MURATA MANUFACTURING CO., LTD.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 11, 2020

14884132 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jun. 11, 2020)

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.
14/884,132 10/15/2015 Seiji KAMBA 036433.03530 3398
38485 7590 06/11/2020
ARENT FOX LLP - New York
1717 K Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006-5344
EXAMINER
TURK, NEIL N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1798
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/11/2020 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):
patentdocket@arentfox.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SEIJI KAMBA, TAKASHI KONDO,
HIROKAZU SETO, and YOSHIKO MIURA
Appeal 2019-004663
Application 14/884,132
Technology Center 1700
Before LINDA M. GAUDETTE, JAMES C. HOUSEL, and
BRIAN D. RANGE, Administrative Patent Judges.

RANGE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–4, 6–11, 14, and 21–25. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Murata
Manufacturing Company, Ltd. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2019-004663
Application 14/884,132

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER2
Appellant describes the invention as relating to a method of
determining the presence or amount of an analyte by retaining the analyte on
a structure having cavities, irradiating the structure, and detecting
characteristics of the radiation. Spec. ¶ 2. Claim 1 is the only independent
claim on appeal and is illustrative:
1. A method for measuring the presence or amount of at
least one analyte, which is a particle, in a sample mixture, the
method comprising:
passing the sample mixture including a first analyte and
an impurity through a first filter having first and second
opposing main surfaces and a plurality of cavities extending
between the first and second opposing main surfaces, the size of
the cavities of the first filter and/or the characteristics of the
first surface being such that the first filter captures the impurity
from the sample mixture whereby a modified sample mixture
containing the first analyte exits the first filter;
subsequently passing the modified sample mixture
through a second filter having third and fourth opposing main
surfaces and a plurality of cavities extending between the third
and fourth opposing main surfaces, the size of the cavities of
the second filter and/or the characteristics of the third surface
being such that the second filter captures the first analyte, the
second filter differing from the first filter in at least one of
cavity size and surface characteristics;
and thereafter irradiating the second filter with
electromagnetic radiation that intersects the third opposing
main surface and detecting characteristics of electromagnetic
radiation scattered by the second filter so as to detect the
presence or amount of the first analyte.

2 In this Decision, we refer to the Final Office Action dated September 21,
2018 (“Final Act.”), the Appeal Brief filed December 20, 2018 (“Appeal
Br.”), and the Examiner’s Answer dated March 22, 2019 (“Ans.”).
Appeal 2019-004663
Application 14/884,132

3
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies upon the prior art below in rejecting the claims
on appeal:
Name
Doucette et al.
(“Doucette”)
Amako et al.
(“Amako”)
Ihi Corp.
(“Ihi”)
Reference
US 2012/0274933 A1

US 2013/0182258 A1

JP 2012-021829
Date
Nov. 1, 2012

July 18, 2013

Feb. 2, 2012

REJECTIONS
The Examiner maintains3 (Ans. 3) the following rejections on appeal:
A. Claims 1–4, 6–11, 14, 21, and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as anticipated
by Ihi. Ans. 4.
B. Claims 22 and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Ihi in view
of Doucette. Id. at 6.
C. Claim 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Ihi in view of
Amako. Id. at 7.

OPINION
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellant and in light of the arguments and evidence produced
thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential),
(cited with approval in In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
(“[I]t has long been the Board’s practice to require an applicant to identify
the alleged error in the examiner’s rejections.”)). After considering the

3 The Examiner’s Answer withdraws some rejections. Ans. 8.
Appeal 2019-004663
Application 14/884,132

4
evidence presented in this Appeal and each of Appellant’s arguments, we are
not persuaded that Appellant identifies reversible error. Thus, we affirm the
Examiner’s rejections for the reasons expressed in the Final Office Action
and the Answer. We add the following primarily for emphasis.
As to the first ground of rejection, Appellant argues claims 1, 2, 6, 8,
10, 14, 21, and 254 as a group and argues claims 3, 4, 7, 9, and 11 as a
second group. See Appeal Br. 9–10. Therefore, consistent with the
provisions of 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2013), we limit our discussion to
claims 1 and 3. Claims 4, 7, 9, and 11 stand or fall with claim 3, and all other
claims subject to the Examiner’s first rejection stand or fall together with
claim 1.
With regard to claim 1, Appellant argues that Ihi teaches that its
electromagnetic waves propagate “straight along the surface of filter 11”
rather than intersecting or irradiating the filter. Appeal Br. 9–10; see also Ihi
¶ 21 (“the terahertz wave generated from the generating means 13, and
straight along the surface of the filter 11 is received by the receiving means
[14]”)5. The Examiner, however, finds that Ihi teaches electromagnetic
radiation that intersects the third opposing main surface of second filter 11.
Ans. 8.
The preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner’s position.
As the Examiner finds, Ihi Figure 2 illustrates second filter 11 disposed

4 We understand Appellant’s argument of “Group 1” on pages 9–10 as also
being directed to claim 25.
5 Ihi refers to “receiving means 13” in this sentence of paragraph 21, but, in
the context of Ihi, this appears to be a typographical error. Earlier in
paragraph 21 and elsewhere, Ihi refers to “receiving means 14.” See, e.g., Ihi
¶¶ 19, 21, 22, 23.
Appeal 2019-004663
Application 14/884,132

5
between generating means 13 and receiving means 14. Ans. 8–9. Based on
Figure 2, at least some radiation would travel through filter 11. Id. at 8–10.
Indeed, Ihi’s filter 11 is intended to adsorb “viruses and bacteria contained in
the air” (Ihi ¶ 20) and the purpose of Ihi’s generating means 13 and
receiving means 14 is to detect the virus or bacteria (see, e.g., id. ¶¶ 12, 22).
Thus, the purpose and operation of Ihi further support that Ihi’s generating
means 13 transmits radiation through the filter 11. Appellant does not
persuasively refute the Examiner’s findings in with respect to this recitation.
Because Appellant’s argument does not identify error, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 6, 8, 10, 14, 21, and 25. Appellant does
not argue in support of patentability of separately rejected claims 22–24.
Accordingly, we also sustain the rejections of claims 22–24.
Claim 3 recites “the characteristics of the third opposing main surface
of the second filter adsorb the first analyte.” Appeal Br. 17 (Claims App.).
Appellant argues that “characteristics” are different than cavity size and that
Ihi does not teach surface characteristics that adsorb the impurity. Appeal
Br. 10–11. The Examiner finds, for example, that Ihi teaches providing a
substance applied to filter 11 that adsorbs viruses/bacteria. Ans. 10 (citing
Ihi ¶ 20). The Examiner determines that application of the adsorbing
substance is a “characteristic” as claim 3 recites. Id. at 10–11. Appellant
does not persuasively dispute the Examiner’s position in this regard, and the
preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner’s position (Ihi ¶ 20).
We, thus, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 3, 4, 7, 9, and 11.

DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Appeal 2019-004663
Application 14/884,132

6
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–4, 6–11,
14, 21, 25
102 Ihi 1–4, 6–11,
14, 21, 25

22, 23 103 Ihi, Doucette 22, 23
24 103 Ihi, Amako 24
Overall
Outcome
1–4, 6–11,
14, 21–25

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
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