Ex Parte Church et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 27, 2016

12552448 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 27, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/552,448 0910212009
22885 7590 01/29/2016
MCKEE, VOORHEES & SEASE, P.L.C.
801 GRAND A VENUE
SUITE 3200
DES MOINES, IA 50309-2721
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
KENNETH H. CHURCH
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.
P09268US01 4651
EXAMINER
JIANG, LISHA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1712
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01129/2016 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):
patatty@ipmvs.com
michelle. woods@ipmvs.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KENNETH H. CHURCH, PA TRICK A. CLARK,
XUDONG CHEN, MICHAEL W. OWENS, and
KELLYM. STONE 1
Appeal2014-002683
Application 12/552,448
Technology Center 1700
Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, JAMES C. HOUSEL and
WESLEY B. DERRICK, Administrative Patent Judges.
GARRIS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision rejecting claims 1-3, 6-15, and 27. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Nscrypt, Inc. is identified as the Real Party in Interest. App. Br. 1.
Appeal2014-002683
Application 12/552,448
Appellants claim a method for depositing a material on a substrate
with a material dispenser comprising pre-determining a writing gap having a
distance of more than 7 5 micrometers above the substrate and controlling
velocity of the material flow through the dispenser outlet and dispense speed
based on parameters including the predetermined writing gap (independent
claims 1 and 27).
A copy of representative claim 27, taken from the Claims Appendix of
the Appeal Brief, appears below.
27. A method for depositing a material on a substrate,
compnsmg:
providing an apparatus with at least one material
dispenser comprising: (i) a tip orifice defining an opening
within a pen tip through which the material exits the
dispenser, (ii) at least one elongate feed channel having
an inlet and a spaced outlet adjacent the tip orifice, the at
least one feed channel having material therein and being
sized and shaped so that the material therein may flow
through the at least one channel from the inlet to the
outlet, (iii) a valve for controlling the flow of material
through the outlet of the at least one feed channel, the
valve being moveable between an open position, in
which material is permitted to flow through the outlet,
and a closed position, in which material is not permitted
to flow through the outlet, (iv) an actuator operatively
coupled to the valve for selectively moving the valve
between the open position and the closed position;
pre-determining a writing gap prior to dispensement;
starting the dispensement of the material onto a surface of the
substrate;
after starting the dispensement of the material onto the surface
of the substrate, raising the pen tip to the predetermined
writing gap, the predetermined writing gap having a
distance of more than 7 5 micrometers above the
substrate, the distance being greater than a dispensed line
height; and
2
Appeal2014-002683
Application 12/552,448
controlling velocity of the flow of material through the outlet
and dispense speed based on the predetermined writing
gap, the dispensed line height and dispensed line width
parameters and without further adjusting of a z-axis of
the pen tip to compensate for variations in surface height.
App. Br. 18 (Claims Appendix).
Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), the Examiner rejects as unpatentable:
independent claim 27 over Warren (US 2003/0100824 Al, published
May 29, 2003) in view of Prentice (US 2006/0193969 Al, published Aug.
31, 2006), Drumheller (US 4,485,387, issued Nov. 27, 1984), and
Rutkowski (US 2005/0013926 Al, published Jan 20, 2005) (Final Action 5-
10);
independent claim 1 over Warren, Prentice, Rutkowski, and Gibson
(US 2003/0111011 Al, published June 19, 2003) (id. at 10-16); and
remaining dependent claims 2, 3, and 6-15 over these last mentioned
references alone or in combination with additional prior art (id. at l 0-20).
Appellants present arguments contesting the rejection of claim 27
(App. Br. 8-12) and refer to these arguments in contesting the rejection of
claim 1 (id. at 12-13). Appellants do not present separate additional
arguments contesting the rejections of the dependent claims (id. at 12-14).
Therefore, the dependent claims will stand or fall in accordance with the
success or failure of Appellants' arguments concerning the independent
claims of which claim 27 is representative.
We sustain the rejections before us for the reasons expressed in the
Final Action, the Answer, and below.
3
Appeal2014-002683
Application 12/552,448
Appellants argue that "the combination of references simply do not
teach controlling velocity of the flow of material through the outlet or the
dispense speed based on the predetermined writing gap ... [ n ]or would it
have been obvious to do so" (App. Br. 8; see also id. at 10, 11, Reply Br. 14,
15).
Appellants' argument is not persuasive. The Examiner finds that
Warren discloses a method for depositing material on a substrate with a
dispenser comprising positioning the dispenser at a predetermined writing
gap (Final Action 6 (citing, e.g., Warren i-fi-1226, 316)) and that the velocity
and speed control taught by Warren necessarily would be based on the
predetermined writing gap (id. at 6-7). In addition, the Examiner finds that
Prentice discloses a similar method wherein the predetermined writing gap
must not be too large or too small, thereby teaching such a gap is a result
effective variable, and that Prentice's control of velocity and speed
necessarily is based on the particular value of this predetermined writing gap
/ • 1 ' ,..., {") / • ' • T""lt. ' • .-r.-r Al {") !""'I"\ !""' Al T""'I. ,..., .-r Al,...,, 1 A. Al
~za. at /-?5 ~ cmng, e.g., Yrenuce 1111 Lf.?5, JL, JLf., t<1g. 1, 11Lf.1 ); see atso Ans. +----
5). These findings and the corroborative technical reasoning identified in
the Final Action and in the Answer convincingly support the Examiner's
determination that the combined teachings of Warren and Prentice would
have suggested controlling velocity of material flow and dispense speed
based on parameters including the predetermined writing gap.
Concerning this matter, we emphasize that Appellants specifically
discuss the teachings of Prentice only in the Reply Brief wherein Appellants
state "Prentice ... merely teaches that the height of the nozzle needs to be
high enough not to touch the circuit board but not so high that the material
being dispensed splashes (see paragraph [0052])" (Reply Br. 14). However,
Appellants do not embellish this statement with any explanation why
4
Appeal2014-002683
Application 12/552,448
Prentice fails to evince that the predetermined writing gap is a result
effective variable relevant to the control of velocity and speed as desired by
both Warren and Prentice.
In summary, Appellants do not show error in the rejection of
representative claim 27 or concomitantly the rejections of remaining claims
1-3 and 6-15.
The decision of the Examiner is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal maybe extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l).
AFFIRMED
KRH
5