Ex Parte Sanada et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 20, 2003

09255699 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 20, 2003)

The opinion in support of the decision being
entered today was not written for publication
and is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 32
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte KAZUO SANADA and TSUTOMU TAKATSUKA
____________
Appeal No. 2002-1856
Application No. 09/255,699
____________
HEARD: March 4, 2003
____________
Before COHEN, STAAB and McQUADE, Administrative Patent Judges.
McQUADE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Kazuo Sanada et al. originally took this appeal from the
final rejection of claims 1, 7, 10, 12, 18 and 19. As the
appellants have since canceled claim 7, the appeal now involves1
claims 1, 10, 12, 18 and 19, all of the claims currently pending
Appeal No. 2002-1856
Application No. 09/255,699
THE INVENTION
The invention relates to a liquid spraying apparatus
designed for use in a photographic image forming machine.
Representative claims 1 and 10 read as follows:
1. A liquid spraying apparatus in which a nozzle plate is
provided at a portion of a lower wall surface of a spray tank
which stores a liquid therein, the nozzle plate has a row of
nozzles made up of a plurality of nozzle holes through which the
liquid is sprayed when the nozzle plate is reciprocated,
comprising:
at least a portion of the spray tank being formed from a
transparent member;
a monitoring camera which views an internal portion of said
spray tank from at least a side end wall surface of said spray
tank, through said transparent member;
wherein said internal portion of said spray tank is
photographed by said camera to determine an existence of residual
bubbles in said spray tank.
10. A liquid spraying apparatus comprising:
a nozzle plate provided at a portion of a lower wall surface
of a spray tank which stores a liquid therein, the nozzle plate
having a row of nozzles made up of a plurality of nozzle holes
through which the liquid is sprayed when the nozzle plate is
reciprocated;
bubble detecting means which, when said spray tank is filled
with the liquid, detect whether or not residual bubbles exist
inside said spray tank;
Appeal No. 2002-1856
Application No. 09/255,699
THE PRIOR ART
The references relied on by the examiner as evidence of
obviousness are:
Houser 3,701,476 Oct. 31, 1972
Robertson et al. (Robertson) 5,487,378 Jan. 30, 1996
Ciardella et al. (Ciardella) 5,505,777 Apr. 9, 1996
Sander et al. (Sander) 5,991,019 Nov. 23, 1999
THE REJECTIONS
Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ciardella in view of Houser.
Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ciardella in view of Houser and Robertson.
Claims 1, 18 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Ciardella in view of Houser and
Sander.
Attention is directed to the appellants’ main and reply
briefs (Paper Nos. 20 and 22) and to the examiner’s answer (Paper
No. 21) for the respective positions of the appellants and the
examiner regarding the merits of these rejections.
Appeal No. 2002-1856
Application No. 09/255,699
Ciardella, the examiner’s primary reference, discloses “a
computer controlled system for high speed surface mount adhesive
placement in circuit board production” (column 1, lines 18
through 20). In general, the system comprises a viscous adhesive
dot generator supported for motion along X, Y and Z axes, a
circuit board conveyor disposed beneath the dot generator, a
video camera and vision circuit for monitoring dot size and
location and a computer which interfaces with the foregoing
elements to operate the assembly line. The viscous adhesive dot
generator 12, which the examiner likens to the claimed liquid
spraying apparatus, comprises a nozzle 70, a fluid feed conduit
72, a drop generation chamber 74, an elastomeric sealing gasket
76, a syringe 84, an impact hammer 104, a solenoid 112, a
controller 120, a heater ring 132 and a strain gauge 144. These
dot generator components cooperate as shown in Figures 3 and 4
and described at column 8, line 15 et seq. Noting that air
bubbles in the adhesive material within the dot generator can
adversely effect the volume and shape of the dots dispensed
therefrom, Ciardella processes the strain gauge signals to detect
Appeal No. 2002-1856
Application No. 09/255,699
As conceded by the examiner (see pages 3 and 4 in the
answer), Ciardella’s dot generator does not respond to the
limitations in independent claims 1, 10, 18 and 19 requiring a
nozzle plate having “a row of nozzles made up of a plurality of
nozzle holes,” or to the additional limitations in claims 1, 18
and 19 requiring a “monitoring camera” for determining the
existence of residual bubbles in the spray tank. The Ciardella
system embodies a nozzle 70 ostensibly having but a single nozzle
hole and a bubble detector in the form of strain gauge 144. To
cure these shortcomings, the examiner turns to Houser and Sander.
Houser discloses a jet drop recording/printing head assembly
10 (see Figure 1) comprising a fluid supply manifold 20 for
holding an electrically conductive recording/printing fluid, an
orifice plate 18 containing two rows of orifices 26 welded to the
manifold, a stimulator 28 for vibrating the orifice plate, and a
charge ring plate 50 and a pair of catchers 54 disposed beneath
the orifice plate. In use (see Figure 2), the stimulator
vibrates the orifice plate causing drops of conductive printing
fluid to issue from the orifices and pass through the charge ring
Appeal No. 2002-1856
Application No. 09/255,699
Sander discloses a bubble chamber spectrometer 10 for
detecting the presence and concentration of an analyte in a
solvent. In Sander’s words,
[a] bubble chamber [12] receives a solution containing
an analyte to be detected. A laser [32] is adapted to
direct an output laser beam through the bubble chamber,
where the laser is selected to be absorbed by the
analyte and to be transmitted by the solvent. A video
camera [44] is adapted to display passage of said laser
beam through said bubble chamber so that bubbles in the
solvent arising from energy deposition in the analyte
can be counted to characterize the analyte both
quantitatively and qualitatively [column 2, lines 2
through 11].
In proposing to combine Ciardella with Houser and Sander,
the examiner submits that it would have been obvious “to have
replaced the nozzle of Ciardella et al. with the reciprocated
nozzle plate of Houser to increase the spray pattern” (answer,
page 3 and page 4), and “to have replaced the bubble detection
means of Ciardella et al. with the bubble detection means of
Sander et al. to view the bubbles” (answer, pages 4 and 5).
In short, there is nothing in the fair teachings of
Ciardella, Houser and Sander which would have motivated one of
Appeal No. 2002-1856
Application No. 09/255,699
refill calibration in addition to bubble detection (see Ciardella
at column 7, lines 27 through 60; and column 9, lines 33 through
43), with Sander’s spectrometer video camera 44. The only
suggestion for selectively combining these disparate teachings in
the manner proposed by the examiner stems from hindsight
knowledge impermissibly derived from the appellants’ disclosure.
Accordingly, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of claim 10 as being unpatentable over
Ciardella in view of Houser, or the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of claims 1, 18 and 19 as being unpatentable over
Ciardella in view of Houser and Sander.
As Robertson’s disclosure of a pharmaceutical inhaler does
not overcome the deficiencies of Ciardella and Houser relative to
parent claim 10, we also shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of dependent claim 12 as being unpatentable
over Ciardella in view of Houser and Robertson.2
Appeal No. 2002-1856
Application No. 09/255,699
SUMMARY
The decision of the examiner to reject claims 1, 10, 12, 18
and 19 is reversed.
REVERSED
IRWIN CHARLES COHEN )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
LAWRENCE J. STAAB ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
Appeal No. 2002-1856
Application No. 09/255,699
SUGHRUE, MION, ZINN, MACPEAK
& SEAS
2100 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, N.W.
WASHINGTON, DC 20037-3202