Ex Parte InaguchiDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 15, 201714632408 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 15, 2017) Copy Citation 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. 14/632,408 02/26/2015 Yuuzou INAGUCHI 4952-264 7387 22429 7590 09/19/2017 HAUPTMAN HAM, LLP 2318 Mill Road Suite 1400 ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314 EXAMINER KELLY, CATHERINE A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3634 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/19/2017 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): docketing @ ipfirm. com pair_lhhb @ firsttofile. com EAnastasio @ IPFirm.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte YUUZOUINAGUCHI Appeal 2017-004800 Application 14/632,408 Technology Center 3600 Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JOHN A. EVANS, and JASON M. REPKO, Administrative Patent Judges. REPKO, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—4. App. Br. 7.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. 1 Appellant identifies the real party in interest as FANUC Corporation. App. Br. 2. 2 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Final Rejection (“Final Act.”) mailed May 5, 2016, (2) the Appeal Brief (“App. Br.”) filed November 2, 2016, (3) the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”) mailed November 25, 2016, and (4) the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”) filed January 25, 2017. Appeal 2017-004800 Application 14/632,408 THE INVENTION Appellant’s invention is a sliding door for an opening in a machine tool’s cover. Spec. 1:5—7. One of the door’s sliding members slides on the door-panel guide track instead of the door-frame guide track. Id. at 4:3—7. This configuration reduces vertical space for the guide-means installation. Id. at 4:10-12. Claim 1 is reproduced below with our emphasis: 1. A sliding door disposed in an opening of a cover surrounding a machine tool, the sliding door comprising: a door frame; and at least two door panels located inside the machine tool with respect to the door frame, wherein the door frame comprises a lower door frame guide track, the at least two door panels comprise a first door panel and a second door panel, the first door panel is located closer to the door frame than the second door panel, and comprises a lower door panel guide track, and at least one sliding member configured to slide on a vertical surface of the lower door frame guide track, the second door panel comprises at least two lower sliding members, the at least two lower sliding members of the second door panel comprise at least one first lower sliding member configured to slide on the vertical surface of the lower door frame guide track, and at least one second lower sliding member configured to slide on a vertical surface of the lower door panel guide track. 2 Appeal 2017-004800 Application 14/632,408 THE REJECTION The Examiner relies on the following as evidence: Hayashi et al. US 5,482,414 Jan. 9, 1996 Miller US 6,736,241 B2 May 18, 2004 Claims 1—4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Hayashi and Miller. Final Act. 2—5. ANALYSIS Claim 1 recites, in part, (1) a first door panel comprising “at least one sliding member configured to slide on a vertical surface of the lower door frame guide track” and (2) a second door panel comprising “at least one first lower sliding member configured to slide on the vertical surface of the lower door frame guide track.” That is, these sliding members of both the first and second doors share the “lower door frame guide track.” The Examiner finds that Hayashi teaches every limitation recited in independent claim 1 except for the shared door-frame track or a door-panel track. Final Act. 3. In concluding that claim 1 would have been obvious, the Examiner cites Miller as teaching these features. Id. at 3—4. The Examiner concludes that modifying Hayashi with Miller would have been obvious because (1) both are large mechanical devices and (2) doing so would have simplified installation in the way described by Miller. Id. at 4 (citing Miller col. 1 1. 36—col. 2 1. 16). Appellant argues the benefits that Miller describes do not apply to Hayashi. App. Br. 18—19. According to Appellant, Miller describes the benefits of installing a shared track for an elevator door, which does not apply to the door of Hayashi’s machine tool. Id. 3 Appeal 2017-004800 Application 14/632,408 For the reasons discussed below, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner has not supported the obviousness conclusion with articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning. To be sure, both Hayashi and Miller describe large mechanical devices. See Final Act. 4. But the Examiner has not shown how the benefits of Miller’s elevator doors would apply to Hayashi’s machine-tool door frame. See id. (citing Miller col. 1 1. 36—col. 2 1. 16). In particular, Miller explains that elevators typically use two separate header tracks. Miller col. 1 11. 29—30. One track guides the “fast” door and the other guides the “slow” door. Id. Instead of mounting two tracks in the field, Miller proposes coupling the fast door’s hanger panel (22’) to the back of the slow door’s hanger panel (22) using a factory-installed coupling track (24). Id. at col. 2 11. 10—23. This configuration is shown below in Miller’s Figure 2. F1G.2 Miller’s Figure 2 shows a cross-sectional view of the system. 4 Appeal 2017-004800 Application 14/632,408 Therefore, Miller proposes replacing field work with factory assembly to reduce installation time. Id. at col. 2 11. 20—23. Unlike elevator doors, which are mounted to an entrance in the field {id. at col. 1 11. 40-41), Hayashi’s doors are installed in the cover assembly itself. Hayashi col. 5 11. 29—35. In particular, Hayashi’s machine-tool cover has two doors sliding on guide rails 17 and 17a. See id. Fig. 3. Assembling rails 17 and 17a only requires securing them in parallel alignment. Id. at col. 5 11. 5—27. Although Miller’s factory coupling eliminates track alignment in the field (Miller col. 2 11. 20-23), Hayashi’s rails 17 and 17a, once secured, are already coupled via fixing member 18. Hayashi col. 5 11. 19-20. The Examiner’s proposed modification to Hayashi would involve securing a track to another part of the assembly, which still requires an alignment. Final Act. 4. For example, Hayashi’s track 17 could be moved to door panel 49, which involves at least aligning the coupling track to a door. See App. Br. 18—19. If anything, the Examiner’s proposed modification to Hayashi appears to make assembly more complex, not less. See id. On this record, the Examiner has not shown that Miller’s positional coupling would simplify installation of the lower guides for Hayashi’s machine-tool cover doors. Because the Examiner relies on that benefit in supporting the obviousness conclusion (Final Act. 4), we are persuaded by Appellant’s argument (App. Br. 18—19) that the Examiner has not adequately supported the obviousness conclusion. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1 or dependent claims 2-4 for similar reasons. 5 Appeal 2017-004800 Application 14/632,408 DECISION We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—4. REVERSED 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation