Ex Parte Anderson et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 15, 2012

11789455 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 15, 2012)

 

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
________________

Ex parte CURTIS WAYNE ANDERSON,
LENARD REEVES, BJARNE HEGGLI,
and THOMAS WILLIAM DOWLAND JR.
________________

Appeal 2011-003340
Application 11/789,455
Technology Center 1700
________________

Before EDWARD C. KIMLIN, KAREN M. HASTINGS, and
MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judges.

KIMLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1-5. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Claim 1 is illustrative:
l. A target wheel for a spray coating apparatus the target wheel
comprising:

a wheel portion having a plurality of radial arms and spaces
there between; and one or more clamping assemblies attached to the
Appeal 2011-003340
Application 11/789,455

2
wheel portion, the one or more clamping assemblies operative to
clamp a provided device-holding fixture to the wheel portion;

wherein the wheel portion includes a circumferential surface at an
outer periphery of the plurality of radial arms, the circumferential surface
configured for monitoring surface temperature of a provided device subject
to spray coating and held in the provided device-holding fixture.

The Examiner relies upon the following references in the rejection of
the appealed claims (Ans. 3):
Doe 1,409,836 Mar. 14, 1922
Kost 2,494,881 Jan. 17, 1950
Robbins 5,380,662 Jan. 10, 1995
Takamori 5,830,095 Nov. 03, 1998
Clements-Macak 6,500,666 B1 Dec. 31, 2002

Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to a target wheel for use
with a spray coating apparatus. The target wheel comprises a plurality of
radial arms and clamping assemblies attached to the wheel portion. The
clamping assemblies are operative to clamp a provided device-holding
fixture to the wheel portion. Also, the wheel portion includes a
circumferential surface at an outer periphery of the plurality of radial arms
which is configured for monitoring the surface temperature of a provided
device that is held in the holding fixture and subject to spray coating.
Claims 1 and 3 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Robbins. The appealed claims also stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as follows:
(a) Claim 2 over Robbins in view of Takamori,
(b) Claims 4 and 5 over Robbins in view of Kost,
(c) Claim 4 over Robbins in view of Clements-Macak,
(d) Claim 5 over Robbins in view of Clements-Macak and Kost,
Appeal 2011-003340
Application 11/789,455

3
(e) Claim 1 over Doe, and
(f) Claim 2 over Doe in view of Takamori.
The Examiner has withdrawn the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph. 
We have thoroughly reviewed each of Appellants’ arguments for
patentability. However, we are in complete agreement with the Examiner
that the claimed subject matter is unpatentable over the cited prior art.
Accordingly, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejections for essentially those
reasons expressed in the Answer, and we add the following primarily for
emphasis.
We consider first the § 102 rejection of claims 1 and 3 over Robbins.
We agree with the Examiner that grasping clamps 60 of Robbins, although
disclosed as holding bottles, are fully capable of being operative to clamp a
provided device-holding fixture to the wheel portion, as presently claimed.
Manifestly, given the specific dimensions of Robbins’ grasping clamps 60, a
suitably-sized device-holding fixture can be inserted in the clamp. Once
attached to the clamp, the holding fixture may receive a device that is
subject to spray coating. The uniformity of such an eventual coating, as
argued by Appellants, is not germane to the claimed subject matter which
does not specify any particular degree of uniformity for an intended spray
coating. As noted by the Examiner, the appealed claims define only a target
wheel that may be used to spray coat a device, but the claims do not recite a
target wheel in combination with a spray coating apparatus.
As for the claim limitation that the circumferential surface of the
wheel portion is configured for monitoring the surface temperature of a
device in the holding fixture, we fully concur with the Examiner that
Appeal 2011-003340
Application 11/789,455

4
Robbins describes a configuration wherein the circumferential surface is
arranged sufficiently close to the surface of devices held in the grasping
clamps to monitor the temperature of the device surface. Significantly, the
appealed claims do not require a temperature sensor in combination with the
target wheel in any way. The claims only define the configuration of the
circumferential surface of the wheel portion. Manifestly, if Appellants
intended that the claimed circumferential surface of the wheel portion
comprise a temperature sensor, such would have been positively recited.
Concerning the § 103 rejections of claims 4 and 5, we agree with the
Examiner that Kost and Clements-Macak evidence the obviousness of using
a removable clip to attach the grasping clamps 60 of Robbins to the wheel.
We agree with the Examiner that it would have been obvious for one of
ordinary skill in the art to use such fastening clips as an alternative to
fasteners 54 of Robbins to secure the clamps to the wheel.
Regarding the § 103 rejection of claim 2 over Robbins in view of
Takamori, Appellants have advanced no argument that persuades us that the
Examiner erred in concluding that it would have been obvious for one of
ordinary skill in the art, based on the Takamori disclosure, to provide the
wheel structure of Robbins with a plurality of mass-reducing voids in order
to reduce the energy requirements to drive and rotate the wheel.
Turning to the § 103 rejection of claim 1 over Doe, we agree with the
Examiner that the pockets or seats 24 of Doe are fully capable of functioning
as a clamping assembly for a provided device-holding fixture, as presently
claimed. As with the analysis for the rejection of Robbins outlined above,
the pockets or seats of Doe may serve as a clamping assembly for a suitably-
dimensioned holding fixture. Also, Appellants have not effectively refuted
Appeal 2011-003340
Application 11/789,455

5
the Examiner’s finding that the circumferential surface of Doe’s wheel is
sufficiently close to any device held in the clamping pocket such that it may
monitor the surface temperature of the device when combined with a
temperature sensor. Again, the appealed claims do not require that the target
wheel comprise a temperature sensor. Also, any device held in the clamping
pockets of Doe may be subjected to spray coating. We again emphasize that
the appealed claims do not define a target wheel in combination with a spray
coating device.
As we found that it would have been obvious to provide the wheel of
Robbins with mass-reducing voids, as disclosed by Takamori, we agree with
the Examiner that it would have obvious to provide the wheel of Doe with
mass-reducing voids.
As a final point, we note that Appellants base no argument upon
objective evidence of non-obviousness, such as unexpected results.
In conclusion, based on the foregoing and the reasons well stated by
the Examiner, the Examiner’s decision rejecting the appealed claims 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)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED

ssl