Ex Parte Koehne et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 28, 2019

14432673 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jun. 28, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/432,673 03/31/2015
164 7590 07/02/2019
KINNEY & LANGE, P.A.
312 SOUTH THIRD STREET
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55415-1002
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
David W. Koehne
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.
G372-012107-1922US2 2633
EXAMINER
GREENLUND, JOSEPH A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3752
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/02/2019 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):
uspatdocket@kinney.com
dabulmer@kinney.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DAVID W. KOEHNE, MARKE. ULRICH,
TAMARA M. BENTLEY, and JOSEPH A. DANISKI
Appeal2018-005948
Application 14/432,673
Technology Center 3700
Before DANIELS. SONG, BRETT C. MARTIN, and
BRANDON J. WARNER, Administrative Patent Judges.
WARNER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Graco Minnesota, Inc. ("Appellant") 1 appeals under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134(a) from the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-5, 7-13, and
15-19, which are all the pending claims. Appeal Br. 2. We have
jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Graco Minnesota, Inc. is the applicant, as provided in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.46, and is identified as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal2018-005948
Application 14/432,673
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant's disclosed invention relates to electrostatic spray guns,
such as those used to spray paint, sealants, coatings, enamels, adhesives,
powders, and the like. See, e.g., Spec., p. 1, 11. 3-5. Claims 1 and 13 are
independent. Claim 1, reproduced below with emphasis added, is illustrative
of the subject matter on appeal.
1. An electrostatic spray gun compris[ing]:
a gun barrel;
a gun handle affixed to the gun barrel; and
a spray tip assembly affixed to the gun barrel, the spray
tip assembly comprising:
a tip assembly face;
a tip disposed at the tip assembly face;
an electrode extending a first distance
perpendicularly from the tip assembly face, and disposed
asymmetrically with respect to the tip and the tip
assembly face;
a shield tower extending perpendicularly from the
tip assembly face, disposed cylindrically about the
electrode; and
first and second shield flanges situated on opposite
sides of the tip, and extending away from the tip assembly
face a second distance greater than the first distance.
2
Appeal2018-005948
Application 14/432,673
EVIDENCE
The Examiner relied on the following evidence in rejecting the claims
on appeal:
Malcolm
Smith
Hartle
Young
us 4,219,865
us 4,513,913
US 2003/0006322 Al
US 2004/0256503 Al
REJECTIONS
The following rejections are before us for review:
Aug. 26, 1980
Apr. 30, 1985
Jan.9,2003
Dec. 23, 2004
I. Claims 1-5, 7-10, 13, and 15-19 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Hartle, Young, and
Smith. Final Act. 2-9.
II. Claims 11 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Hartle, Young, Smith, and Malcolm. Id.
at 9-10.
ANALYSIS
Appellant argues that Rejections I and II are deficient based on an
assertion that Smith does not teach first and second shield flanges that are
situated on opposite sides of a spray tip and extend away from the tip face
assembly a distance that is greater than that of an electrode. Appeal Br. 7;
see id. at 5-7. In particular, Appellant's argument is premised on an
assertion that Smith itself "does not disclose any sort of electrode tip, and is
consequently uninformative as to the position of shield flanges relative to
such an electrode tip." Id. at 7.
3
Appeal2018-005948
Application 14/432,673
Upon consideration of the record before us, Appellant's argument
does not apprise us of error in the Examiner's reliance on the disclosure of
Smith, which is supported by a preponderance of the evidence, or the
Examiner's reasonable conclusion of obviousness, which is rationally
articulated based on prior art teachings. In short, we sustain the Examiner's
rejection based on the reasoned position set forth therein and in light of the
Examiner's response to Appellant's argument. See Final Act. 3--4, 7-8;
Ans. 3-5.
In response to Appellant's argument regarding Smith, the Examiner
reiterates that the rejection is based on a combination of teachings from
Hartle, Young, and Smith, and that Smith's teaching with respect to the
extent of its flanges is used to modify the spray tip assembly of Hartle. See
Ans. 3--4 (including reproductions of portions of the relevant figures from
Hartle and Smith). More specifically, the Examiner explains some of the
benefits afforded by protective elements 88, 90 of Smith and reasons that, by
incorporating such extended protective elements with the spray tip assembly
of Hartle, the combination "would disclose extending the shield flanges
more than Hartle does, far past that of the electrode, so as to protect the
spray tip (which in Hartle includes the electrode) from being damaged by
any unwanted physical contact from the emitted fluids back onto the spray
tip." Ans. 5. In light of this reasonable explanation regarding the
combination of prior art teachings applied, Appellant's argument about
Smith alone does not apprise us of error in the Examiner's rejections.
After careful consideration of the evidence of record, Appellant's
argument does not apprise us of error in the Examiner's rejections.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejections.
4
Appeal2018-005948
Application 14/432,673
DECISION
We AFFIRM the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-5, 7-10, 13,
and 15-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Hartle, Young,
and Smith.
We AFFIRM the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 11 and 12
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Hartle, Young, Smith, and
Malcolm.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
5