
WESTERMAN, HATTORI, DANIELS & ADRIAN, LLP
8500 Leesburg Pike
SUITE 7500
Tysons, VA 22182
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.
P24230USOO 1511
EXAMINER
MANLEY, SHERMAN D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3747
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/17/2018 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):
patentmail@whda.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte YUJI IKEDA
Appeal2017-003473
Application 14/156,068 1
Technology Center 3700
Before WILLIAM V. SAINDON, JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, and
ERIC C. JESCHKE, Administrative Patent Judges.
JESCHKE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner's
decision, as set forth in the Final Office Action dated September 11, 2015
("Final Act."), rejecting claims 1 and 3 under 3 5 U.S. C. § 102 (b) as
anticipated by Morihiron. 2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 IMAGINEERING, INC. ("Appellant") is the applicant as provided
in 37 C.F.R. § 1.46 and is identified as the real party in interest. Appeal Br.
2.
2 Morihiron is a 39-page document that includes an English-language
translation of JP 2009-103038 A, as well as the original document (in
Japanese). Morihiron was entered into the file history on January 15, 2014.
Appeal2017-003473
Application 14/156,068
BACKGROUND
The disclosed subject matter "relates to an internal combustion engine
that promotes combustion of a fuel air mixture in a combustion chamber
utilizing an electromagnetic wave." Spec. ,r 1. Claim 1, the sole
independent claim on appeal, is reproduced below, with emphasis added:
1. An internal combustion engine comprising:
an internal combustion engine main body
formed with a combustion chamber;
an ignition device igniting fuel air mixture in
the combustion chamber;
an electromagnetic wave emission device
that emits an electromagnetic wave to the
combustion chamber during a propagation of a
flame following the ignition of the fuel air mixture;
and
a control unit configured to control a
frequency of the electromagnetic wave emitted from
the electromagnetic wave emission device in view
of a resonant frequency of the combustion chamber
in accordance with a load or rotation speed of the
internal combustion engine main body.
DISCUSSION
Independent claim 1 recites, among other aspects, "a control unit
configured to control a frequency of the electromagnetic wave emitted from
the electromagnetic wave emission device in view of a resonant frequency of
the combustion chamber in accordance with a load or rotation speed of the
internal combustion engine main body." Appeal Br. 9 (Claims App.)
( emphasis added).
In the Rejection, the Examiner addressed this limitation by stating:
2
Appeal2017-003473
Application 14/156,068
The system [ of Morihiron] has a control unit #50 that controls
the frequency of the electromagnetic wave emitted to the
combustion chamber from the electromagnetic wave emission
device #52 in view of a resonant frequency of the combustion
chamber in accordance with a load or rotation speed of the
internal combustion engine main body as disclosed in figure 3a
and paragraph 27.
Final Act. 3; see also Morihiron, Fig. 1 (showing elements 50 and 52). The
Examiner also stated that "the total micro wave oscillation energy increases
by lengthening the oscillation time, and enlarging the oscillation output."
Final Act. 4.
Appellant argues that Morihiron fails to disclose the limitation shown
in emphasis above because Morihiron discloses a system "for controlling the
energy of [an] electromagnetic wave according to the state of engine
operation" but does not "disclose[] that it controls a 'frequency' of the
microwave as required in claim 1." Appeal Br. 3. Appellant asserts that
Morihiron also does not "disclose that the control of the microwave energy
is performed by controlling a 'frequency' of the microwave." Id. According
to Appellant, Morihiron "controls the energy of the microwave by
controlling either of the 'oscillation output' and 'oscillation time."' Id.
( citing Morihiron, abstract and claim 1 ).
We agree with Appellant's understanding of Morihiron. As discussed
by Appellant (id. at 4--5), paragraph 21 ofMorihiron describes Figure 2 as
depicting the "total microwave oscillation energy" as the "area formed of the
oscillation time and the oscillation output when the microwave oscillation is
performed." Morihiron ,r 21 (provided at Appeal Br. 4). 3 In other words, as
3 We note that the versions of the translations of paragraphs 21, 61,
3
Appeal2017-003473
Application 14/156,068
noted by Appellant, Morihiron essentially defines the depicted "total
microwave oscillation energy" as "the product of the 'oscillation output'"
(i.e., the power) on the y-axis of Figure 2 (and also Figure 8) "and the
'oscillation time"' (i.e., the overall length of time of irradiation) on the x-
axis of Figure 2 (and also Figure 8). Appeal Br. 4.
As noted above, to address the requirement in the limitation at issue to
"control a frequency of the electromagnetic wave emitted," the Examiner
relies on (1) the control of "oscillation time" in Morihiron and, in the
alternative, (2) the control of "oscillation output." See Final Act. 4.
As to the reliance on "oscillation time" in Morihiron, the record does
not support the Examiner's position. We agree with Appellant that
"oscillation time" in Morihiron "means a length of time to perform the
microwave irradiation" rather than "the duration of ... time of one cycle in a
repeating event or a period of the wavelength"-i.e., the inverse of
"frequency." Reply Br. 2 (emphasis omitted). This understanding of
"oscillation time" in Morihiron is supported by the disclosure in paragraph
21 that "the total microwave oscillation energy is increased by making the
oscillation time longer or making the oscillation output l[on]ger." Morihiron
,r 21. As argued by Appellant, "[i]fthe 'oscillation time' was understood to
be a time of one cycle in the microwave oscillation, this could not explain
and 62 of Morihiron provided by Appellant differ in some ways from the
translations provided in the file history. Compare Appeal Br. 4---6, with
Morihiron ,r,r 21, 61, 62. In the briefing, Appellant also provides translations
of the text in Figures 2 and 8 of Morihiron, which is not translated in
Morihiron as provided in the file history. The Examiner does not take issue
with the new versions of the translations of paragraphs 21, 61, and 62, or
with the translations of the text in Figures 2 and 8.
4
Appeal2017-003473
Application 14/156,068
why use of a longer cycle time (i.e., a lower frequency) can increase the
energy of the microwave." Appeal Br. 7; see also Reply Br. 4 ("To be
consistent with the statement of [Morihiron] that the longer 'oscillation time'
increases the oscillation energy, the meaning of the 'oscillation time' must
be the duration of a time during which a microwave oscillator continuously
acts to output the oscillation energy.").
We tum now to the Examiner's reliance on the control of "oscillation
output." In the Answer, the Examiner provides various figures, including
one that states that "[t]he energy of a wave increases withfrequency." Ans.
3. 4 The Examiner takes the position that the figure "clearly states that the
higher the frequency the higher the energy. So if you control the
oscillation[,] you control the energy and frequency of the system." Id. From
this, we understand the Examiner to take the position that increasing the
oscillation output (i.e., the power shown on the y-axis in Figures 2 and 8 in
Morihiron) necessarily requires increasing the frequency of the wave. 5 We
disagree with this reasoning.
Appellant points out that control of "oscillation output" as described
in Morihiron is "performed by controlling the power or voltage applied to
4 The Examiner does not provide citations for the diagrams provided
at pages 3 and 4 of the Answer. The diagram on page 3 appears to be slide
16 from a presentation available online. See en ergopedia, Essential
Physics, Harmonic Motion and Waves, available at
https://www.neisd.net/cms/lib/TX02215002/Centricity/Domain/4763/Notes-
%20Harmonic%20Motion%20and%20Waves.ppt (last visited July 12, 2018)
(hereinafter "ergopedia").
5 To the extent the Examiner relies on this portion of the Answer to
bolster the position that changing "oscillation time" also changes frequency,
we disagree with that position for the reasons stated in the prior paragraph.
5
Appeal2017-003473
Application 14/156,068
the oscillation device." Appeal Br. 8. Although the Examiner is correct that
overall microwave energy delivered can be increased by increasing the wave
frequency (see Ans. 3), overall wave energy delivered can also be increased
by increasing the amplitude. Indeed, in the same reference material that
appears to have been relied upon by the Examiner (see supra n.4), we find
this figure explaining how wave energy also increases with amplitude:
Energy and an1plitude
lower energy higher energy
See ergopedia, slide 17. The above figure states: "The energy of a wave also
increases with amplitude," and provides several line drawings to that effect.
To the extent the figure provided by the Examiner (Ans. 3) indicates
that the "total microwave oscillation energy" as disclosed in Morihiron
could be controlled via the frequency of the electromagnetic wave involved,
the record does not indicate that controlling the "oscillation output"
necessarily requires controlling the "frequency of the electromagnetic wave
emitted," as recited in the limitation at issue; "oscillation output" and
thereby total energy delivered over a certain time period can be controlled
6
Appeal2017-003473
Application 14/156,068
by factors other than wave frequency (such as amplitude). In other words,
Morihiron's disclosure of controlling total energy is not necessarily
delivered by controlling wave frequency, and as such, the Examiner's
anticipation finding is not supported by a preponderance of the evidence.
For these reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1, or the
rejection of claim 3, which depends from claim 1.
DECISION
We reverse the decision to reject claims 1 and 3.
REVERSED
7