Ex Parte Lind et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 30, 201410575607 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 30, 2014) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte ROBERT J. LIND and ROBERT G. GILBERT ____________ Appeal 2012-0122721 Application 10/575,6072 Technology Center 3700 ____________ Before MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, JAMES A. WORTH, and SCOTT C. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges. WORTH, 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 3 and 4, all claims pending in the subject application, which stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Laabs (US 5,868,320, iss. Feb. 9, 1999). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. §§ 134 and 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 Our decision refers to the Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“Br.,” filed May 14, 2012) and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed May 30, 2012). 2 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Graco Minnesota Inc. (Br. 1). Appeal 2012-012272 Application 10/575,607 2 Introduction Appellants’ disclosure relates to a method for thermal protection of an electric airless paint sprayer (Spec. 1, ll. 8–9, 15). Claim 3, the sole independent claim on appeal, is reproduced below: 3. A method for thermally protecting a variable speed electric paint sprayer having an electric motor, a control and a temperature, and which operates to maintain a user-selected controlled pressure, the method comprising: monitoring the temperature of said motor; and changing the control of said motor from variable speed control to on/off control when said motor temperature exceeds a predetermined level to enable continued continuous spraying at said user-selected pressure. Br., Claims App. ANALYSIS Independent claim 3 and dependent claim 4 Appellants argue that Laabs fails to disclose continuous spraying at said user-selected pressure, as required by claim 3, i.e., “to enable continued continuous spraying at said user-selected pressure.” (Br. 4). In particular, Appellants assert that once Laabs’s device shuts off the motor due to excessive temperature, the fluid pressure quickly goes to zero (id.). We are persuaded by Appellants’ argument. The Examiner finds that Laabs (col. 4, ll. 26–36) discloses shutting down the device when the temperature threshold is exceeded, and further finds that the device of Laabs continues to spray “until the temperature threshold is reached at which time the device shuts down” (Ans. 5). The Examiner finds that Laabs’s device “is enabled to continue spraying at a user-selected pressure as soon as the device is turned on, thus meeting the Appeal 2012-012272 Application 10/575,607 3 claim language of ‘to enable continued spraying at said user-selected pressure’” (id.). The Examiner determines that the claim does not recite continued spraying at a reduced non-zero pressure (id.). Although Laabs’s device resumes spraying when the device is re- started, Laabs discloses that the device restarts “after a short-delay” (col. 4, ll. 33–35). We determine that re-starting after a short delay does not “enable continued continuous spraying,” as recited by claim 3. We therefore do not sustain the rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Laabs. The rejection of claim 4, which depends from claim 3, falls for the same reason. DECISION The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 3 and 4 is reversed. REVERSED tkl Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation