Ex Parte Rantanen

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 29, 2010

10019120 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 29, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte RAUNO RANTANEN
____________

Appeal 2009-001140
Application 10/019,120
Technology Center 1700
____________

Decided: June 29, 2010
____________

Before EDWARD C. KIMLIN, TERRY J. OWENS, and
PETER F. KRATZ, Administrative Patent Judges.

KRATZ, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
Examiner’s final rejection of claims 20-26, 29-34, 36-40, 42-46, 48-52, 54-
66, and 76-85. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6.

Appeal 2009-001140
Application 10/019,120

2
Appellant’s claimed invention is directed to a method of applying
continuous jets of a treating agent onto a moving surface using a nozzle plate
and an apparatus therefor.
Claims 20, 57, and 83 are illustrative and reproduced below:
20. A method for applying a treating agent onto a moving surface,
comprising the steps of:
(a) feeding a treating agent for treating a web into at least one feeding
chamber; (b) forming continuous jets of the treating agent by directing the
treating agent through openings in at least one nozzle plate, the openings in
which the jets are formed being defined solely by the at least one nozzle
plate; and
(c) directing the jets of the treating agent toward the moving surface
such that each of the jets are separated from the other ones of the jets when
the jets exit the at least one nozzle plate.
57. An apparatus for spreading a treating agent onto a moving surface,
comprising:
a body defining at least one feeding chamber for receiving a treating
agent; and
means for directing the treating agent from the feeding chamber onto
the moving surface, said means including at least one nozzle plate that at
least partly closes said at least one feeding chamber, said at least one nozzle
plate including openings in which continuous jets of the treating agent are
formed when the feeding chamber is at least partially filled with pressurised
treating agent, wherein each of said openings comprise a periphery defined
entirely by said at least one nozzle plate, and wherein said openings in which
the jets are formed are defined solely by said at least one nozzle plate, and
wherein the jets are directed onto the moving surface, each of the jets being
separated from the other ones of the jets at the exit of the jets from the at
least one nozzle plate.
Appeal 2009-001140
Application 10/019,120

3
83. An apparatus for spreading a treating agent onto a moving surface,
comprising:
at least one feeding chamber for receiving a treating agent;
means for directing the treating agent from said at least one feeding
chamber onto the moving surface, said means including at least one nozzle
plate that at least partly closes said at least one feeding chamber, said at least
one nozzle plate including openings and having a length that is greater than a
width of an area of the moving surface that is to be treated, wherein
each of said openings comprise a periphery defined entirely by said at least
one nozzle plate, and wherein continuous jets of the treating agent are
formed by said openings and directed onto the moving surface when the
feeding chamber is at least partially filled with pressurised treating
agent; and
an actuator operatively connected to said at least one nozzle plate for
moving said at least one nozzle plate relative to said at least one feeding
chamber so that said at least one nozzle plate is at least partly outside the
width of the area of the moving surface that is to be treated.
The Examiner relies on the following prior art reference as evidence
in rejecting the appealed claims:
Mozzi 3,301,699 Jan. 31, 1967
Franz 4,072,772 Feb. 7, 1978
Ruggiero 4,901,093 Feb. 13, 1990
Daniels 5,219,618 Jun. 15, 1993
Waryu 5,405,087 Apr. 11, 1995
Kunze-Concetwitz (‘463) WO 09610463 Apr. 11, 1996
Briggs 5,649,867 Jul. 22, 1997
Haalland 5,736,195 Apr. 7, 1998
Kustermann 5,789,022 Aug. 4, 1998
Hensel 5,790,147 Aug. 4, 1998
Kunze-Concetwitz (‘952) 5,964,952 Oct. 12, 1999
Bernert 6,063,450 May 16, 2000
Kohno 6,130,682 Oct. 10, 2000

Appeal 2009-001140
Application 10/019,120

4
The Examiner maintains the following grounds of rejection:
1. Claims 20, 21, 24-26, 29, 48, 49, 52, 57, 58, 59, and 60 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Ruggiero;
2. Claim 83 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated
by Brigs;
3. Claims 20-22, 24, 48-50, 52, 57, 58, 76, and 77 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kustermann in view of
Franz and Bernert;
4. Claims 23 and 51 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kustermann in view of Franz, Bernert, and Mozzi;
5. Claims 36-38, 40, 55, 64, and 65 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as being unpatentable over Kustermann in view of Franz, Bernert,
and Waryu;
6. Claims 30-32, 34, 54, 61, and 62 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as being unpatentable over Kustermann in view of Franz, Bernert,
Waryu, and Daniels;
7. Claim 33 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kustermann in view of Franz, Bernert, Mozzi, Waryu, and
Daniels;
8. Claim 39 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kustermann in view of Franz, Bernert, Mozzi, and Waryu;
9. Claims 40-42, 46, and 56 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Kustermann in view of Franz, Bernert, Waryu,
and Kunze-Concewitz;
Appeal 2009-001140
Application 10/019,120

5
10. Claim 45 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kustermann in view of Franz, Bernert, Mozzi, and Kunze-
Concewitz;
11. Claims 78, 82, and 83 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Ruggiero in view of Haaland;
12. Claims 79 and 84 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Ruggiero in view of Haaland, and Hensel;
13. Claims 80 and 85 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Ruggiero in view of Haaland, and Waryu;
14. Claim 81 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ruggiero in view of Haaland, Waryu, and Kunze-
Concewitz.
We reverse the stated rejections for reasons set forth in the Appeal
Brief and Reply Brief, as explained below.

References Used by Examiner in Rejecting Independent Claims
Ruggiero is directed to an inkjet printing method and apparatus
wherein ink droplets are forced through a plurality of orifices in a print head
chamber wall in response to the state of energization of a transducer coupled
to each inkjet chamber (Abstract; figs. 1, 2, and 9).
Briggs is directed to a portable “waterplay” structure, which is
disclosed as being useful for backyard play, including a number of
interactive water emitting devices including pipes having orifices, such as
conduit member 31a with apertures 107 and a separate directionally
adjustable shower head 103 (Abstract, Figs. 1-7, col. 7, ll. 1-48).
Appeal 2009-001140
Application 10/019,120

6
Kustermann discloses a method and apparatus for indirect coating of
at least one side of a web using a free jet. The setup comprises use of a
stream of fluid forced from a nozzle for applying coating material to an
applicator or transfer roll, which coating material is thereafter applied to the
web (col. 2, l. 55 - col. 3, l. 50).
Franz is directed to a linear curtain spray applicator for coating a
moving article, such as for coating a glass substrate with a metal film, and
with rinse applicator and coating applicator sprays intersecting with the
surface of the article (Abstract, col. 16, l. 10 – col. 20, l. 27). Franz
discloses nozzles including a working fluid supplied via an inner tube and a
carrier fluid medium supplied via nozzle outlets outside of the inner tube
(col. 6, l. 41– col. 8, l. 17, col. 10, l. 36 – col. 11, l. 39).
Bernert discloses the use of spaced-apart single application nozzles 12
for supplying coating medium to a surface in an intersecting (overlapping)
manner (Abstract, col. 2, ll. 30-59).
Haaland is drawn to a method and apparatus for forming a thin
uniform coating on a substrate, such as a resist coating on a semiconductor
wafer, using a droplet forming device and auxiliary excitation such as sonic,
electrostatic, gas dynamic or a hybrid valve technique (Abstract, col. 3, ll.
14-59).

DISCUSSION
It is well settled that the burden of establishing a prima facie case of
non-patentability resides with the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO). See
In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472 (Fed. Cir. 1984).

Appeal 2009-001140
Application 10/019,120

7
Anticipation Rejections
Concerning the anticipation rejections, the Examiner’s failure to carry
the burden of establishing that either Ruggiero or Briggs furnishes a
description of subject matter corresponding to the requirements of any of the
appealed claims subject to being rejected as being anticipated presents a
dispositive issue that we decide in Appellant’s favor for each of the
anticipation rejections maintained by the Examiner on this appeal record.

Rejection over Ruggiero
With regard to the Examiner’s anticipation rejection over Ruggiero,
all of the claims subject to that rejection either require forming continuous
jets of treating agent by directing treating agent through nozzle plate
openings as part of a method of applying treating agent onto a moving
surface (see rejected independent claim 20), or treating agent application
apparatus, including a nozzle plate having openings for forming such
continuous jets of treating agent (see independent claim 57). We focus on
independent claims 20 and 57 in considering the propriety of this
anticipation rejection, as maintained by the Examiner in light of the
arguments furnished by Appellant.
The Examiner generally relies on Ruggiero’s disclosure of an impulse
inkjet apparatus that includes chambers having orifices 40 and 42 in a
chamber wall for ejection of droplets of ink and directing the ejected
droplets onto a surface of moving paper in rejecting claims 20, 21, 24-26,
29, 48, 49, 52, 57, 58, 59, and 60 as being anticipated by Ruggiero (Ans. 3-
4; Ruggiero, abstract, col. 3, ll. 18-66 and Fig. 1).
Appeal 2009-001140
Application 10/019,120

8
The Examiner takes the position that the droplet ejection of Ruggiero
describes the claimed formation of continuous jets of treating agent (claim
20) or apparatus capable of such continuous jet formation therein. In this
regard, the Examiner takes the position that Appellant does not furnish a
definition for “jet.” Consequently, the Examiner maintains that the ink “jet”
method of Ruggiero, wherein droplets are ejected, results in continuous
droplet ejection for at least a short time which satisfies the claimed
“continuous jet” limitations.
Appellant, on the other hand, contends that Ruggiero only discloses
droplet formation and apparatus therefor, not the continuous formation of
jets of a treating agent by directing the agent through nozzle plate openings,
including apparatus for forming such continuous jets, as claimed (App. Br.
8-9). In this regard, Appellant notes that Ruggiero is directed to a method
and apparatus for ejecting one droplet of ink at a time even when more than
one droplet is ejected (Reply Br. 2). According to Appellant, ejection of a
continuous jet of ink would not be congruent with the ink jet printing
method of Ruggiero and Appellant notes that a series of droplets is not a
continuous jet (App. Br. 8; Reply Br. 2).
We agree with Appellant as to the claim interpretation and reference
interpretation dispute surrounding the anticipation rejection over Ruggiero.
In particular, we note that Appellant’s Specification explains that “[t]he
diameter of the jets is very small, but the jets are not dispersed into spray,
whereupon their mass and impulse strength are high compared with a
spray…” (Spec. 6). Thus, giving the rejected claims their broadest
reasonable interpretation in light of the Specification as they would be
understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, we determine that the claim
Appeal 2009-001140
Application 10/019,120

9
term “continuous jet” does not embrace a series of ejected droplets as
disclosed by Ruggiero. Consequently, on this basis the Examiner’s rejection
position falls short of establishing that Ruggiero anticipates the rejected
method claims, including independent claim 20.
As for the apparatus claims, the Examiner has not reasonably
established that the ink jet assembly of Ruggiero is constructed so as to be
capable of forming a continuous jet of treating agent with apparatus
including a nozzle plate with openings arranged as independent apparatus
claim 57 calls for based on the disclosed structure of Ruggiero, including
transducers energized for ejection of droplets of ink through the chamber
wall orifices of Ruggiero.
It follows that the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claims 20, 21,
24-26, 29, 48, 49, 52, 57, 58, 59, and 60 over Ruggiero is reversed.

Rejection over Briggs
With regard to the anticipation rejection of claim 83 over Briggs, the
Examiner refers to a nozzle plate element 107 of Briggs as corresponding to
Appellant’s claimed nozzle plate element having a length greater than the
width of the moving surface to be treated and refers to column 7, lines forty
through forty-seven of the disclosure of Briggs as describing subject matter
corresponding to the claimed actuators for movement of the nozzle plate in
the statement of the rejection presented (Ans. 4 and 5). However, this
assertion of the Examiner is confusing non-moving with moveable aspects
of Briggs’ apparatus. The Examiner does not explain how the openings
(107) of Briggs’ fixed pipe (103a) together with Briggs’ disclosure of a
separately swiveling shower head (103), as referred to by the Examiner in
Appeal 2009-001140
Application 10/019,120

10
the rejection, corresponds to the at least one nozzle plate and actuator for
moving the at least one nozzle plate of rejected claim 83.
In claim 83, the actuator is required to be operatively connected to
move the nozzle plate, which plate has a length greater than a width of a
moving surface, relative to a feeding chamber and outside the area of the
moving surface to be treated. In contrast, openings 107 of pipe 103a of
Briggs are not connected for movement with shower head 103. As argued
by Appellant, even if the Examiner’s rejection was intending to equate the
shower head 103 with the claimed nozzle plate, the Examiner has not
persuasively articulated how only the end plate of the shower head where
openings 151 are located helps the Examiner’s case. In this regard, even if
the shower head endplate with openings 151 could conceivably correspond
to Appellant’s nozzle plate and if that were the rejection that was made by
the Examiner, which it is not, the shower head endplate does not move
relative to the feed chamber (inside the shower head), which that end of the
shower head closes, as is required by claim 83 (App. Br. 9-10; Reply Br. 2-
3).
On this record, we reverse the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of
claim 83.

Obviousness Rejections
On this appeal record, the Examiner’s fails to carry the burden of
establishing an adequate factual basis and/or a persuasive rationale for
establishing why one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to
select any of the proposed combinations of references and modify the
applied prior art in a manner that would have resulted in subject matter
Appeal 2009-001140
Application 10/019,120

11
corresponding to the requirements of any of the appealed claims rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). This inadequacy presents the dispositive issues
that we decide in Appellant’s favor for the obviousness rejections advanced
by the Examiner.

Kustermann in view of Franz and Bernert
We focus on claims 20 and 57, the sole independent claims subject to
this rejection.
As acknowledged by the Examiner, “Kustermann fails to teach
sending the treating agent into a feeding chamber ... then forming jets
through openings defined by the peripheries of a nozzle plate” (Ans. 6).
The Examiner relies on Franz for allegedly teaching “forming a jet
using a pipe, by directing the treating agent through an opening of the nozzle
plate, wherein the opening is solely defined by the nozzle plate as required
by the rejected claims.
The Examiner concludes that:
it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at
the time of the invention to modify Kustermann to use the
pressurized spray nozzle suggested by Franz to provide a
desirable application of a treatment agent because
Kustermann teaches applying a treating agent through a
pressurized jet onto a surface moving along a path and Franz
teaches a known pressurized jet using openings in a nozzle
plate to apply a treating agent onto a moving surface.
Ans. 6.

On the other hand, Appellant argues that Franz discloses a pipe 278
for supplying a working medium which only partially forms jets in that
Franz discloses a carrier medium is introduced through holes 280 to atomize
Appeal 2009-001140
Application 10/019,120

12
the working fluid (App. Br. 11 and 12). Thus, Appellant contends that Franz
does not teach or suggest a step of forming a continuous jet via openings
defined solely by a nozzle plate. Hence, Franz does not support the
Examiner’s proposed modification of Kustermann in Appellant’s view.
We agree.
As we noted above in discussing the anticipation rejection, the
Appellant’s claim requirement for a continuous jet of treating agent does not
encompass a spray or droplets, as evident when reading the claims in light of
the Specification (Spec. 6). Moreover, the Examiner has not established that
the atomizing nozzles of Franz form continuous jets of treating agent via
openings in a nozzle plate defined entirely by the periphery of the nozzle
plate and wherein the jets are separated from the other jets at the exit of the
jets from the nozzle plate, as acknowledged by the Examiner (Ans. 7). In
this regard, the Examiner additionally relies on Bernert for allegedly
teaching and suggesting such a feature for use in modifying Kustermann
(Ans. 7). However, as noted by Appellant (App. Br. 12), Bernert discloses
the use of separate nozzles, not openings defined solely by at least one
nozzle plate (Bernert, elements 10 and 12).
Consequently, the Examiner has not established that the proposed
combination of disparate selected elements from each of Kustermann, Franz
and Bernert would have led to subject matter embraced by the rejected
appealed claim. This is so even if the Examiner’s conclusive rationale
alleging that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to such a
selection and combination of components from the Examiner’s assembly of
references represented a credible rationale that furnished apparent reasons to
combine such features in a modification of Kustermann’s indirect web
Appeal 2009-001140
Application 10/019,120

13
coating apparatus and method based on the disparate teachings of Franz with
respect to coating an article, such as a glass substrate, using a curtain spray
applicator and the teachings of Bernert with respect to applying coating
medium in single application regions using single application nozzles.

Ruggiero in view of Haaland
Regarding the obviousness rejection of claims 78, 82, and 83 over the
combined teachings of Ruggiero and Haaland, we note that the Examiner
again relies on Ruggiero for forming jets of treating agent by directing
treating agent through openings in a nozzle plate. As we discussed above
with respect to the Examiner’s anticipation rejection over Ruggiero, we
determine that the claim term “continuous jet” does not embrace a series of
ejected droplets as disclosed by Ruggiero with respect to discharging
droplets of printing ink. The Examiner relies on Haaland for allegedly
teaching the provision of a fluid reservoir or pipe for storing fluid to be
ejected from a nozzle at an external location, not for ejecting continuous jets
of treating agent and apparatus therefor, as claimed (Ans. 14).
Consequently, on the aforementioned basis alone, the Examiner’s rejection
falls short of discharging the burden to establish that Ruggiero in
combination with Haaland would have rendered the subject matter of claims
78, 82, and 83 obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
invention. Moreover, we agree with Appellant that Ruggiero fails to teach
or suggest a nozzle plate that moves relative to a feed chamber and
transverse to the direction of movement of the moving surface that the jets
are directed to and Ruggiero does not provide an actuator for such nozzle
plate movement (claim 83) (App. Br. 14-15). The Examiner does not
Appeal 2009-001140
Application 10/019,120

14
establish otherwise by a general referral to Figure 1 and column 3 of
Ruggiero (Ans. 13-14).
It follows that we reverse the Examiner’s obviousness rejection over
Ruggiero and Haaland.

Other Rejections
As for the separate obviousness rejections of the dependent claims, we
note that each of these rejections suffers from the same inadequate
foundation as discussed above with respect to the rejections of the
independent claims, which defects the Examiner has not remedied by piling
on additional references for allegedly showing added features with respect to
several of these dependent claim rejections on top of the aforementioned
defective foundation.
It follows that we reverse all of the Examiner’s obviousness
rejections, on this record.

CONCLUSION/ORDER
The Examiner’s decision to reject the appealed claims is reversed.

REVERSED

PL Intial:
sld

Appeal 2009-001140
Application 10/019,120

15

Michael C Stuart
Cohen Pontani Lieberman & Pavane
Suite 1210
551 Fifth Avenue
New York NY 10176