MURATA MANUFACTURING CO., LTD.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardJun 11, 202014884132 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jun. 11, 2020) 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. 14/884,132 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation