Ex Parte Yonezawa et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 20, 2012

10565503 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 20, 2012)

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.
10/565,503 01/23/2006 Keitaro Yonezawa YONE3019/JJC/PMB 9795
23364 7590 06/21/2012
BACON & THOMAS, PLLC
625 SLATERS LANE
FOURTH FLOOR
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314-1176
EXAMINER
WILSON, LEE D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3727
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/21/2012 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte KEITARO YONEZAWA, GAKU YOSHIMURA,
YOSUKE HARUNA, and HIRONORI YAMADA
____________________

Appeal 2010-002819
Application 10/565,503
Technology Center 3700
____________________

Before: JENNIFER D. BAHR, WILLIAM V. SAINDON, and
MICHAEL J. FITZPATRICK, Administrative Patent Judges.

BAHR, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-002819
Application 10/565,503
2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Keitaro Yonezawa et al. (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134
from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-9. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
The Claimed Subject Matter
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter.
1. A clamping apparatus, comprising:
a first block provided with a support surface that receives
a supported surface of a second block,
a drive member axially movably inserted into the first
block,
a pull rod projected toward a leading end beyond the
support surface of the first block, and the pull rod is connected
to the drive member,
an inner engaging member axially movably arranged on
an outer periphery of the pull rod, the inner engaging member is
adapted to be radially movable with respect to the first block,
and the inner engaging member is adapted to be advanceable
toward the leading end by a pressing arrangement,
a plurality of outer engaging members to be inserted into
an engaging hole of the second block are arranged on an outer
periphery of the inner engaging member, the plurality of outer
engaging members are adapted so as to wedge-engage with the
inner engaging member from the leading end side, and an
output portion of the pull rod is connected to these outer
engaging members, and
the plurality of outer engaging members are adapted to be
radially inwardly movable by a returning arrangement.
Evidence
The Examiner relied on the following evidence in rejecting the claims
on appeal:
Hartley US 4,059,036 Nov. 22, 1977
Appeal 2010-002819
Application 10/565,503
3
Barry
Yonezawa '354
Yonezawa '509
Haruna
US 4,767,125
US 6,024,354
US 6,095,509
US 6,604,738 B2
Aug. 30, 1988
Feb. 15, 2000
Aug. 1, 2000
Aug. 12, 2003
Rejections
Claims 1, 4-6, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Yonezawa '509, Hartley, Barry, and Haruna.
Claims 2, 3, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Yonezawa '509, Hartley, Barry, Haruna, and
Yonezawa '354.
OPINION
Claim 1, the only independent claim involved in this appeal, requires
an inner engaging member axially movably arranged on an outer periphery
of the pull rod, and a plurality of outer engaging members arranged on an
outer periphery of the inner engaging member. Claim 1 further requires an
output portion of the pull rod to be connected to these outer engaging
members. The issue presented in this appeal is whether the combination of
references proposed by the Examiner renders obvious a clamping apparatus
having these features.
Appellants and the Examiner agree that Yonezawa '509 comprises a
pull rod 12 and an engaging member (collet 13 with engaging members 14).
Ans. 3, Br. 15. The pull rod 12 is movable in the axial direction relative to
the collet 13 and is not connected to the collet 13. See figs. 1(A), 2, 6, 7;
col. 5, ll. 21-38, 51-64. When the pull rod 12 is moved downwardly relative
to the collet 13, the tapered peripheral surface 12a of the pull rod causes the
engaging members 14 to expand outwardly such that the saw-tooth portion
on the outer peripheral surface of the engaging member 14 plastically
deforms and bites into the peripheral wall 2 of the workpiece 1. Col. 5, ll.
Appeal 2010-002819
Application 10/565,503
4
21-38. With respect to the claimed subject matter, Yonezawa '509
comprises only one engaging member, not an inner engaging member and a
plurality of outer engaging members as called for in claim 1.
The Examiner determined that “[t]o provide in Yonezawa ['509] inner
and outer engaging elements that are coaxial with the plug member would
have been obvious in view of the Hartley disclosure.” Ans. 3.
Hartley discloses an apparatus for gripping the inside of a tube for
shearing. The apparatus comprises an axially movable rod 7, two inner
engaging members (plugs 4, 5), and two outer engaging members (split rings
1, 2). Fig. 1; col. 2, ll. 29-39, 54-55. One of the two plugs (plug 4) is
threadedly connected to the movable rod 7 and the other of the two plugs
(plug 5) is threaded to a tube 6 through which rod 7 passes. Col. 2, ll. 41-48.
The split rings 1, 2 are “mounted” (i.e., placed) on the plugs 4, 5, but are not
connected to either the plugs 4, 5 or the rod 7. Col. 2, ll. 32-34. Hartley’s
split ring 2 is adapted to wedge-engage with the plug 5 from the leading end
side, in the manner called for in claim 1.
As pointed out by Appellants (Br. 17, 19), the Examiner’s proposed
combination of Yonezawa '509 and Hartley fails to render obvious an
arrangement wherein the plurality of outer engaging members are connected
to an output portion of a pull rod, as required by claim 1. As we found
above, neither Hartley nor Yonezawa '509 describes such an arrangement,
and the Examiner has not articulated any apparent reason why a person of
ordinary skill in the art, in combining the teachings of Hartley and
Yonezawa '509, might have been prompted to connect the outer engaging
members to an output portion of the pull rod. Further, the Examiner does
not rely on Barry, Haruna, or Yonezawa '354 for any teaching directed to the
connection of the outer engaging members to an output portion of the pull
Appeal 2010-002819
Application 10/565,503
5
rod. Indeed, the Examiner has not addressed this claim limitation or
responded to Appellants’ argument on this point.
For the above reasons, the Examiner has not established a prima facie
case that the subject matter of Appellants’ claims would have been obvious
to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Appellants’ invention.
We reverse both of the Examiner’s rejections.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-9 is reversed.
REVERSED

hh