Ex Parte Herre

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 30, 2018

13508197 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 30, 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.
13/508,197 05/04/2012 Frank Herre 66835-0145 1897
109973 7590
Bejin Bieneman PLC
2000 Town Center
Suite 800
Southfield, MI 48075
EXAMINER
THOMAS, BINU
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1717
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/01/2018 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):
docket @ b2iplaw .com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte FRANK HERRE
Appeal 2016-005015
Application 13/508,197
Technology Center 1700
Before CATHERINE Q. TIMM, BRIAN D. RANGE, and
JANE E. INGLESE, Administrative Patent Judges.
TIMM, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL1
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 43-61. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
1 In explaining our Decision, we cite to the Clean Copy of the Specification
dated May 4, 2012 (Spec.), Final Office Action dated March 20, 2015
(Final), the Appeal Brief dated September 21, 2015 (Appeal Br.), the
Examiner’s Answer dated February 8, 2016 (Ans.), and the Reply Brief
dated April 8, 2016 (Reply Br.).
2 Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Durr Systems GmbH.
Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2016-005015
Application 13/508,197
For the reasons stated by Appellant in the Appeal Brief and Reply
Brief, we REVERSE. We add the following for emphasis.
The claims are directed to a coating apparatus. See, e.g., claim 43.
The apparatus is useful for coating components, such as motor vehicle parts,
with paint. Spec. ^ 1. This is accomplished using a coating robot that
guides an electrostatic rotary atomizer over the component surface along
programmed paths. Spec. 2, 13. The electrostatic rotary atomizer applies
a high voltage to electrostatically charge the coating agent. Spec. 31, 58,
97; Fig. 4 (electrostatic rotary atomizer 2).
According to the Specification, “[i]n conventional painting
installations, the rotational speed of the rotary atomizer and the high voltage
of the electrostatic coating agent charging are generally kept constant by
means of a regulation system.” Spec. ^ 4. Although fluidic operating
variables, such as paint flow and guide air flow, were dynamically adapted
as the atomizer moved during the coating operation, electro/kinematic
operating variables, such as the rotational speed of the atomizer and the high
voltage used to electrostatically charge the coating agent, were held constant
instead of being dynamically controlled. Id. Appellant’s apparatus includes
a control unit and a bleeder switch that accomplish dynamic control of the
electro/kinematic operating variables through the programming of the
control unit. See, e.g., Appeal Br. 12, claims appendix (claim 43); Spec.
104. Claim 43 is illustrative:
43. A coating installation for coating a component
surface of a component with a coating agent, comprising:
an atomizer configured to apply the coating agent onto
the component surface,
2
Appeal 2016-005015
Application 13/508,197
a coating robot configured to move the atomizer over the
component surface, and
a control unit programmed to control operation of the
atomizer according to electro/kinematic operating variables
including a voltage for electrostatic charging of the coating
agent,
wherein the control unit is programmed to modify the
electro/kinematic operating variables dynamically during
operation of the atomizer as the atomizer moves relative to at
least one path point defined by the component surface, and
a bleeder switch electrically connected to the control unit,
wherein modifying the electro/kinematic operation variables
includes the control unit actuating the bleeder switch to reduce
the voltage.
Appeal Br. 12, claims appendix (claim 43) (emphases added).
Thus, claim 43 requires one of the electro/kinematic operating
variables be a voltage for electrostatic charging of the coating agent. The
control unit is programmed to control operation of the atomizer according to
the electro/kinematic operating variables including the voltage. And this
programming causes the control unit to actuate the bleeder switch to reduce
the voltage as part of dynamically modifying the electro/kinematic operating
variables during operation of the atomizer as it moves relative to at least one
path point defined by the component surface.
3
Appeal 2016-005015
Application 13/508,197
The Examiner rejects claims 43-46 and 48-58 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over Hissen3 in view of Minoura4 and Wilson.5 6 7Ans. 2.
The Examiner adds further prior art to reject claims 47 and 59-61.6,7 Ans. 8.
Appellant has identified a reversible error in the Examiner’s
interpretation of claim 43, the only independent claim, and the Examiner’s
finding that Wilson teaches a control unit programmed as required by claim
43.
The Examiner finds that Wilson teaches a control unit (high voltage
control block 80) and a bleeder switch (a high voltage electrical switch 200).
Final 5-6. But, as pointed out by Appellant and acknowledged by the
Examiner, Wilson’s control unit only actuates the bleeder switch when the
operator de-energizes the device. Compare Appeal Br. 8, and Reply Br. 2-
3, with Ans. 11-12; see also Wilson 50 (“The high voltage electrical
switch 200 further provides a conductive path that is only available when the
device is de-energized . . . .”).
According to the Examiner, claim 43 can be interpreted as including
the shutdown/stopping of the spraying by the atomizer. Ans. 12-13. The
Examiner further determines that the electrical connections are such that
Wilson’s device is “capable of’ functioning in the manner of the claim.
Ans. 13. But the Examiner’s focus on the capability of the electrical
3 Hissen, US 5,814,375, issued September 29, 1998.
4 Minoura et al., US 5,753,315, issued May 19, 1998.
5 Wilson et al., US 2001/0020653 Al, published September 13, 2001.
6 Rath, deceased et al., US 4,653,696, issued March 31, 1987.
7 Baumann et al., WO 2008/037456 Al, published April 3, 2008,
corresponding Baumann et al., US 2010/0147215 Al, published June 17,
2010.
4
Appeal 2016-005015
Application 13/508,197
connections is incorrect. Claim 43 requires programming. Programming
creates “a new machine, because a general purpose computer in effect
becomes a special purpose computer once it is programmed to perform
particular functions pursuant to instructions from program software.” IVMS
Gaming, Inc. v. Int'l Game Tech., 184 F.3d 1339, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 1999)
(quoting In re Alappat, 33 F.3d 1526, 1545 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (enbanc).
Claim 43’s control unit is programmed to modify the electro/kinematic
operating variables dynamically during operation of the atomizer as it moves
relative to the component surface and this programming must include the
control unit actuating the bleeder switch to reduce the voltage for
electrostatic charging of the coating agent during the atomizer operation and
movement. It is the program software that must be capable of performing
the modification function. The Examiner has not established that Wilson
teaches or suggests a control unit with programming as recited by claim 43.
The Examiner’s error stems from an overly broad interpretation of
claim 43. The error permeates all the rejections.
CONCLUSION
We do not sustain the Examiner’s rejections.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision is reversed.
REVERSED
5