MUSASHI ENGINEERING, INC.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 21, 2020

2019006535 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 21, 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.
14/775,161 09/11/2015 Kazumasa Ikushima 151158 8525
38834 7590 09/21/2020
WESTERMAN, HATTORI, DANIELS & ADRIAN, LLP
8500 LEESBURG PIKE
SUITE 7500
TYSONS, VA 22182
EXAMINER
RODRIGUEZ, MICHAEL P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1715
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/21/2020 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):
patentmail@whda.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KAZUMASA IKUSHIMA
Appeal 2019-006535
Application 14/775,161
Technology Center 1700
Before JAMES C. HOUSEL, JEFFREY R. SNAY, and
DEBRA L. DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOUSEL, 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 20–32 and 38.2 We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as MUSASHI
ENGINEERING, INC. Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.”) filed December 31,
2018, at 1.
2 Pending claims 33–37 are not before us on appeal because the Examiner
has withdrawn them from consideration. Advisory Action dated September
6, 2018, at 2.
Appeal 2019-006535
Application 14/775,161

2
We REVERSE.3
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The invention relates to a liquid material discharge device that
discharges constant amounts of liquid material. Spec. ¶ 1. Appellant
discloses that prior liquid material discharge devices suffered from leakage
of liquid material through the device discharge opening when the device is
in stand-by (non-discharge) state or reduced productivity. Id. ¶¶ 6, 8. To
address these problems, Appellant discloses that the invention includes: 1) a
pressurization section including a pressurization passage through which
liquid material is supplied to a liquid chamber in communication with a
discharge opening; 2) a negative pressure section including a shunt passage
in which a pressure can be set to be relatively lower than a pressure in the
liquid chamber; and 3) a liquid valve section having a liquid material supply
opening through which the liquid chamber and the pressurization passage
are communicated with each other, and a liquid material release opening
through which the liquid chamber and the shunt passage are communicated
with each other. Id. ¶ 10. Appellant further teaches that the liquid valve
section includes a switching valve having a first position connecting the
liquid chamber and the liquid material supply opening and disconnecting the
liquid chamber and the liquid material release opening, and a second
position connecting the liquid chamber and the liquid material release

3 This Decision also cites to the Specification (“Spec.”) filed September 11,
2015, the Final Office Action (“Final Act.”) dated May 3, 2018, the
Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”) dated July 12, 2019, and the Reply Brief
(“Reply Br.”) filed August 27, 2019.
Appeal 2019-006535
Application 14/775,161

3
opening and disconnecting the liquid chamber and the liquid material supply
opening. Id.
Claim 20, reproduced below from the Claims Appendix to the Appeal
Brief, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter. The limitations at issue
are italicized.
20. A liquid material discharge device comprising:
a nozzle member having a discharge opening through
which a liquid material is discharged;
a discharge controller;
a pressurization section including a pressurization
passage through which the liquid material under pressurization
is supplied to the nozzle member, a liquid reservoir, and a
pressurization source that supplies pressurized air to the liquid
reservoir;
a negative pressure section including a shunt passage in
which a pressure is set to be lower than a pressure in the
pressurization passage and a negative pressure source that is
directly or indirectly communicated with the shunt passage; and
a liquid valve section having a liquid delivery opening in
communication with the discharge opening, a liquid material
supply opening in communication with the pressurization
passage, and a liquid material release opening in
communication with the shunt passage; and
the liquid valve section including a switching valve that
is changed over between a first position and a second position,
the first position establishing communication between the
discharge opening and the liquid material supply opening and
cutting off communication between the discharge opening and
the liquid material release opening, the second position
establishing the communication between the discharge opening
and the liquid material release opening and cutting off the
communication between the discharge opening and the liquid
Appeal 2019-006535
Application 14/775,161

4
material supply opening, wherein the liquid material is held in
the shunt passage in the first position and the second position.

REFERENCES
The Examiner relies on the following prior art:
Name Reference Date
Coleman US 2,650,003 Aug. 25, 1953
Edwards et al.
(“Edwards”)
US 4,808,303 Feb. 28, 1989
Ono US 5,046,666 Sept. 10, 1991
Ikushima US 2007/0227227 A1 Oct. 4, 2007

REJECTIONS
The Examiner maintains, and Appellant requests our review of, the
following rejections under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a):
1. Claims 20, 25–32, and 38 as unpatentable over Coleman in
view of Ikushima (Ans. 3–5);
2. Claims 21–23 as unpatentable over Coleman in view of
Ikushima, and further in view of Ono (Ans. 5–6); and
3. Claim 24 as unpatentable over Coleman in view of
Ikushima, and further in view of Edwards (Ans. 6).
OPINION
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
Appellant identifies, 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
Appeal 2019-006535
Application 14/775,161

5
argued claims and each of Appellant’s arguments, we are persuaded of
reversible error in the appealed rejections.
The Examiner finds, inter alia, that Coleman teaches a controlled
liquid material discharge device comprising a liquid reservoir holding liquid
material fed to discharge openings (nozzles) via a pressurized duct by
pressurized air, a negative pressure section having a shunt duct for drawing a
vacuum to withdraw liquid material away from discharge openings
(nozzles), and a valve facilitating connection of discharge and recovery
ducting. Ans. 3. The Examiner acknowledges that Coleman fails to teach
that liquid material is retained in the shunt duct. Id. However, the Examiner
finds that Ikushima teaches a liquid dispenser with a negative pressure
system for controlling dripping and atmospheric air ingress within the
system. Id. at 3–4. The Examiner further finds that Ikushima teaches that
inadequate or excess vacuum applied in the ducting of drip-arresting systems
leads to undesirable results. Id. at 4. To overcome these problems, the
Examiner finds that Ikushima teaches “incorporation of regulators, sensors,
and venting to provide a system that remains primed and ready to start and
stop dispensation of fluid as needed.” Id. The Examiner concludes that it
would have been obvious “to have incorporated the regulating, sensing, and
venting features of Ikushima in the apparatus of Coleman in order to
overcome the deficiencies of passive vacuum control, and to maintain the
liquid discharge device in an always-ready state.” Id.
Appellant argues that Coleman fails to teach a pressurization source
that supplies pressurized air to the liquid reservoir. Appeal Br. 4. Instead,
Appellant contends that Coleman teaches that, after liquid has been
evacuated from the conduits and nozzles, air is drawn by the liquid ejected
Appeal 2019-006535
Application 14/775,161

6
from jet nozzle 22. Id. The Examiner responds that Coleman’s injector 21
draws air into the system through the action of a vacuum, wherein this air
has a pressure property and, therefore, is pressurized. Ans. 7. However,
according to Appellant, the action of a vacuum is contrary to pressurization
as used in the Specification. Reply Br. 2. Appellant also contends that when
Coleman draws in air by vacuum via the injector, the liquid is not supplied
to the nozzles through the liquid valve section. Id. at 3.
Appellant’s arguments are persuasive that the Examiner has reversibly
erred in finding that Coleman teaches a pressurization source that supplies
pressurized air to the liquid reservoir as recited in claim 20. In this regard,
we note that Appellant distinguishes the pressurization section which
includes the pressurization source from a negative pressure section. See
Claim 20; Spec. ¶¶ 10–12. More specifically, Appellant discloses “applying
a pressurization force, which is necessary to discharge the liquid material
through the discharge opening, to the liquid reservoir from the pressurization
source.” Spec. ¶ 14. Those skilled in the art would readily recognize that
such a pressurization force would have to exceed atmospheric pressure in
order to permit discharge of liquid material from the reservoir to the
discharge opening. Appellant also discloses “applying a negative pressure
force, which is necessary to prevent liquid dripping through the discharge
opening, to the shunt passage from the negative pressure source.” Id. Those
skilled in the art would readily recognize that such a negative pressure force
would have to be less than the pressurization force and, likely, less that
atmospheric pressure in order to prevent further discharge of liquid
(dripping) from the discharge opening.
Appeal 2019-006535
Application 14/775,161

7
There is no dispute that Coleman teaches applying a vacuum or
negative pressure below atmospheric pressure to draw air into the reservoir,
and does not teach applying a pressure greater than atmospheric pressure to
the air. However, as discussed above, interpreting this vacuum or negative
pressure source of air as both a pressurization source as well as a negative
pressure section as used in claim 20 is inconsistent with how those skilled in
the art would interpret such in light of Appellant’s Specification. As such,
we find that the Examiner erred in interpreting Coleman’s vacuum or
negative pressure source of air as meeting the pressurization source of claim
20.
Appellant further argues that Coleman fails to teach that the switching
valve’s second position fails to cut off communication between the
discharge opening and the liquid material supply opening. Appeal Br. 5. In
this regard, Appellant contends that when Coleman’s valve 9 is switched to
the second position, the liquid material supply opening at 14 is still in
communication with the discharge opening (nozzles 6) via conduits 23, 24,
injector 21 and jet nozzle 22. Id. In response, the Examiner finds that the
claimed cutting off feature is met in Coleman independent of whether
communication can be said to indirectly exist along a secondary route in
Coleman’s shunting position. Ans. 7. We disagree.
As Appellant contends (Reply Br. 3), the Examiner acknowledges that
Coleman’s liquid material supply opening still communicates, albeit via a
secondary route, with discharge openings 7. Such indirect communication is
necessary to draw liquid from the discharge conduit and openings, as well as
to then draw air into the system. In contrast, claim 20 recites that such
communication is cut off. The Examiner fails to direct our attention to any
Appeal 2019-006535
Application 14/775,161

8
support in the record for interpreting cutting off communication between
two structures to mean cutting off direct communication while permitting
indirect communication. We note Appellant contends that such an
interpretation is inconsistent with cutting off communication in the
Specification. Reply Br. 4.
Appellant next argues that Ikushima fails to teach that liquid material
is held in the shunt passage in the first and second valve positions. Appeal
Br. 7. In this regard, Appellant contends that Ikushima’s valve 3
communicates with either pressurized gas source 2 or open-to-atmosphere
hole 7, and valve 6 communicates with open air. Id. Moreover, Appellant
contends that Coleman teaches away from retaining liquid material in the
shunt passage because Coleman introduces air into the circuit to provide
agitation of the liquid material. Id. at 8. Appellant further contends that
retaining liquid material in the shunt passage is inconsistent with providing a
source of air to the liquid reservoir. Id.
In response, the Examiner finds that “Coleman does not necessarily
disclose evacuating the shunting valve, and the component is otherwise
capable of retaining liquid between states.” Ans. 7–8. The Examiner further
finds that Ikushima teaches maintaining a similar drip-arresting device in a
primed state for preventing drips and unwanted ingress of air into the
system, as well as improving system readiness. Id. at 8. Although apparently
acknowledging a diversity in valve type (between Coleman and Ikushima),
the Examiner concludes it would have been obvious to apply Ikushima’s
teaching of retention of liquid in the shunting valve to Coleman and
determines that such would not defeat Coleman’s other functions. Id.
Appeal 2019-006535
Application 14/775,161

9
After careful consideration of the Examiner’s findings regarding
Coleman and Ikushima, we find Appellant’s arguments persuasive of
reversible error in the Examiner’s combination of these two teachings. The
Examiner fails to adequately explain how liquid material could be retained
in Coleman’s shunt passage while providing a pressurization source that
supplies pressurized air to the liquid reservoir. As discussed above, Coleman
draws air into the system via the shunt passage thereby preventing any
retention of liquid material therein. In addition, the Examiner does not
respond to Appellant’s contention that Ikushima fails to teach retention of
liquid material in the shunt passage because Ikushima’s valve 3
communicates with either pressurized gas source 2 or open-to-atmosphere
hole 7, and valve 6 communicates with open air.
The Examiner further relies on Ono and Edwards to address features
recited in claims dependent on claim 20. However, the Examiner does not
rely on these additional references to remedy the deficiencies in the
combination of Coleman and Ikushima discussed above. Accordingly, we
reverse each of the Examiner’s obviousness rejections.
CONCLUSION
Upon consideration of the record and for the reasons set forth above
and in the Appeal and Reply Briefs, the Examiner’s decision to reject claims
20–32 and 38 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the
combination of Coleman and Ikushima, alone or further in view of Ono or
Edwards, is reversed.
Appeal 2019-006535
Application 14/775,161

10
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35
U.S.C. §
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
20, 25–32, 38 103(a) Coleman, Ikushima 20, 25–32, 38
21–23 103(a) Coleman, Ikushima,
Ono
21–23
24 103(a) Coleman, Ikushima,
Edwards
24
Overall
Outcome
20–32, 38

REVERSED