`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMIVHSSIONER FOR PATENTS
`PO. Box 1450
`Alexandria1 Virginia 22313-1450
`www.uspto.gov
`
`
`
`
`
`14/666,231
`
`03/23/2015
`
`Koiehi KOBAYASHI
`
`092122—0040
`
`4429
`
`20277
`7590
`03/07/2019
`MCDERMOTT WILL&EMERY LLP —
`The McDermott Building
`BOWERS: NATHAN ANDREW
`500 North Capitol Street, NW.
`WASHINGTON, DC 20001
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`1799
`
`NOTIFICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`03/07/2019
`
`ELECTRONIC
`
`Please find below and/0r 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):
`
`ipdocketmwe @ mwe. com
`
`PTOL—90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Ex parte KOICHI KOBAYASHI,
`YASUHIKO YOKOI, HIRONOBU SIKINE,
`and RITAROU OGUMA
`
`Appeal 2018-001226
`Application 14/666,231
`Technology Center 1700
`
`Before GEORGE C. BEST, JEFFREY R. SNAY, and SHELDON M.
`
`McGEE, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`BEST, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION ON APPEAL
`
`The Examiner finally rejected claims 1—1 5 of Application 14/666,231
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious. Final Act. 3—10 (April 19, 2017).
`
`Appellant1 seeks reversal of these rejections pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a).
`
`We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.
`
`For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.
`
`1 Panasonic Healthcare Holdings Co. is identified as the applicant and real
`party in interest. Appeal Br. 1.
`
`
`
`Appeal 2018-001226
`Application 14/666,231
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`The ’231 Application describes an isolator system used in laboratory
`
`environment equipment related to regenerative medicine and pharmaceutical
`
`production. Spec. 1. The isolator described in the Specification is said to
`
`reduce sterilizing processing time relative to the prior art. Id. at 1—2.
`
`Claim 1 is representative of the ’231 Application’s claims and is
`
`reproduced below:
`
`1.
`
`An isolator system comprising:
`
`a main body case including a substantially box-shaped
`workspace isolated from its surroundings;
`
`a spray device configured to spray a sterilizing mist from
`a nozzle mounted within the main body case, the sterilizing
`mist being obtained by converting a sterilizing liquid into mist;
`
`a diffusion fan mounted within the main body case to
`diffuse the sterilizing mist; and a control device configured to
`control operations of the spray device and the diffusion fan,
`wherein:
`
`the spray device is configured to spray the sterilizing mist
`when spraying, and
`
`the control device is configured to control the diffusion
`fan to intermittently operate during a spray process of the spray
`device, and to continuously operate from an end of the spray
`process of the spray device.
`
`Appeal Br. 10 (Claims App.).
`
`
`
`Appeal 2018-001226
`Application 14/666,231
`
`REJECTIONS
`
`On appeal, the Examiner maintains the following rejections:
`
`1. Claims 1, 4, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
`
`unpatentable over the combination of Yokoi,2 Ortner,3 and Baker.4
`
`Final Act. 3.
`
`2. Claims 2, 3, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
`
`unpatentable over the combination of Yokoi, Ortner, Baker, and
`
`McVey.5 Final Act. 6.
`
`3. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the
`
`combination of Yokoi, Ortner, Baker, and Fanning.6 Final Act. 8.
`
`4. Claims 8—15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
`
`over the combination of Yokoi, Ortner, Baker, Fanning, and
`
`McVey. Final Act. 8.
`
`DISCUSSION
`
`There are two independent claims on appeal: claim 1 and claim 7.
`
`Appellant presents arguments for reversal of the rejection of these claims.
`
`See Appeal Br. 5—7. The dependent claims are alleged to be patentable
`
`based upon dependence from a patentable independent claim. Id. at 8.
`
`Accordingly, we group each dependent claim with its parent independent
`
`claim and each group will stand or fall together. 37 C.F.R. § 41 .37(c)(1)(iV).
`
`2 US 2010/0189607 A1, published July 29, 2010.
`
`3 US 2012/0040600 A1, published February 16, 2012.
`
`4 US 2011/0315783 A1, published December 29, 2011.
`
`5 US 2005/0084415 A1, published April 21, 2005.
`
`6 US 2010/0062522 A1, published March 11, 2010.
`
`3
`
`
`
`Appeal 2018-001226
`Application 14/666,231
`
`Claim 1. Appellant argues that the rejection of claim 1 should be
`
`reversed because the Examiner erred by finding that the combination of
`
`Yokoi, Ortner, and Baker describes or suggests each limitation of the claim.
`
`For the following reasons, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection.
`
`Claim 1 reads, in relevant part, “the control device is configured to
`
`control the diffusion fan to intermittently operate during a spray process of
`
`the spray device, and to continuously operate from an end of the spray
`
`process of the spray device.”
`
`The Examiner found that the combination of Yokoi and Ortner
`
`describes or suggests each limitation recited in claim 1 except for the
`
`intermittent operation of the fan during a spray process of the spray device.
`
`Final Act. 4. In particular, the Examiner found: “[A]s stated above, Yokoi is
`
`fully capable of operating the fan either periodically or continuously,
`
`Yokoi[, however,] does not expressly teach a control device configured to
`
`operate the fan intermittently during the spray process.” Id.
`
`The Examiner further found that Baker describes an isolator system
`
`including a fan. Id. “Baker teaches in at least paragraph [0054] that the fan
`
`may be operated continuously or intermittently at any given time (‘Fan
`
`assembly 23 may be operated on a continuous basis or intermittently in a
`
`variety of predetermined patterns’).” Id.
`
`The Examiner concluded that the differences between the claimed
`
`subject matter and the prior art taken as a whole would have been obvious to
`
`a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention
`
`because
`
`Baker teaches that controllers configured to alternately operate
`an isolator fan periodically and continuously are known in the
`art. Baker teaches that this type of fan controller is beneficial
`because it can be used to tailor the fan operation to essentially
`
`4
`
`
`
`Appeal 2018-001226
`Application 14/666,231
`
`any given incubator/isolator operation as well as in response to
`sensed conditions within the main body case. One of ordinary
`skill would have understood that a fan can either be “on” or
`
`“off”, and this would have inherently limited the options of one
`operating the Yokoi fan. Accordingly, it would have been
`within the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art to consider
`both “intermittent” and “continuous” operation of the Yokoi
`isolator fan.
`
`Id. at 4—5.
`
`Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in finding the subject matter
`
`of claim 1 unpatentable. Appeal Br. 6. In particular, Appellant states that
`
`what is missing in the cited references is when gor in relation to
`which operation) the intermittent operation is performed and the
`continuous operation is performed. Pending claims 1 and 7
`recite that the diffusion fan is controlled to intermittently
`operate during a spray process of the spray device (claims 1 and
`7) and to continuously operate from an end of the spray process
`of the spray device (claim 1).
`
`The Examiner failed to explain why “any necessary point
`in time” would necessarily corresponds [sic] to the spray timing
`in the combination of the cited references. .
`.
`. Accordingly,
`even if Baker was combinable with Yokoi, the claimed timing
`would not have been realized unless the present application is
`referred to. In this regard, the Examiner failed to provide any
`basis as to why one of ordinary skill in the art reviews “only”
`Yokoi and Baker would necessarily modify the combination of
`Yokoi and Baker to arrive that the claimed operation timings.
`
`Id. at 6—7.
`
`Appellant’s argument does not persuade us that the Examiner
`
`reversibly erred. As the Supreme Court has explained:
`
`When there is a design need or market pressure to solve a
`problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable
`solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue
`the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this
`
`
`
`Appeal 2018-001226
`Application 14/666,231
`
`leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of
`innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.
`
`KSR Int’l CO. v. Teleflex Inc, 550 US. 398, 421 (2007).
`
`In this case, the Examiner found that Yokoi’s fan can be either “on” or
`
`“of .” Thus, during the spray operation, the fan can only be in one of three
`
`states: on, off, or intermittently on and off. Because there are only three
`
`possibilities, this is the sort of change to the prior art that is the product not
`
`of innovation, but of ordinary skill and common sense. The Examiner
`
`correctly concluded that the differences between the claimed invention taken
`
`as a whole, and the prior art would have been obvious to a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
`
`We, therefore, affirm the rejection of claim 1 and the claims that
`
`depend therefrom.
`
`Claim 7. The Examiner rejected claim 7 as unpatentable over the
`
`combination of Yokoi, Ortner, Baker, and Fanning. Final Act. 8.
`
`Claim 7 recites, in pertinent part, “the control device is configured to
`
`cause the first diffusion fan to intermittently operate while the spray device
`
`is spraying.”
`
`Appellant argues that the rejection of claim 7 should be reversed for
`
`the same reasons it has advanced for reversing the rejection of claim 1. As
`
`discussed above, we have determined that those reasons were not persuasive
`
`of reversible error. Thus, we also affirm the rejection of claim 7 and claims
`
`that depend therefrom.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`For the reasons set forth above, we affirm the rejections of claims 1—
`
`15 of the ’231 Application.
`
`
`
`Appeal 2018-001226
`Application 14/666,23 1
`
`No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
`
`this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
`
`AFFIRMED
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
