Ex Parte Harris et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 10, 2018

12159008 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 10, 2018)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
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.
12/159,008 09/16/2008 Michael Harris 098986.022196 2111
75534 7590 01/12/2018
R AKFR fr TTOSTRTT FR T T P
EXAMINER
CIRA CENTER, 12th FLOOR KIM, CHRISTOPHER S
2929 ARCH STREET
PHILADELPHIA, PA 19104 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3752
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/12/2018 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
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MICHAEL HARRIS, DAVID CARSON KING JR.,
and JOEL E. SAINE
Appeal 2016-0008961
Application 12/159,0082
Technology Center 3700
Before HUBERT C. LORIN, JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, and
NINA L. MEDLOCK, Administrative Patent Judges.
MEDLOCK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1-6, 25, 28, and 29. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Our decision references Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,” filed
June 15, 2015) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed October 19, 2015), and
the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed August 21, 2015) and Final Office
Action (“Final Act.,” mailed September 19, 2014).
2 Appellants identify Nordson Corporation as the real party in interest. App.
Br. 1.
Appeal 2016-000896
Application 12/159,008
CLAIMED INVENTION
Appellants’ claimed invention “relates generally to continuous and
intermittent liquid material dispensing systems using process air and having
plural nozzles or modules for dispensing the liquid onto a substrate” and, in
particular, “to such systems in which the process air to individual nozzles or
modules is separately controlled” (Spec. ^ 1).
Claim 1, reproduced below, is the sole independent claim and
representative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A hot melt adhesive dispenser utilizing pressurized
heated process air from a pressurized air source to act on hot melt
adhesive streams being dispensed onto a substrate moving
relative to the dispenser, the dispenser comprising:
a heated manifold receiving the hot melt adhesive, said
heated manifold having a first liquid material passage that
supplies a first heated stream of hot melt adhesive, a second
liquid material passage that supplies a second heated stream of
hot melt adhesive, said heated manifold heating the first and
second heated streams of hot melt adhesive;
a first dispensing module in fluid communication with said
first liquid material passage and receiving the first heated stream
of hot melt adhesive, said first dispensing module having a first
air passageway communicating with the pressurized air source
and receiving a first heated process air flow, and a first control
valve communicating with said first air passageway;
a first nozzle in fluid communication with said first
dispensing module, said first nozzle receiving and subsequently
dispensing the first heated stream of hot melt adhesive onto the
substrate, and receiving and subsequently discharging the first
heated process air flow so that the first heated process air flow
attenuates the dispensed first heated stream of hot melt adhesive;
a second dispensing module in fluid communication with
said second liquid material passage and receiving the second
heated stream of hot melt adhesive, said second dispensing
module having a second air passageway communicating with the
pressurized air source and receiving a second heated process air
2
Appeal 2016-000896
Application 12/159,008
flow, and a second control valve communicating with said
second air passageway; and
a second nozzle in fluid communication with said second
dispensing module, said second nozzle receiving and
subsequently dispensing the second heated stream of hot melt
adhesive onto the substrate, and receiving and subsequently
discharging the second heated process air flow so that the second
heated process air flow attenuates the dispensed second heated
stream of hot melt adhesive;
wherein said first control valve adjusts a first flow rate
and/or pressure of the first heated process air flow in said first air
passageway, and said second control valve adjusts a second flow
rate and/or pressure of the second heated process air flow in said
second air passageway independent of the first flow rate and/or
pressure of the first heated process air flow so that the first flow
rate and/or pressure is different than the second flow rate and/or
pressure, and
wherein said first control valve includes a first valve
member that moves between a fully closed position, a fully
opened position, and a plurality of intermediate partially-opened
positions to adjust the first flow rate and/or pressure of the first
heated process air flow in said first air passageway, and said
second control valve includes a second valve member that moves
between a fully closed position, a fully opened position, and a
plurality of intermediate partially-opened positions to adjust a
second flow rate and/or pressure of the second heated process air
flow in said second air passageway independent of the first flow
rate and/or pressure of the first heated process air flow so that the
first flow rate and/or pressure and the second flow rate and/or
pressure are different non-zero values.
REJECTION
Claims 1-6, 25, 28, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Schmidt (US 3,006,559, iss. Oct. 31, 1961), Crist
(US 5,020,723, iss. June 4, 1991), and Otto (US 4,669,661, iss. June 2,
1987).
3
Appeal 2016-000896
Application 12/159,008
ANALYSIS
We are persuaded by Appellants’ argument that the Examiner erred in
rejecting independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because Schmidt, on
which the Examiner relies, does not disclose or suggest first and second
control valves, including first and second valve members, each of which
moves between a fully closed position, a fully opened position, and a
plurality of intermediate partially-opened positions to adjust an air pressure
and/or flow rate, such that the first and second pressures and/or flow rates
are different non-zero values, i.e.,
wherein said first control valve includes a first valve
member that moves between a fully closed position, a fully
opened position, and a plurality of intermediate partially-opened
positions to adjust the first flow rate and/or pressure of the first
heated process air flow in said first air passageway, and said
second control valve includes a second valve member that moves
between a fully closed position, a fully opened position, and a
plurality of intermediate partially-opened positions to adjust a
second flow rate and/or pressure of the second heated process air
flow in said second air passageway independent of the first flow
rate and/or pressure of the first heated process air flow so that the
first flow rate and/or pressure and the second flow rate and/or
pressure are different non-zero values[,]
as recited in claim 1 (App. Br. 4-8; see also Reply Br. 2^1).
Schmidt is directed to a dual head spray paint gun, and discloses, with
reference to Figure 1, that the spray gun includes a central handle section 10
with a control valve mechanism 13 and spray heads 11,12 coupled to the
central handle section at each opposing end 16, 17 (Schmidt, col. 2,11. 13-
25). Schmidt discloses that in some instances, it may be desirable to utilize
only one spray head, and describes that, as an alternative to completely
removing one of the heads, if one head is to be used intermittently with two
4
Appeal 2016-000896
Application 12/159,008
spray heads, it may be desirable to merely shut off the spray of paint and air
to one head or the other {id. at col. 3,11. 25-34). Schmidt, thus, describes
that a threaded plunger 56 is provided for each air passage 29 and a threaded
and adjustable plunger 57 for each paint passageway 28; plungers 56 and 57
move in a pair of transversely provided bores 58 and are adjustable by a
threaded end portion 59 through internally and externally threaded
fittings 60 such that one spray head or the other, or both spray heads, are
made operable {id. at col. 3,11. 25—43).
In rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), the Examiner equates
threaded plungers 56 to the first and second control valves, as recited in
clam 1 (Final Act. 3—4). Referring to Figure 5 of Schmidt, the Examiner,
reasons that each of plungers 56 “moves between a fully closed position
(fully inserted position where passageway 29 is completely
covered/blocked), a fully opened (fully extracted position where
passageway 29 is completely uncovered/opened), and a plurality of
intermediate partially opened positions (infinite number of positions where
plunger 56 partially covers/blocks passageway 29),” and that the threads of
plunger 56 allow “an infinite number of positions between the fully opened
and fully closed positions” (Final Act. 5-6 (citing Schmidt, col. 3,11. 37-
40)).
The Examiner ostensibly takes the position that Schmidt meets the
claim language because Schmidt’s threaded plungers 56 are capable of
movement between the various positions, recited in claim 1, so that the first
flow rate and/or pressure and the second flow rate and/or pressure are
adjusted to different non-zero values. However, as Appellants correctly
observe (App. Br. 5), Schmidt discloses that an “important object” of the
5
Appeal 2016-000896
Application 12/159,008
invention is to provide a spray gun which simultaneously delivers an even
air pressure and the same amount of liquid material to two spray heads (see
Schmidt, col. 1,11. 28-32 (“Another important object of my present
invention is to provide a spray gun having two spray heads actuated by a
single valve so situated that an even air pressure and the same amount of
material will be simultaneously delivered to each spray head.”)). It also is
clear from a fair reading of Schmidt that threaded plungers 56 are intended
for use when shutting off one or the other of the two spray heads, i.e., when
duel head spray painting is not desired. Moving plunger 56 between various
positions so that the first flow rate and/or pressure and the second flow rate
and/or pressure are adjusted to different non-zero values is, thus,
inconsistent with the way Schmidt’s spray paint device is intended to be
used. See In re Giannelli, 739 F.3d 1375, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“Physical
capability alone does not render obvious that which is contraindicated.”).
We find nothing in the cited portions of Schmidt that expressly
discloses or suggests the argued limitation. And, to the extent that the
Examiner’s rejection is based on the view that Schmidt inherently discloses
the claim limitation (i.e., because while both spray heads are spraying and
one spray head is closed, plunger 56 must travel through intermediate
positions when traversing from the fully opened position to the fully closed
position and during that time a different flow rate and/or pressure is supplied
(Ans. 5-6)), more than speculation is required. In particular, the Examiner
must provide evidence and/or technical reasoning, which is not present here,
that make “clear that the missing descriptive matter is necessarily present in
the thing described in the reference, and that it would be so recognized by
persons of ordinary skill.” Continental Can Co. USA v. Monsanto Co.,
6
Appeal 2016-000896
Application 12/159,008
948 F.2d 1264, 1268 (Fed. Cir. 1991). “Inherency . . . may not be
established by probabilities or possibilities. The mere fact that a certain
thing may result from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient.” Id.
at 1269 (quoting In re Oelrich, 666 F.2d 578, 581 (CCPA 1981)).
In view of the foregoing, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). For the same reasons, we also do not
sustain the rejection of dependent claims 2-6, 25, 28, and 29. Cf. In re
Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (“dependent claims are
nonobvious if the independent claims from which they depend are
nonobvious”).
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-6, 25, 28, and 29 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed.
REVERSED
7