Ex parte Baron et al.

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 28, 1999

07951308 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 28, 1999)

Application for patent filed September 24, 1992. 1
According to appellants, this application is a continuation of
Application 07/791,151, filed November 13, 1991, now
abandoned; which is a division of Application 07/367,388,
filed June 16, 1989, now U.S. Patent No. 5,065,695.
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today (1) was not written
for publication in a law journal and (2) is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 43
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte CARL N. BARON, STEPHEN L. MERKEL,
and ROBERT C. HALL
____________
Appeal No. 96-0417
Application No. 07/951,3081
____________
HEARD: July 13, 1999
____________
Before PAK, OWENS, and KRATZ, Administrative Patent Judges.
KRATZ, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the examiner's refusal
to allow claims 33 through 47, which are all of the claims
pending in this application.
BACKGROUND
Appeal No. 96-0417 Page 2
Application No. 07/951,308
The appellants' invention relates to a method of
dispensing a fluid having a non-linear characteristic of flow
onto a work
piece in a controlled manner in response to a corrected
(linearized) compensated signal. According to appellants,
"[t]he invention provides for a more uniform bead size and
linear deposition rate of coating material, improved economy
of material, and improved quality of the coated product
(specification, page 8, lines 11-14). An understanding of the
invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary claims 33
and 43 (the only independent claims on appeal), which are
reproduced below.
33. A method of maintaining a controlled relationship
between a variable input signal and the actual dispensing rate
of a fluid having a non-linear characteristic of flow from a
dispensing device, the method comprising the steps of:
dispensing fluid from the device onto a workpiece by:
(1) receiving an input signal;
(2) modifying the received input signal as a
function of a measurement of a first flow of the fluid
from the device to produce a compensated signal;
(3) correcting the compensated signal with stored
correction data to generate a corrected compensated
signal to produce the actual dispensing rate having the
controlled relationship to the received input signal; and
Appeal No. 96-0417 Page 3
Application No. 07/951,308
(4) operating the dispensing device in response to
the control signal to dispense a second flow of fluid
onto the workpiece in the controlled relationship to the
received input signal.
43. A method of compensating for flow characteristics of
a fluid being dispensed from a device onto a workpiece, the
method comprising the steps of:
receiving an input signal;
modifying and correcting the received input signal
to reduce flow non-linearities introduced by the flow
characteristics from the device and to compensate for
viscosity changes of the fluid by:
modifying the input signal as a function of a fluid
flow measurement to produce a compensated signal; and
correcting the compensated signal as a function of
the flow characteristics of the fluid through the device to
produce a linearized compensated signal; and
dispensing fluid onto a workpiece under the control
of the linearized compensated signal.
The sole prior art reference of record relied upon by the
examiner in rejecting the appealed claims is:
Price 4,922,852 May 08,
1990
(102(e) date as of the effective filing date - Oct. 23,
1986)
Claims 33-47 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Price.
Appeal No. 96-0417 Page 4
Application No. 07/951,308
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced
by the examiner and the appellants regarding the above-noted
rejection, we make reference to the examiner's answer for the
examiner's reasoning in support of the rejection, and to the
appellants' brief (Paper No. 35, filed March 31, 1995) and
reply brief (Paper No. 37½, filed August 17, 1995) for the
appellants' arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellants' specification and
claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we reverse this
rejection for reasons which follow.
At the outset, we note that the examiner must shoulder
the initial burden of presenting a prima facie case of
obviousness based on the disclosure of the applied prior art.
See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444
(Fed. Cir. 1992).
Appeal No. 96-0417 Page 5
Application No. 07/951,308
Each of the appealed claims requires the sequential
performance of several steps as part of a fluid dispensing
process. The method of claim 33 requires the sequence of:
receiving an input signal; producing a compensated signal from
the received input signal based on a measurement of a first
flow of the fluid; and correcting the produced compensated
signal utilizing stored data to form an actual dispensing rate
(linearized signal) that is used as the control signal for a
dispensing device. The method of the other independent claim
43 describes a similar technique for dispensing fluid onto a
work piece.
The examiner cites Price for modifying "the input signal
by data collected from a fluid flow measurement as well as
stored correction data" (answer, page 4). According to the
examiner, "a person having ordinary skill in the art at the
time of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to
modify Price by performing the modifying and correcting steps
individually because by changing the input signal by only one
variable at a time (as opposed to several) would make it
easier to identify potential program bugs" (answer, page 4).
Appeal No. 96-0417 Page 6
Application No. 07/951,308
Appellants argue that the art cited by the examiner does
not teach or suggest the method steps claimed (main brief,
pages 7-10 and reply brief, pages 1-4). We likewise find that
the examiner has failed to point out any disclosure or
teaching suggesting the claimed process steps by Price. We
agree with appellants (reply brief, page 3) that the method
taught by Price teaches a sequence of steps that differs from
appellants’ method in that Price teaches linearization of an
input signal prior to modifying the linearized signal for a
flow (viscosity) compensation (column 10, lines 45 - column
11, line 2).
The examiner appears to conclude that it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to perform the
signal linearization correction or the flow property
(viscosity) signal compensation first from the disclosure of
Price (answer, page 7). However, the examiner presents no
factual basis for supporting this conclusion. In fact, the
process of Price teaches a contrary order for correction and
compensation of the signal as indicated above.
“Where the legal conclusion [of obviousness] is not
supported by facts it cannot stand.” In re Warner, 379 F.2d
Appeal No. 96-0417 Page 7
Application No. 07/951,308
1011, 1017, 154 USPQ 173, 178 (CCPA 1967). For the foregoing
reasons, we conclude that the examiner has not met the initial
burden of presenting a case of prima facie obviousness.
Accordingly, the rejection of claims 33-47 under 35
U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Price is reversed.
Appeal No. 96-0417 Page 8
Application No. 07/951,308
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a).
REVERSED
CHUNG K. PAK )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
TERRY J. OWENS ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
PETER F. KRATZ )
Administrative Patent Judge )
tdc
Appeal No. 96-0417 Page 9
Application No. 07/951,308
Wood, Herron & Evans
2700 Carew Tower
Cincinnati, OH 45202
APPEAL NO. - JUDGE KRATZ
APPLICATION NO. 07/951,308
APJ KRATZ
APJ PAK
APJ OWENS
DECISION: REVERSED
Prepared By: TINA
DRAFT TYPED: 17 Nov 00
FINAL TYPED: