`
`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
`Alexandria1 Virginia 22313- 1450
`www.uspto.gov
`
`APPLICATION NO.
`
`13/413,219
`
`38834
`
`
`
`
` F ING DATE
`
`03/06/2012
`
`7590
`
`09/13/2013
`
`FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
`
`ATTORNEY DOCKET NO.
`
`
`
`
`CONF {MATION NO.
`
`Koichi Kobayashi
`
`091156A
`
`1008
`
`WESTERMAN, HATTORI, DANIELS & ADRIAN, LLP
`1250 CONNECTICUT AVENUE, NW
`SUITE 700
`WASHINGTON, DC 20036
`
`WEEKS, GLORIAR
`
`3721
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`
`
`
`
` NOT *ICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`09/ 1 3/201 3
`
`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.c0m
`
`PTOL—90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 13/413,219
`
`Page 2
`
`Art Unit: 3721
`
`
`
`Commissioner for Patents
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`PO. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`www.uspto.gov
`
`BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
`
`AND INTERFERENCES
`
`Application Number: 13/413219
`Filing Date: March 6, 2012
`Appellant(s): KOBAYASHI et al.
`
`Stephen G. Adrian
`(Reg. No. 32,878)
`For Appellant
`
`EXAMINER’S ANSWER
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 13/413,219
`
`Page 3
`
`Art Unit: 3721
`
`This is in response to the appeal brief filed June 18, 2013.
`
`(1) Grounds of Rejection to be Reviewed on Appeal
`
`Every ground of rejection set forth in the Office action dated December 20, 2012 from
`
`which the appeal is taken is being maintained by the examiner except for the grounds of rejection
`
`(if any) listed under the subheading “WITHDRAWN REJECTIONS.” New grounds of rejection
`
`(if any) are provided under the subheading “NEW GROUNDS OF REJECTION.”
`
`(2) Response to Argument
`
`Examiner maintains the 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of claims 1 and 2 in view of Kim (USPN
`
`6,170,699) and Kim (USPN 6,449,921).
`
`Examiner has found Kim ‘699 to disclose the tablet supply apparatus having a tablet
`
`feeder structured as claimed by Appellant, except for the disclosure of the tablet feeder being
`
`exposed to the outside of the main body along the upper portion of a front panel. Secondary
`
`reference, Kim ‘921, teaches a tablet feeder on an upper portion of a front panel of a main body,
`
`the feeder including upwardly—facing open portions arranged to intercommunicate with outside
`
`of the main body and a hopper for the purpose of manual feeding of tablets into the tablet feeder.
`
`Appellant has argued that the combination of Kim ‘699 and Kim ‘921 would not result in
`
`Appellants’ invention as claimed since Appellant has not found Examiner to adequately explain
`
`how Kim '699 would be modified in view of Kim '921. Page 3 lines 2—7 of the Office Action
`
`mailed on December 20, 2012 state "It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in
`
`the art at the time of the invention to modify the apparatus of Kim'699 to include an arrangement
`
`that permits communication between the cells and the outside of the main body, since column 1
`
`lines 46—49 of Kim '921 states that such a modification allows manual feeding of tablets to the
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 13/413,219
`
`Page 4
`
`Art Unit: 3721
`
`packaging apparatus in addition to the automatic feeding by the tablet cases. The “how” is
`
`clearly articulated to be the addition of an arrangement of upward facing cells that are in
`
`communication with the outside of the main body as taught by Kim '921.
`
`The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be
`
`bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed
`
`invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what
`
`the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the
`
`1
`
`art.
`
`Nonetheless, Examiner is providing a diagram below to show a possible modification of
`
`Kim “699 to include outside access to the tablet feeders as taught by Kim '921. Both Kim “699
`
`and Kim “921 disclose a hopper that receives tablets from a series of tablet cases. However, the
`
`hopper (44; figure 4) of Kim “921 is also in communication with upwardly—facing cells 14 that
`
`are accessible from the outside of the main body of the apparatus. Thus, Kim '699 could be
`
`modified to have a horizontally adjacent arrangement of tablet feeders with upwardly—facing
`
`cells that are in communication with the hopper, as shown below. The modification of Kim “699
`
`is not limited to the tablet feeder construction illustrated below, as Examiner has merely
`
`provided a single embodiment per the suggestion of Kim “921.
`
`1 See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 13/413,219
`
`Page 5
`
`Art Unit: 3721
`
`TABLET FEEDER
`
`\ —
`
`TABLET FEEDER
`CONNECTION TO
`
`HOPPER
`
`um
`
`,
`
`"Rifl'i‘\'i"\\\\\k\\\\. " ‘
`
`For the above reasons, it is believed that the rejections should be sustained.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/GLORIA R WEEKS/
`
`Examiner, Art Unit 3721
`
`Conferees:
`
`/HENRY YUEN/
`
`Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3742
`
`/M. Alexandra Elve/
`
`Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3721
`
`
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
