Ex Parte Bang et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 28, 2012

10869692 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 28, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
10/869,692 06/16/2004 Kyu Yong Bang SIP-0004 5995
34610 7590 12/28/2012
KED & ASSOCIATES, LLP
P.O. Box 8638
Reston, VA 20195
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, ANTHONY H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2854
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/28/2012 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte KYU YONG BANG and YONG KYU SEO
____________

Appeal 2010-000381
Application 10/869,692
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, ELENI MANTIS MERCADER,
and CARL W. WHITEHEAD, JR., Administrative Patent Judges.

MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-000381
Application 10/869,692

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 10-19 and 24-28. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

THE INVENTION
Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to a paste dispenser wherein
the measuring device and the substrate remain stationary relative to one
another as the measuring device measures a given section of the paste
pattern (¶¶ [0013]-[0015]).
Independent claim 10, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject
matter on appeal.
10. A paste dispenser that dispenses a paste pattern on a substrate,
the paste dispenser comprising:
a stage that receives a substrate thereon;
a nozzle having a paste discharge opening positioned opposite a
receiving surface of the substrate, wherein the nozzle discharges paste
onto the receiving surface as it moves relative to the stage so as to
form a paste pattern on the substrate;
a measuring device that measures a form and an area of a
section of the paste pattern formed on the substrate, wherein the
measuring device and the substrate remain stationary relative to one
another as the measuring device measures a given section of the paste
pattern.

REFERENCES and REJECTIONS
1. The Examiner rejected claims 10-12 and 24 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Yamasaki (US 2002/0007743 A1;
Jan. 24, 2002).
Appeal 2010-000381
Application 10/869,692

3
2. The Examiner rejected claims 13-19 and 25-28 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Yamasaki in view of Kato (US
6,590,670 B1; July 8, 2003).

ISSUE
The issue is whether the Examiner erred in finding that Yamasaki
teaches the limitation of “wherein the measuring device and the substrate
remain stationary relative to one another” as recited in claim 10.

ANALYSIS
Claims 10-12 and 24
Appellants argue that independent claim 10 recites that the measuring
device and the substrate remain stationary relative to one another as the
measuring device measures a given section of a paste pattern present on the
substrate (App. Br. 12). Appellants explain that, in contrast, Yamasaki's
measuring device 20 is necessarily in continuous motion with respect to the
substrate 6 as a measurement of the solder paste 9 is taken, so that it can
collect the continuous stream of points necessary to generate the contour, or
image, of the solder paste 9 applied on the substrate 6 (App. Br. 12).
We agree with Appellants (App. Br. 12) that Yamasaki teaches a
laser measuring device 20 being moved horizontally and vertically with
respect to a substrate 6 (see Yamasaki, ¶¶ [0063]-[0065]; Fig. 4 (showing
device 20 with respect to substrate 6/R)). Thus, Yamasaki does not teach the
limitation of “wherein the measuring device and the substrate remain
stationary relative to one another” as recited in claim 10.
Appeal 2010-000381
Application 10/869,692

4
Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 10 and for
the same reason the rejection of claims 11, 12, and 24.
Claims 13-19 and 25-28
We also reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 13-19 and 25-28
because the additional reference of Kato does not cure Yamasaki’s cited
deficiency.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner erred in finding that Yamasaki teaches the limitation of
“wherein the measuring device and the substrate remain stationary relative
to one another” as recited in claim 10.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 10-19 and 24-28 is reversed.

REVERSED

babc