Ex Parte Yonezawa et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 27, 2012

10570892 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 27, 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.
10/570,892 03/07/2006 Keitaro Yonezawa YONE3021/JJC/PMB 9285
23364 7590 06/28/2012
BACON & THOMAS, PLLC
625 SLATERS LANE
FOURTH FLOOR
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314-1176
EXAMINER
SHAKERI, HADI
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3727
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/28/2012 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,
and YOSUKE HARUNA
____________________

Appeal 2010-004617
Application 10/570,892
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 2010-004617
Application 10/570,892
2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Keitaro Yonezawa et al. (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134
from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-3, 5, 8, 9, 11, and 13. The
Examiner has withdrawn claims 4, 6, 7, 10, and 12 from consideration. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
The Claimed Subject Matter
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter.
1. A clamping apparatus comprising;
a plug portion, including a housing, projected from a first
block so as to be inserted into a insertion hole opened in a
second block,
a support surface formed on the housing so as to be
brought into contact with a supported surface formed on the
second block,
a fluid flow hole opened in the support surface,
a gap supporting member provided on the first block so
as to push the second block in such a direction as to separate the
second block from the first block and to form a gap between the
supported surface and the support surface, and
a pull member eliminating the gap by making the second
block approach the first block against a pushing force of the gap
supporting member in such a condition that an outer peripheral
surface of the plug portion is brought into close contact with an
inner peripheral surface of the insertion hole in a radial
direction.
Evidence
The Examiner relied on the following evidence in rejecting the claims
on appeal:
Forrer
Yonezawa
US 6,161,826
US 6,527,266 B1
Dec. 19, 2000
Mar. 4, 2003
Appeal 2010-004617
Application 10/570,892
3
Rejection
The Examiner rejected claims 1-3, 5, 8, 9, 11, and 13 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Yonezawa and Forrer.
OPINION
In contesting the rejection, Appellants group dependent claims 2, 3, 5,
8, 9, and 13 with claim 1. See App. Br. 15. Thus, in accordance with 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii), these claims stand or fall with claim 1.
Appellants assert separate arguments for the patentability of claim 11.
Thus, we address separately the rejection of claim 11.
The issue presented in the appeal of the rejection of claim 1 is whether
Yonezawa’s coned disc spring 24 is “a gap supporting member provided on
the first block so as to push the second block in such a direction as to
separate the second block from the first block and to form a gap between the
supported surface and the support surface” as called for in claim 1. Ans. 3;
App. Br. 13; Reply Br. 5-6.
Yonezawa’s coned disc spring 24 urges the shuttle member 23
upward. Col. 4, ll. 65-67. Consequently, the disc spring 24, through the
shuttle member 23, exerts a biasing force that pushes a second block
supported on the shuttle member 23 upward, i.e., in a direction away from
the first block (pallet 2). See Yonezawa, col. 6, ll. 28-37 (describing the
tapered positioning hole 12 of work pallet 3 “first” being brought into
contact with the tapered surface 28 of the shuttle member 23 by the weight
of the work pallet 3 following the lowering of the pull rod 31).
Yonezawa further describes:
Substantially at the same time as this operation, as shown
in FIG. 4, each pushing surface 36 of the pull rod 31 pushes
each of the balls 34 to the radially outward engaging position
(X). The radial pushing force a is converted to a downward
Appeal 2010-004617
Application 10/570,892
4
force through the tapered engaging hole 13. The downward
force strongly lowers the work pallet 3.
Then the tapered positioning hole 12 makes a strong
tapering engagement with the tapered surface 28 of the shuttle
member 23 and moves while aligning. This makes the axis of
the tapered positioning hole 12 precisely coincident with that of
the plug portion 21 and further lowers the shuttle member 23
against the coned disc spring 24, thereby enabling the support
surface (S) to receive the surface (T) to be supported.
Col. 6, ll. 40-53 (italics added).
Thus, in the use of the clamping apparatus described by Yonezawa,
the tapered positioning hole 12 of the work pallet is first brought into contact
with the tapered surface 28 of the shuttle member 23 with a gap between the
support surface (S) and the surface (T) to be supported. Appellants concede
that “the shuttle member 23 . . . supports the work pallet 3 to have the
contact gap β between the support surface S and the supported surface T.”
Reply Br. 5-6. That the coned disc spring 24 may not directly contact the
work pallet 3 in no way diminishes the fact that the coned spring 24 provides
the biasing force to push the work pallet 3 upward. Claim 1 does not require
direct contact between the second block and the gap supporting member.
Further, the fact that the gap between the supported surface (T) and
the support surface (S) ultimately is eliminated does not diminish the fact
that Yonezawa’s coned disc spring 24 pushes in a direction to create such a
gap, and is not inconsistent with the coned disc spring being considered a
gap supporting member as claimed. In fact, the gap elimination occurs as
described in the last paragraph of claim 1.
Specifically, as described in the disclosure of Yonezawa quoted
above, the gap between the supported surface (T) and support surface (S) of
Yonezawa’s clamping apparatus is eliminated by the downward force
Appeal 2010-004617
Application 10/570,892
5
exerted on the work pallet 3 upon engagement of the balls 34 with tapered
engaging hole 13. That downward force is caused by downward movement
of the pull rod 31 and causes the further lowering of the shuttle member 23
against the coned disc spring 24 after the initial contact between the tapered
positioning hole 12 of the work pallet and the tapered surface 28 of the
shuttle member 23. In other words, Yonezawa’s pull member (pull rod 31)
eliminates the gap by making the second block (work pallet 3) approach the
first block against a pushing force of the gap supporting member (coned disc
spring 24) in such a condition that an outer peripheral surface of the plug
portion (balls 34) is brought into close contact with an inner peripheral
surface of the insertion hole (tapered engaging hole 13) in a radial direction,
as called for in the last paragraph of claim 1.
For the above reasons, the Examiner did not err in reading the “gap
supporting member” of Appellants’ claim 1 on Yonezawa’s coned disc
spring 24. We sustain the rejection of claim 1 and of dependent claims 2, 3,
5, 8, 9, and 13, which fall with claim 1, as unpatentable over Yonezawa and
Forrer.
Claim 11 depends from claim 1 and further requires that the plug
portion be provided with an outer member that has “an inclined inner surface
vertically movably [sic]” and that is radially expanded to come into close
contact with the insertion hole by a “tapering engagement of the inclined
inner surface.”
Appellants argue that the outward movement of Yonezawa’s balls 34
in the radial direction is not radial expansion, that the curved surfaces of the
balls 34 are not an “inclined” inner surface, and that the balls 34 do not
come into close contact with the insertion hole by a tapering engagement of
Appeal 2010-004617
Application 10/570,892
6
the inclined inner surface. App. Br. 16-17; Reply Br. 9-10. These
arguments are not convincing.
Appellants argue that “expansion requires more that [sic] the mere
geographical moving of elements” and that, in light of paragraph [0046] of
Appellants’ Specification, a person of ordinary skill in the art would
understand that the “redial [sic] expansion of the outer member requires an
increase in size, shape, and/or volume, which can be restored by the elastic
restoring force of the outer member.” Reply Br. 9.
When claim terminology is construed in the United States Patent and
Trademark Office, claims are to be given their broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the specification, reading claim language in
light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in
the art. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir.
2004).
The words of a claim are generally given their ordinary and
customary meaning as understood by a person of ordinary skill
in the art when read in the context of the specification and
prosecution history. . . . There are only two exceptions to this
general rule: 1) when a patentee sets out a definition and acts as
his own lexicographer, or 2) when the patentee disavows the
full scope of a claim term either in the specification or during
prosecution. . . .
To act as its own lexicographer, a patentee must “clearly
set forth a definition of the disputed claim term” other than its
plain and ordinary meaning. . . . It is not enough for a patentee
to simply disclose a single embodiment or use a word in the
same manner in all embodiments, the patentee must “clearly
express an intent” to redefine the term.
Thorner v. Sony Comp. Entm’t Am., LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir.
2012) (internal citations omitted).
Appeal 2010-004617
Application 10/570,892
7
Paragraph [0046] of Appellants’ Specification describes an
embodiment of a radially expanding member comprising an outer sleeve that
“is allowed to diametrically expand and diametrically contract” by its own
elastic restoring force. However, that paragraph does not clearly set forth a
definition of “expanding” or “radially expanding” or suggest that this
terminology is used in a manner other than its plain and ordinary meaning.
Appellants do not point to any other portion of the Specification that
explicitly sets forth a definition of, or clearly expresses an intent to redefine,
the term “expanding.”
Where the specification does not assign or suggest a particular
definition to a claim term, in determining the ordinary and customary
meaning of the claim term as viewed by a person of ordinary skill in the art,
it is appropriate to consult a general dictionary definition of the word for
guidance. See Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1322-23 (Fed. Cir.
2005) (en banc).
Consistent with a general dictionary definition, an ordinary and
customary meaning of “expand” is “to spread out” or “to move apart.” See,
e.g., Webster's New World Dictionary 492, 1378 (David B. Guralnik ed., 2nd
Coll. Ed., Simon & Schuster, Inc. 1984) (defining “expand” as “to spread
out” and “spread” as “to move apart”). Notably, this definition does not
require an increase in size, shape, or volume that can be restored by the
elastic restoring force of the member.
Yonezawa’s pull rod 31 moves balls 34 apart in the radial direction by
contact of the pushing surface 36 with the inner surfaces of the balls 34, thus
“radially expanding” them as claimed, with the terminology “radially
expanding” being construed consistent with the ordinary and customary
meaning of “expand” cited above.
Appeal 2010-004617
Application 10/570,892
8
The Examiner also has established a sound basis for the finding that
Yonezawa’s balls 34 have an “inclined inner surface” as claimed.
Specifically, the Examiner asserts that “a curved surface meets the recitation
of an ‘inclined surface’, as it may be defined by a surface having a slope, an
angle or to lean,” and Appellants have not pointed to any error in that
assertion. See Ans. 5; Reply Br. 10.
Finally, Appellants have not provided any special definition for
“tapering engagement” or alleged that this terminology has established a
special meaning in the art. Given that the pushing surface 36 that engages
the inner surfaces of the balls 34 to make the balls 34 come into close
contact with the tapered engaging hole 13 is a tapered surface, the Examiner
did not err in finding that the balls come into close contact with the insertion
hole by a “tapering engagement” of the inclined inner surface. See Ans. 6.
For the above reasons, the Examiner did not err in determining that
Yonezawa and Forrer render obvious the subject matter of claim 11. We
sustain the rejection.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-3, 5, 8, 9, 11, and 13 is
affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

hh