Ex Parte OWA

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 6, 2017

14011982 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 6, 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.
14/011,982 08/28/2013 Michiaki OWA Q205285 4660
23373 7590 11/08/2017
SUGHRUE MION, PLLC
2100 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, N.W.
SUITE 800
WASHINGTON, DC 20037
EXAMINER
AHMED, JAMIL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2886
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/08/2017 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):
PPROCESSING@SUGHRUE.COM
sughrue@sughrue.com
USPTO@sughrue.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MICHIAKI OWA1
Appeal 2017-001870
Application 14/011,982
Technology Center 2800
Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, MARKNAGUMO, and
SHELDON M. McGEE, Administrative Patent Judges.
GARRIS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant appeals from the
Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 1—9 as unpatentable
over Kitaoka (JP 08-233659; Sept. 13, 1996, as translated by machine) in
view of Hargis (US 2009/0257054 Al; Oct. 15, 2009). We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
'SHIMADZU CORPORATION is identified as the real party in interest.
App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2017-001870
Application 14/011,982
Appellant claims a spectrophotometer comprising: a light source
chamber 10; a spectroscopic chamber 20 containing a spectroscopic element
24, a sample chamber 22, and a detection unit 25; as well as a temperature
measurer 40, a temperature regulator 50, and a controller 31 acquiring
temperature information from the temperature measurer and controlling the
temperature regulator to keep the inside of the spectroscopic chamber at a
predetermined preset temperature (sole independent claim 1, Fig. 1). Certain
additional aspects of this spectrophotometer are recited in dependent claims
2-A.
A copy of representative claims 1—4, taken from the Claims Appendix
of the Appeal Brief, appears below.
1. A spectrophotometer comprising:
a) a light source chamber;
b) a spectroscopic chamber separated from the light
source chamber with a heat insulating section located
therebetween, the spectroscopic chamber containing a
spectroscopic element, a sample chamber, and a detection unit;
c) a temperature measurer measuring a temperature
inside of the spectroscopic chamber;
d) a temperature regulator heating and/or cooling the
inside of the spectroscopic chamber; and
e) a controller acquiring temperature information from
the temperature measurer and controlling the temperature
regulator to operate so as to keep the inside of the spectroscopic
chamber at a predetermined preset temperature.
2. The spectrophotometer according to claim 1, wherein the
spectroscopic element, the sample chamber, and the detection
unit are placed in the spectroscopic chamber so as to be spaced
apart from one another at necessary intervals.
3. The spectrophotometer according to claim 1, wherein the
preset temperature is higher than room temperature.
2
Appeal 2017-001870
Application 14/011,982
4. The spectrophotometer according to claim 1, being used
as a detection device of a liquid chromatograph.
We sustain the Examiner’s rejection for the reasons given in the Final
Office Action and the Answer. The following comments are added for
emphasis.
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds that Kitaoka discloses a
spectrophotometer comprising a spectroscopic chamber containing a
spectroscopic element, a sample chamber, and a detection unit as claimed
but that Kitaoka’s spectrophotometer does not include the claimed
temperature measurer, regulator, and controller (Final Action 2—3 (citing
Kitaoka Fig. 1 element 19 regarding the detection unit)). The Examiner
additionally finds that Hargis discloses a spectroscopic analysis system
having a housing with a thermoelectric controller comprising a temperature
measurer, regulator, and controller for maintaining a predetermined preset
temperature inside the housing {id. at 3^4 (citing Hargis Fig. 1,130)).
Based on these findings the Examiner concludes that it would have been
obvious to provide the spectrophotometer of Kitaoka with a temperature
measurer, regulator, and controller “so as to keep the inside of the
spectroscopic chamber at a predetermined preset temperature as suggested
by Hargis in order to keep the temperature to a desired set-point value for
the advantage of steady state operation” {id. at 4).
Appellant does not contest with any reasonable specificity the
Examiner’s above quoted reason for combining Kitaoka and Hargis but
rather argues that “the resulting combination would have a thermoelectric
cooler [sic, controller] applied to a housing which does not contain a
detection unit in the interior space of the housing” (App. Br. 8).
3
Appeal 2017-001870
Application 14/011,982
This argument lacks persuasive merit. As correctly indicated by the
Examiner (Ans. 4), Kitaoka expressly teaches “the poly clo room 19 [i]s a
primary detecting element. . . [containing] photodiode array 16...
[whereby] the optical power for every wavelength is detected by the
photodiode array” (Kitaoka 111). The Reply Brief acknowledges the
paragraph 11 disclosure of Kitaoka but fails to identify any error in the
Examiner’s finding that Kitaoka’s spectroscopic chamber (i.e., the
combination of Kitaoka’s front optical part 18 and the poly clo room 19)
contains a detection unit (i.e., Kitaoka’s photodiode array 16) as required by
claim 1.
Appellant also argues that Kitaoka and Hargis contain no teaching or
suggestion of the features recited in dependent claims 2—\ (App. Br. 12—18).
Appellant does not show error in the rejection of these dependent
claims. As correctly found by the Examiner, Figure 1 of Kitaoka shows the
spectroscopic element, sample chamber, and detection unit are spaced apart
from one another (Final Action 4, Ans. 12—13), thereby satisfying the claim
2 recitation “spaced apart from one another at necessary intervals” (i.e.,
spaced apart at intervals necessary to achieve the functions disclosed by
Kitaoka). Further, we agree with the Examiner’s conclusion that it would
have been obvious to provide Kitaoka as modified by Hargis with a preset
temperature higher than room temperature as recited in claim 3 (Final Action
4—5), particularly in light of the Examiner’s undisputed finding that Hargis
discloses temperatures higher than room temperature (Ans. 14—15 (citing
Hargis 130)). Finally, Appellant’s argument regarding claim 4 (App. Br.
16—18) fails to even address, much less show error in, the Examiner’s
determination that paragraph 2 of Kitaoka would have suggested using
4
Appeal 2017-001870
Application 14/011,982
Kitaoka’s spectrophotometer as a detection device of a liquid chromatograph
as claimed (Final Action 5).
The decision of the Examiner is affirmed.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—9.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1).
AFFIRMED
5