Ex Parte Laviolette

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 28, 2009

10755571 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 28, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________

Ex parte THOMAS BRIAN LAVIOLETTE
__________

Appeal 2009-000430
Application 10/755,571
Technology Center 3700
__________

Decided: August 28, 2009
__________

Before TONI R. SCHEINER, DEMETRA J. MILLS, and FRANCISCO C.
PRATS, Administrative Patent Judges.

MILLS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134. The Examiner has rejected
the claims for obviousness. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

Appeal 2009-000430
Application 10/755,571

The invention is directed to a “method to dry paint that is particle
free, A method to dry paint that is much faster, A method to dry paint that
costs much less to maintain, A method that improves the finish of the paint,
and, A vacuum drying apparatus and method which keeps a particle free
atmosphere.” (Spec. 4.)
The following claims are representative.
2. A method of drying paint applied to a painted automotive panel,
comprising the steps of:

a) enclosing the painted automotive panel within an enclosure;

b) controlling a first pressure within the enclosure by drawing air from
within the enclosure through a first outlet and preventing air from entering
the enclosure through any other opening within the enclosure such that the
first pressure within the enclosure is lower than a second pressure outside
the enclosure; and

c) maintaining the first pressure within the enclosure for a selected period to
dry paint applied to the painted automotive panel.

5. The method as recited in claim 2, including the step of applying heat to
the painted automotive panel while disposed within the enclosure at the first
pressure.

6. The method as recited in claim 2, wherein the enclosure includes a tunnel
portion and an air lock portion, wherein the tunnel portion is maintained at
the first pressure, and a pressure within the air lock portion selectively
changes between the first pressure and the second pressure.

7. The method as recited in claim 6, including the steps of placing the
painted automotive panel within the air lock portion at the second pressure,
reducing pressure within the air lock portion to the first pressure, and
moving the painted automotive panel from the air lock portion to the tunnel
portion.

2
Appeal 2009-000430
Application 10/755,571

Cited References
Shutic US 5,095,811 Mar. 17, 1992
Telchuk US 5,113,600 May 19, 1992
Oppel US 6,644,092 B1 Nov. 11, 2003

Grounds of Rejection
1. Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being clearly
anticipated by Shutic.
2. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Shutic in view of Telchuk.
3. Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Shutic in view of Oppel.

Anticipation
ISSUE
The Examiner finds that Shutic discloses each limitation of the
claimed method of drying.
Appellant contends that Shutic does not disclose a method of drying
paint and that Shutic does not disclose the claimed step of “controlling a first
pressure within the enclosure by drawing air from within the enclosure
through a first outlet and preventing air from entering the enclosure through
any other opening within the enclosure such that the first pressure within the
enclosure is lower than a second pressure outside the enclosure”. (App. Br.
3.)
The issue is: Has Appellant demonstrated that Shutic does not
disclose each feature of the claimed method?

3

Appeal 2009-000430
Application 10/755,571

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. According to the Examiner, Shutic discloses
enclosing the painted automotive panel within an
enclosure at column 5 lines 41-54;
controlling a first pressure within the enclosure by
drawing air from within the enclosure through a first outlet and
preventing air from entering the enclosure through any other
opening within the enclosure such that the first pressure within
the enclosure is lower than a second pressure outside the
enclosure at column 6 lines 29-68 wherein the disclosed draft
prevention is considered to anticipate the claimed first outlet air
prevention step because both control a first pressure within an
enclosure by drawing air from within the enclosure and in the
last two lines of the abstract since the disclosed "negative
pressure maintained within the booth interior" anticipates the
claimed first and second pressures relating to the enclosure
because a negative pressure is a first pressure lower than the
second pressure exterior the booth; and
maintaining the first pressure within the enclosure to for
a selected period to dry paint applied to the painted automotive
panel at column 7 lines 1-37.

(Ans. 3.)

2. The Examiner finds that Shutic discloses

the claimed step of controlling a pressure within the enclosure
includes generating a vacuum within the enclosure relative to a
pressure outside of the enclosure and preventing air outside the
enclosure from entering the enclosure at column 8 lines 35-50,
wherein the vacuum generated is maintained until the desired
condition of the painted automotive panel is obtained at column
9 lines 13-30.

(Ans. 3-4.)

4

Appeal 2009-000430
Application 10/755,571

3. The Examiner finds regarding claim 5, that “Shutic discloses the claimed
invention … except for the claimed heat application.” (Ans. 4.)
4. “Telchuk … discloses heat application at column 2 lines 29-59.” (Ans. 4.)
5. The Examiner finds that “[i]t would have been obvious to one skilled in
the art to combine the teachings of Shutic with the heat application,
considered disclosed in Telchuk, for the purpose of drying paint with lower
initial, operating and maintenance costs.” (Id.)
6. The Examiner finds regarding claim 6, that “Shutic discloses the claimed
invention … except for the claimed air lock portion.” (Id.)
7. “Oppel … discloses an air lock portion at column 3 line 21 through
column 6 line 20.” (Id.)
8. According to the Examiner “[i]t would have been obvious to one skilled
in the art to combine the teachings of Shutic with the air lock portion,
considered disclosed in Oppel, for the purpose of maintaining a clean
environment inside each paint booth section.” (Id.)
9. Shutic distinguishes between applying wet paint to an object and
applying a powder coat (Shutic, col. 2, ll. 37; col. 3, ll. 2-4), and discloses a
powder coating booth with modulated air flow. (Shutic, Title and Abstract.)
In powder coating, the powdered paint may be applied by either of two
techniques.
“1. The item is lowered into a fluidised bed of the powder, which may or
may not be electrostatically charged, or
2. The powdered paint is electrostatically charged and sprayed onto the
part.

5

Appeal 2009-000430
Application 10/755,571

The part is then placed in an oven and the powder particles melt and
coalesce to form a continuous film.” http://www.finishing.com/-
Library/pennisi/powder.html
Thus, Shutic discloses a booth for applying a dry paint coating
electrostatically, and not for applying a wet paint coating that undergoes
drying.
10. Shutic discloses that make-up type spray booths have been employed
with the application of liquid coatings on automobile bodies, and that such
spray booths include a tunnel-like construction including a coating
application area, a paint curing area, or a drying area in some designs.
(Shutic, col. 1, ll. 15-26.)
11. Shutic discloses that its spray booth requires both air infeed blowers and
air exhaust fans. (Shutic, col. 4, ll. 9-14.) In Shutic, an airhouse introduces
make-up or conditioned air, i.e., filtered and tempered air to the booth.
(Shutic, col. 7, ll. 27-31.) A controller is effective to partially open or close
a damper in feed ducts or a damper in discharge ducts. (Shutic, col. 8, ll. 2-
50; col. 12, ll. 50-62.) Clean air is introduced through exhaust ducts.
(Shutic, col. 8, ll. 51-64.)

ANALYSIS
Appellant argues that Shutic does not disclose a method of drying
paint as claimed but instead discloses a powder coating system and method.
(App. Br. 4.)
We acknowledge that the claims do not recite a method of drying a
particular type of paint. However, we read claim 2 to recite a method of

6

Appeal 2009-000430
Application 10/755,571

drying paint which is a type of paint that requires drying, otherwise a
method of drying would be superfluous.
Shutic relates to a method and apparatus for powder coating relatively
large objects. (Abstract.) Powder coating is defined as a technique of
applying dry paint to a part (FF9). Such a paint does not require drying as it
is applied as a powder or electrostatically charged. We further acknowledge
that Shutic discloses a booth for drying liquid paints is known as described
in the “Background of the Invention” section. (FF 10.)
Appellant asserts that the disclosed powder coating process of Shutic
is not a paint drying process, as claimed. (App. Br. 4.) Appellant argues
Shutic discloses a powder coating process, especially when read in light of
the background of the invention in Shutic. (Id. At 5-6.)
Appellant argues that:

Claim 2 further requires the step of controlling a first
pressure within the enclosure by drawing air from within the
enclosure through a first outlet and preventing air from
entering the enclosure through any other opening within the
enclosure such that a first pressure within the enclosure is
lower than a second pressure outside the enclosure. The Shutic
et al. reference does not disclose or suggest this step. In fact, in
Shutic et al. air flow is provided for and required to be
introduced into the chamber to pick up and entrain the powder
material for delivery to a powder collection and recovery
system. (Please see Shutic et al., Col 6, lines 32-35).

(App. Br. 4.)

We are persuaded by Appellant’s argument. Shutic’s powder coating
does not require drying in the first place (FF9). Moreover, we do not find
that the Examiner has provided sufficient evidence in the prior art before us,

7

Appeal 2009-000430
Application 10/755,571

of a step of preventing air from entering the enclosure through any other
opening within the enclosure such that a first pressure within the enclosure is
lower than a second pressure outside the enclosure, as claimed.
The Examiner argues that at column 8 lines 35-50 of Shutic, the
disclosed air exhaust duct with dampers and blower would necessarily lower
pressure within the booth enclosure when the dampers are shut and the
blowers are exhausting air from the enclosure, otherwise the enclosure
vacuum could not form, as disclosed in the Shutic abstract. (Ans. 6.)
We are not convinced. Shutic discloses that its spray booth requires
both air infeed blowers and air exhaust fans. (Shutic, col. 4, ll. 9-14.) In
Shutic, an airhouse introduces make-up or conditioned air, i.e., filtered and
tempered air to the booth. (Shutic, col. 7, ll. 27-31.) A controller is
effective to partially open or close a damper in feed ducts or a damper in
discharge ducts. (Shutic, col. 8, ll. 2-50; col. 12, ll. 50-62.) Clean air is
introduced through exhaust ducts. (Shutic, col. 8, ll. 51-64.) (FF11.)
Because Shutic introduces clean air through the exhaust ducts, we do not
find that that Shutic discloses a step of “preventing air from entering the
enclosure through any other opening within the enclosure such that a first
pressure within the enclosure is lower than a second pressure outside the
enclosure,” as claimed.

CONCLUSION OF LAW
Appellant has demonstrated that Shutic does not disclose each feature
of the claimed method. The anticipation rejection is reversed.

8

Appeal 2009-000430
Application 10/755,571

Obviousness
2. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Shutic in view of Telchuk.
3. Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Shutic in view of Oppel.
We do not find that Telchuk or Oppel overcome the deficiencies of
Shutic and the obviousness rejections are reversed.

SUMMARY
The anticipation and obviousness rejections are reversed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).

REVERSED

Ssc:

THOMAS BRIAN LAVIOLETTE
1001 OAKWOOD ROAD
ORTONVILLE, MI 48462

9