Andreas Fischer et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 20, 2019

14345706 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 20, 2019)

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.
14/345,706 03/19/2014 Andreas Fischer 66835-0217 1091
109973 7590 09/20/2019
Bejin Bieneman PLC
2000 Town Center
Suite 800
Southfield, MI 48075
EXAMINER
KITT, STEPHEN A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1717
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/20/2019 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):
docket@b2iplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte ANDREAS FISCHER,
RALPH GLASER, and CARMEN GOLTZ
____________

Appeal 2018-005075
Application 14/345,706
Technology Center 1700
____________
Before KAREN M. HASTINGS, MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, and
GEORGE C. BEST, Administrative Patent Judges.
BEST, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
The Examiner finally rejected claims 30–33 and 37–40 of Application
14/345,706. Final Act. (May 30, 2017). Appellant1 seeks reversal of these
rejections pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant defines the real party in interest as Dürr Systems
GmbH. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2018-005075
Application 14/345,706
2
An oral hearing in this appeal was held on September 12, 2019. A
transcript of that hearing will be placed in the record of the ’706 Application
when it becomes available.
For the reasons set forth below, we reverse.
BACKGROUND
Motor vehicle body parts are conventionally painted with rotary
atomizers. Spec. ¶ 3. Rotary atomizers are used because they produce an
approximately rotationally symmetric spray jet. Id. In practice, however, the
spray jets are not exactly rotationally symmetric due to deformation by
external forces, e.g., gravity, electrostatic forces, and flow forces. Id. ¶ 5.
This asymmetry results in the application of a paint layer that has in a
regular thickness. Id. ¶ 6.
The ’706 Application describes a method for coating a surface with a
coating agent, e.g., painting and motor vehicle body part with paint, and an
apparatus for performing that method. Id. ¶ 2. The apparatus and method are
said to compensate for the asymmetry of the spray jet, thereby reducing the
asymmetry of the resulting spray pattern on the motor vehicle part surface.
Id. ¶ 8.
Claim 30—the sole independent claim on appeal—is representative of
the ’706 Application’s claims and is reproduced below from the Claims
Appendix of the Appeal Brief.
30. A coating device for coating a component surface with a
coating agent, comprising:
an atomizer configured to dispense a spray jet of a
coating agent onto the component surface, such that the spray
jet, when dispensed, has a main axis and an asymmetry with
respect to the main axis, whereby the spray jet on the
component surface generates a spray pattern with a
Appeal 2018-005075
Application 14/345,706
3
corresponding asymmetry; the atomizer being operated with
different distrubance [sic] variables includes [sic, including] a
movement speed and a variable guide air speed; and
a compensation device that receives as input values the
disturbance variable [sic] and configured to at least partially
compensates [sic] for the asymmetry of the spray jet, whereby
the asymmetry of the spray pattern is reduced.
Appeal Br. 10.2
REJECTIONS
On appeal, the Examiner maintains the following rejections:
1. Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by
Vardelle.3 Answer 2−3.
2. Claims 31–33, 37, and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Vardelle and Robinson.4
Answer 3−4.
3. Claims 39 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Vardelle and Robinson.
Answer 5.
DISCUSSION
Rejection 1. The Examiner rejected claim 30 as anticipated by
Vardelle. Answer 3.

2 If prosecution of the ’706 Application continues, Appellant should consider
correcting the typographical and grammatical errors that are present in at
least claims 30 and 40.
3 US 2005/0199603 A1, published September 15, 2005.
4 US 3,563,474, issued February 16, 1971.
Appeal 2018-005075
Application 14/345,706
4
Appellant argues for reversal of this rejection on the basis of two
alleged errors: the Examiner erred by finding that (1) Vardelle’s “gas flow”
is the same as the claimed “guide air” and (2) Vardelle discloses a computer
that receives disturbance variables as inputs in real time. Appeal Br. 4–5.
Vardelle describes a thermal spraying apparatus. Vardelle ¶ 1.
Thermal spraying is a method for coating a surface with a high melting point
material, such as a metal or metal alloy. Id. ¶¶ 2, 4. It comprises using a
torch to produce a high-speed gas flow and melting the material in the hot
gas flow. Id. ¶ 2. The hot gas flow atomizes the material into small droplets,
which are entrained in the gas flow. Id. The mixture of the high-speed gas
flow and molten material is referred to as a jet. Id. The jet is directed toward
the surface. Id. The entrained molten droplets impinge upon the surface,
adhering and solidifying in contact with it. Id.
Among other things, thermal spraying methods vary according to the
type of torch used to heat the gas flow and melt the material. Id. ¶¶ 5–10.
The product quality of the process depends, in part, on the settings of the
torch:
The material flow rate, for example in grams per minute, is
clearly a parameter common to all the torches. In the case of
flame spraying, it is also necessary to set the flow rate of
combustible and oxygen gases expressed, for example, in liters
per minute. In the case of arc wire spraying, it is also necessary
to set the arc intensity in amperes and the gas flow rate. In the
case of arc plasma spraying, it is also necessary to set the arc
intensity, the flow rate of the plasma-generating gas and the
flow rate of carrier gas.
Id. ¶ 12.
In rejecting claim 30, the Examiner found that
Vardelle et al. further discloses that two of those supply
parameters are the movement of the torch (see claim 1) and the
Appeal 2018-005075
Application 14/345,706
5
carrier gas flow rate, which is a variable guide air speed, and
teaches that the computer (100) receives the supply parameters
as inputs in real time in order to control the compensations and
corrections (pars. 45-46, 50, 69).
Answer 3 (emphasis added).
We agree with Appellant that this finding is erroneous and based upon
an unduly broad interpretation of the claim term “guide air.” The Examiner’s
finding would be correct only if the term “guide air” encompasses a gas flow
that is part of the spray jet. A review of the ’706 Application’s Specification,
however, demonstrates that such an interpretation is unreasonably broad.
In addressing Appellant’s arguments, the Examiner explains that “the
term ‘guide air’ is not an art-recognized terms for shaping air, which is the
correct phrase to describe air being provided externally from a spray jet in
order to control its shape and spread.” Answer 6. Because the term “guide
air” is not a term of art in this field, we turn to the Specification for guidance
as to its meaning. See In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359,
1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (explaining that the words used in a claim must be
read in light of the specification, as it would have been interpreted by one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention). We are mindful that:
[t]he correct inquiry in giving a claim term its broadest
reasonable interpretation in light of the specification is not
whether the specification proscribes or precludes some broad
reading of the claim term adopted by the examiner. And it is not
simply an interpretation that is not inconsistent with the
specification. It is an interpretation that corresponds with what
and how the inventor describes his invention in the
specification, i.e. an interpretation that is consistent with the
specification.
In re Smith Int’l, Inc., 871 F.3d 1375, 1382–83 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (internal
quotation omitted); see also In re Baker Hughes, Inc., 215 F.3d 1297, 1303
Appeal 2018-005075
Application 14/345,706
6
(Fed. Cir. 2000) (the PTO cannot adopt a construction that is “beyond that
which was reasonable in light of the totality of the written description” in the
Specification).
In this case, the ’706 Application’s Specification makes it clear that
the term “guide air” refers to a stream of gas that impinges upon the conical
spray jet. See, e.g., Spec. ¶¶ 10, 11, 15.
Vardelle does not describe any gas stream that impinges on its jet.
Vardelle, therefore, cannot describe guide air speed as a disturbance
variable. Nor can it describe the claimed “compensation device that receives
as input values the disturbance variable[s]” including the guide air speed.
In view of the foregoing, we determine that the rejection of claim 30
as anticipated by Vardelle must be reversed.
Rejections 2 and 3. Appellant argues that dependent claims 31–33
and 37–40, which depend from claim 30, are patentable for the same reasons
they presented with respect to claim 30. Appeal Br. 7. We have reversed the
rejection of claim 30, and the Examiner has not found that Robinson cures
the deficiency in Vardelle’s disclosure. Thus, we also reverse the rejection of
claims 31–33 and 37–40.
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected Basis Affirmed Reversed
30 § 102(b) Vardelle 30
31–33, 37, and 38
§ 103(a)
Vardelle and
Robinson
31–33, 37, and 38
Appeal 2018-005075
Application 14/345,706
7
Claims
Rejected Basis Affirmed Reversed
39 and 40
§ 103(a)
Vardelle and
Robinson
39 and 40
Overall Outcome 30–33 and 37–40
REVERSED