Ex Parte Ikushima

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 23, 2016

11814224 (P.T.A.B. May. 23, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
111814,224 08/26/2008 Kazumasa Ikushima
38834 7590 05/25/2016
WESTERMAN, HATTORI, DANIELS & ADRIAN, LLP
1250 CONNECTICUT A VENUE, NW
SUITE 700
WASHINGTON, DC 20036
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.
071881 2325
EXAMINER
JACYNA, J CASIMER
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3754
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/25/2016 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):
patentmail@whda.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KAZUMASA IKUSHIMA
Appeal2014-000296
Application 11/814,2241
Technology Center 3700
Before MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, KENNETH G. SCHOPPER, and
BRADLEY B. BAY AT, Administrative Patent Judges.
ASTORINO, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's
decision rejecting claims 1, 4--6, 9, 10, and 13-16. Claims 2 and 7 have
been cancelled and claims 3, 8, 11, and 12 have been withdrawn. We have
jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 According to the Appellant, the real party in interest for this appeal is
Musashi Engineering, Inc. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal2014-000296
Application 11/814,224
Claimed Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 6 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal.
1. A liquid delivery method for delivering a liquid by
reciprocally moving a plunger in a cylinder while a selector valve
is shifted in a valve chamber to change over communication of
the cylinder and the valve chamber with a channel leading to a
liquid tank and communication of the cylinder and the valve
chamber with a channel leading to a delivery port from one to the
other, the method comprising the steps of:
arranging an opening/closing valve in a channel for
communicating the liquid tank and the valve chamber with each
other,
shifting the selector valve to a first position to establish the
communication between the cylinder and the channel leading to
the liquid tank and opening the opening/closing valve when a
liquid is filled in the cylinder,
retracting the plunger in the cylinder thereby drawing the
liquid into the cylinder from the liquid tank,
shifting the selector valve to a second position to establish
the communication bet\'l/een the cylinder and the channel leading
to the delivery port and closing the opening/closing valve, and
advancing the plunger in the cylinder thereby delivering
the liquid through the delivery port,
wherein the opening/closing valve is automatically opened
and closed by employing a check valve disposed in such
orientation that the liquid is allowed to flow from the liquid tank
to the valve chamber, but the liquid flow from the valve chamber
to the liquid tank is blocked.
Rejections
Claims 1, 6, and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Nishinomiya (US 7,357,280 B2, iss. Apr. 15, 2008) and
Fuji (JP 60006083 A, pub. Jan. 12, 1985).
2
Appeal2014-000296
Application 11/814,224
Claims 4 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Nishinomiya, Fuji, and Maekawa (JP 43-6644 B, pub. Mar. 12, 1968).
Claims 5 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Nishinomiya, Fuji, and Starr (US 4,793,524, iss. Dec. 27, 1988).
ANALYSIS
Independent claim 1 is directed to a liquid delivery method including
a liquid tank and a valve chamber and includes the step of "arranging an
opening/closing valve in a channel for communicating the liquid tank and
the valve chamber with each other" and further recites "wherein the
opening/closing valve is automatically opened and closed by employing a
check valve disposed in such orientation that the liquid is allowed to flow
from the liquid tank to the valve chamber, but the liquid flow from the valve
chamber to the liquid tank is blocked." Appeal Br., App. A (emphasis
added). Independent claim 6 includes similar requirements as claim 1.
The Examiner finds that Nishinomiya discloses a liquid tank (hopper)
3, a valve chamber (switchover cock) 15, and an opening/closing valve
(discharge-side valve) 9. Final Act. 2; see Nishinomiya, col. 4, 1. 59, col. 5,
11. 10, 27, Fig. 1. The Examiner also finds that Nishinomiya fails to teach a
check valve as required by claims 1 and 6. However, the Examiner finds
that Fuji's elements 39 and 40 teach a check valve for the purpose of
ensuring against back flow. 2 See Final Act. 2 (citing Fuji, Fig. 9). The
Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
2 The Fuji patent is written in Japanese, but is accompanied by an Abstract
written in English. The Abstract does not describe elements 39 and 40 of
Fuji, but Fuji's Figure 9 depicts elements 39 and 40 as a ball and a spring.
3
Appeal2014-000296
Application 11/814,224
in the art to provide Nishinomiya's apparatus "with check valves as ...
taught by Fuji in order to ensure against back flow."3 Final Act. 2.
The Examiner supports this rejection by determining that
Nishinomiya's foodstuff will be able to pass through check valves, as taught
by Fuji, because valves 8 and 9 essentially function as check valves by being
set to open and close with the movement of piston pump 7 and allowing
foodstuff to travel there-through. Ans. 6. Notably, the Examiner explains
Nishinomiya' s foodstuff includes vegetables, shrimp and meat "but does not
state that the foodstuff is comprised of only solid particles .... " Advisory
Act. 2, mailed May 3, 2013.
The Appellant argues that it would not have been obvious to provide
Nishinomiya with a check valve for switchover cock 15. See Reply Br. 6.
The Appellant asserts that assuming Fuji's elements 39 and 40 correspond to
a check valve, a liquid, such as Fuji's oil, cannot be treated the same as
Nishinomiya's foodstuff. See Appeal Br. 5, Reply Br. 6. The Appellant
points out that Nishinomiya's foodstuff includes solid shapes of food, e.g.,
meat pieces, which are conveyed through a feeding apparatus to a metering
apparatus without mashing or kneading the foodstuff. See Appeal Br. 4--5,
6-8, Nishinomiya, Abstract. Nishinomiya and Fuji, by themselves and in
combination, fail to teach a check valve to prevent foodstuff that includes
solid pieces of vegetables, shrimp, and meat from ensuring against back
flow. Rather, as the Appellant points out, a person of ordinary skill in the art
3 The Examiner explains that the modification ofNishinomiya's foodstuff
feeding apparatus does not replace valves 8 and 9 but adds a check valve to
Nishinomiya' s foodstuff feeding apparatus for selector valve 15 and piston
14. See Ans. 7.
4
Appeal2014-000296
Application 11/814,224
would understand that the solid pieces of Nishinomiya's foodstuff would
hinder the functionality of the ball and spring to act as a check valve because
the solid pieces would get stuck at the ball and spring. See Appeal Br. 5, 6-
7; Reply Br. 6-7. As such, the Examiner fails to adequately support the
finding that the ball and spring, as taught by Fuji, would be useful as a check
valve for delivering Nishinomiya's foodstuff. We determine that the
Appellant's argument is persuasive.
Thus, the Examiner's rejection of independent claims 1 and 6 and
dependent claims 13-16 as unpatentable over Nishinomiya and Fuji is not
sustained. The remaining rejections based on Nishinomiya and Fuji in
combination with Maekawa or Starr rely on the same findings discussed
above. As such, we do not sustain the rejections of claims 4 and 9 as
unpatentable over Nishinomiya, Fuji, and Maekawa and claims 5 and 10 as
unpatentable over Nishinomiya, Fuji, and Starr.
DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 4---6, 9, 10,
and 13-16.
REVERSED
5