Ex Parte Ahmadi et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 16, 2016

13219070 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 16, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/219,070 08/26/2011
75534 7590 09/20/2016
BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
CIRA CENTER, 12th FLOOR
2929 ARCH STREET
PHILADELPHIA, PA 19104
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Mani Ahmadi
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
098951.021871 9124
EXAMINER
BOECKMANN, JASON J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3752
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/20/2016 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):
eofficemonitor@bakerlaw.com
npaine@bakerlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MANI AHMADI, ERIK FISKE, PHILIP PAUL MAIO RCA,
HORATIO QUINONES, and ROBERT JAMES WRIGHT
Appeal2014-005515
Application 13/219,0701
Technology Center 3700
Before MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, and
BRUCE T. WIEDER, Administrative Patent Judges.
WIEDER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
Examiner's rejection of claims 1-52 and 31. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is N ordson Corporation.
(Appeal Br. 1.)
2 The Final Action (mailed June 20, 2013) states that "[c]laims 1---6 and 31"
are rejected. (Final Action 1.) However, claim 6 was previously canceled.
(See Amendment filed May 28, 2013.) Therefore, we treat the reference to
claim 6 being rejected as a typographical error.
Appeal2014-005515
Application 13/219,070
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellants' claimed "invention relates generally to the jetting of fluid
materials and, in particular, to electro-pneumatic jetting valves, jetting
systems and improved jetting methods." (Spec. i-f 2.)
Claim 1 is the sole independent claim on appeal. It is reproduced
below:
1. A jetting valve for use with a supply of fluid material and
a supply of air pressure to jet a droplet of the fluid material from
the jetting valve, comprising:
a pneumatic actuator having a pneumatic piston and a
drive pin extending from the pneumatic piston, the drive pin
being moved by the pneumatic piston;
a housing having a first chamber and a second chamber,
the pneumatic piston enclosed between the first chamber and the
second chamber;
a first solenoid valve connected to the supply of air
pressure, the first solenoid valve having a first state in which air
pressure is supplied to the first chamber to apply a first force to
the pneumatic piston for moving the pneumatic piston and drive
pin in a first direction, and the first solenoid valve having a
second state in which the first air chamber is vented to ambient
pressure;
a second solenoid valve connected to the supply of air
pressure, the second solenoid valve having a first state in which
air pressure is supplied to the second chamber to apply a second
force to the pneumatic piston for moving the pneumatic piston
and drive pin in a second direction, and the second solenoid valve
having a second state in which the second air chamber is vented
to ambient pressure;
a fluid chamber enclosing a valve seat and a valve element,
the valve element being movable to a position in contact with the
valve seat;
a nozzle having a flow passage and a dispense orifice, the
flow passage being in fluid communication with the valve seat;
and
2
Appeal2014-005515
Application 13/219,070
a controller operable to hold the first solenoid valve in the
first state for a first time period and the second solenoid valve in
the first state for a second time period, the beginning of the
second time period following the beginning of the first time
period, and wherein the controller maintains a predetermined
overlap period between said first time period and said second
time period, the drive pin moving towards the valve seat during
the second time period, and wherein the overlap period is used to
control the speed of the drive pin as the drive pin is moved
towards the valve seat during the second time period, the
movement of the drive pin during the second time period causing
the valve element to move into contact with the valve seat to jet
the droplet of the fluid material from the jetting valve.
REJECTION
Claims 1-5 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Hall (US 6,622,983 B2, iss. Sept. 23, 2003) and Sasaki
(US 4,763,560, iss. Aug. 16, 1988).
ANALYSIS
Hall discloses
[a] valve for controlling a flow of pressurized abrasive particles
to a machine includes a valve body that defines a particle
chamber having an inlet port and an exit orifice. A tapered valve
seat surrounds the exit orifice. A shaft having a nose piece is
positioned within the particle chamber. The shaft is movable
between a closed position, where the nose piece engages the
valve seat so that particles cannot pass through the exit orifice,
and an open position, where particles are free to flow out of the
exit orifice.
(Hall, Abstract.)
The Examiner finds that "Hall shows a jetting valve for use with a
supply of fluid material and a supply of air pressure capable of jetting a fluid
3
Appeal2014-005515
Application 13/219,070
material form [sic] the jetting valve." (Final Action 2.) The Examiner also
finds that the Specification defines the term "jetting valve." (See Answer 2,
citing Spec. i-f 3.) As described in the Specification:
A "jetting valve" or "jetting device" is a device which ejects, or
"jets", a droplet of material from the dispenser to land on a
substrate, wherein the droplet disengages from the dispenser
nozzle before making contact with the substrate. Thus, in a
jetting type dispenser, the droplet dispensed is "in-flight"
between the dispenser and the substrate, and not in contact with
either the dispenser or the substrate, for at least a part of the
distance between the dispenser and the substrate.
(Spec. i-f 3.)
Appellants argue that the Examiner oversimplifies what constitutes a
jetting valve and "ignores additional disclosure in the Appellant's
specification describing the characteristics of a jetting valve." (Reply Br. 2,
citing Spec. i-fi-140, 54, 62, 67.) But paragraphs 40, 54, 62, and 67 of the
Specification describe "various embodiments, features and components of
the invention" (see Spec. i-f 27); they do not alter the definition of jetting
valve that the Specification describes in paragraph 3.
Appellants also argue that the jetting valve of claim 1 "jets droplets of
a fluid material" and that "[t]his contrasts with the valve in Hall that is used
to control the flow of pressurized abrasive particles." (Reply Br. 2.)
However, the Examiner finds that "[t]he valve member 16 of Hall will
inherently push out or 'jet' any fluid that is between the end of the valve
member 18 and the valve seat 20." (Answer 4.) Moreover, the Examiner
determines that the phrases "jetting valve" and "to jet a droplet of material,"
which only appear "in the preamble and functionally in the last two lines of
the claim," constitute functional language. (Id.) In view of this, the
4
Appeal2014-005515
Application 13/219,070
Examiner concludes, and we agree, that "the claim only requires the [device]
to be capable of 'jetting' a fluid," i.e., capable of jetting at least one type of
fluid, and that, as described above, "Hall is capable of jetting a fluid and jets
a fluid by the appellant's own definition." (Id.) The fluid used with the
valve is not part of the claimed invention.
For the above reasons, Appellants have not persuaded us that the
Examiner erred in finding that Hall discloses a jetting valve.
With regard to Sasaki, the Examiner finds that Sasaki teaches a
pneumatic actuator and a controller. (Final Action 3--4.) The Examiner
describes the operation of the valves in Sasaki in view of Figure 2 of Sasaki
and determines that
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at
the time of the applicant's invention to use the controller and
solenoid valves of Sasaki to control the pneumatic piston 24, of
Hall. The dotted lines of figure 2 of Sasaki will be connected to
openings 26 and 28 of Hall in order to control piston 24 rather
than the piston of Sasaki. This modification \'l/ould result in the
user being able to control the position of the valve very precisely
as taught by Sasaki.
(Id. at 4.)
Appellants argue that "[i]n this instance when considered as a whole,
the Examiner's allegation of obviousness and the rejection of the claims are
not supported by articulated reasoning with a rational underpinning."
(Appeal Br. 9.)
An obviousness analysis requires more than merely showing that the
limitations are found in the prior art. KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.
398, 418 (2007) ("[A] patent composed of several elements is not proved
obvious merely by demonstrating that each of its elements was,
5
Appeal2014-005515
Application 13/219,070
independently, known in the prior art."). The Examiner must show that
"there was an apparent reason to combine the known elements in the fashion
claimed by the patent at issue." Id., citing In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 997, 988
(Fed. Cir. 2006).
In this case, the Examiner determines that the proposed combination
of Hall and Sasaki "would result in the user being able to control the
position of the valve very precisely." (Final Action 4.) The Examiner also
determines that
[t]he added precision and accuracy gained by modifying Hall
with Sasaki would increase efficiently [sic] and performance of
Hall in a number of ways. First it would eliminate noise and lost
energy due to the valve of Hall slamming against the shoulder 31
and valve seat 20. Additionally, the added accuracy would also
allow for the device of Hall to be opened and closed at much
smaller increments that it can without the controller of Sasaki.
(Answer 5-6.) Thus, the Examiner articulates a reason to combine and
provides a rational underpinning.
Appellants also argue against the proposed combination by arguing
with regard to the timing of the valves. (Reply Br. 3--4.) In relevant part,
claim 1 recites: "a controller operable to hold the first solenoid valve in the
first state for a first time period and the second solenoid valve in the first
state for a second time period, the beginning of the second time period
following the beginning of the first time period." Appellants argue that
"[t ]he time period in FIG. 5 of Sasaki extending from time 13 to time t4
occurs after the first and second time periods that are analogous to the
claimed first and second time periods." (Id. at 3, footnote omitted.)
However, it is the time period in Figure 5 of Sasaki extending from 12
to 13 that is of particular relevance. During the time period beginning at 12,
6
Appeal2014-005515
Application I3/2I9,070
shown in Figure 5 of Sasaki, valve VI (corresponding, in part, to the first
solenoid valve) is held in a first (on) state. Just after time t2, valve V2
(corresponding, in part, to the second solenoid valve) enters a first (on) state.
(See Sasaki, Fig. 5.) Appellants do not persuasively argue why this does not
teach the above claim limitation.
Based on the above, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claim I. Claims 2-5 depend from claim I and are not separately
argued.3 Therefore, they fall with claim I. See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(I)(iv)
(20I3).
Appellants separately argue claim 3 I. Appeal Br. I 0. Claim 3 I
recites: "The jetting valve of claim I wherein the controller is configured to
operate the first and second solenoid valves to move the drive pin away from
the valve seat during the first time period."
Appellants argue that "Sasaki fails to disclose that the butterfly valve
is moving in different directions, ... over the time periods in Sasaki
equivalent to the claimed time periods." (Reply Br. 6.)
The Examiner, however, finds that the controller of Sasaki uses the
combination of the first and second "solenoid valves to move the valve from
the valve seat during the first time period." (Answer 6.) Specifically, during
that portion of the first time period extending from ti to 12, shown in Figure 5
of Sasaki, valve VI (corresponding, in part, to the first solenoid valve) is in a
first (on) state, valve V2 (corresponding, in part, to the second solenoid
valve) is in a first (on) state, and venting valves V3 and V 4 are in an off
3 Claims 7 and 8 were withdrawn. (See Final Action I; see also Appeal
Br. 4.) Therefore, we consider Appellants' reference to "[c]laims 2-8 are
not separately argued" as a typographical error. (See Appeal Br. I 0.)
7
Appeal2014-005515
Application 13/219,070
state. Thus, the same pressure is applied to both sides of the piston and the
drive pin would move away from the valve seat. (See Sasaki, Fig. 2, col. 3,
11. 15-27; see also Hall, Fig. 1.)
Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 31.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-5 and 31 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
8