Ex Parte Schwenke et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 30, 201513177651 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 30, 2015) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/177,651 07/07/2011 95329 7590 01/04/2016 CANTOR COLBURN LLP - SABIC EXATEC 20 Church Street 22nd Floor Hartford, CT 06103 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Robert Schwenke 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. 1 OEXT0045-US-DIV 6921 EXAMINER TALBOT, BRIAN K ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1715 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/04/2016 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): usptopatentmail@cantorcolbum.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ROBERT SCHWENKE, ERIC VAN DER MEDLEN, BILLY BUI and KEITH WEISS Appeal2014-003118 Application 13/177 ,651 Technology Center 1700 Before MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, JAMES C. HOUSEL, and CHRISTOPHER L. OGDEN, Administrative Patent Judges. COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2014-003118 Application 13/177,651 Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 the final rejection of claims 1-15. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We AFFIRM. Appellants' invention is directed to a method of printing a conductive heater grid design on plastic or glass glazing panels, such as those used as backlights in vehicles (Spec. i-f 2). Claims 1 and 9 are illustrative: 1. A method for printing a conductive trace on a plastic panel comprising: locating a nozzle proximate to a surface of a panel to be printed upon, via an articulatable member; moving the nozzle relative to the surface of the panel, via the member; sensing the surface of the panel relative to the height of the nozzle off of the panel; determining the speed at which the nozzle is being moved across the surf ace of the panel; adjusting a flow rate of conductive ink out of the nozzle as the member is moved; and dispensing a conductive ink from the nozzle onto the surface of the panel to form the conductive trace; wherein the conductive trace is formed with a predetermined width. 9. A method for printing a conductive trace on a plastic panel comprising: locating a nozzle proximate to a surface of a panel to be printed upon, via an articulatable member; moving the nozzle relative to the surface of the panel, via the member; non-contact sensing the surface of the panel relative to the height of the nozzle off of the panel; determining the speed at which the nozzle is being moved across the surface of the panel; 2 Appeal 2014-003118 Application 13/177,651 adjusting at least one of the height of the nozzle relative to the surface of the panel and a flow rate of conductive ink out of the nozzle as the member is moved, respectively; and dispensing a conductive ink from the nozzle onto the surface of the panel to form the conductive trace; wherein the conductive trace is fonned with a predetennined width. Appellants appeal the following rejections: 1. Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as unpatentable over Iimori et al. (US 2005/0056213 Al, published Mar. 17, 2005). 2. Claims 9-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Iimori in view of Hicks (US 5,119,759, issued Jun. 9, 1992). 3. Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Thompson (US 2003/0029336 Al, published Feb. 13, 2003) in view of Hicks. FINDfNGS OF FACT & ANALYSIS REJECTION (1): § 102(b) over Iimori Appellants separately argue claims 1, 5, 6, 7, and 8 (Br. 4--5). Appellants argue that Iimori fails to teach controlling the volume flow rate of the coating material and does not disclose adjusting the volume flow (Br. 4). Appellants contend that Iimori does not teach the claim limitation of "adjusting a flow rate of conductive ink out of the nozzle as the member is moved" (Br. 5). Appellants argue that Iimori's positive displacement pump merely discharges that same amount of paste regardless of the downstream pressure. Id. The Examiner finds that Iimori teaches controlling the volume flow rate and therefore, adjusts the flow rate to maintain a constant flow (Ans. 2). 3 Appeal 2014-003118 Application 13/177,651 The Examiner finds that adjusting the volume of the coating material inherently adjusts the flow rate so as to keep it constant while traveling across the curved surface (Ans. 2). We find that the preponderance of the evidence favors the Examiner's finding of anticipation. Iimori teaches delivering the conductive paste from the supply 41 to the nozzle 25 while the robot arm 5 is operated to move the application head 7 along the curved surface configuration of the curved resin plate (i-f 21 ). Iimori teaches that in the disclosed embodiment the application head 7 is moved by the robot arm at a speed of 200 mm/s to form the defogger line 47 having a thickness of 0.8 mm. Id. Based upon Iimori' s disclosures, we find that in order to keep the rate of discharge of the coating constant during movement of the robotic arm at a velocity of 2 00 mm/ s to form a 0. 8 mm thick line, the flow rate provided to the nozzle 25 would inherently need to be adjusted to maintain the desired flow. Iimori may disclose that the pump used for supplying the paste "restrain[ s] variation in the discharge amount of the conductive paste" but that disclosure does not mean that the rate at which the set amount is delivered is invariable (Iimori, i123). Indeed, if the speed at which the robot arm 5 moves the head 7 changes then the rate of conductive paste supplied needs to change inherently to maintain a constant delivered amount in order to achieve the desired conductive line thickness across the panel, for example. For the same reasons, we find Appellants' arguments regarding claim 7 (i.e., "the adjusting step increase the flow rate of conductive ink from the nozzle") and claim 8 (i.e., "the adjusting step decreases the flow rate of conductive ink from the nozzle") unpersuasive. The flow rate of the nozzle 4 Appeal 2014-003118 Application 13/177,651 supply would inherently have to increase or decrease to maintain the desired conductive line thickness when the speed at which the robot arm 5 moves the nozzle increases or decreases. Claim 5 depends from claim 2 and recites that "the adjusting step further raises the height of the nozzle." Claim 6 depends from claim 2 and recites that "the adjusting step further lowers the height of the nozzle." Appellants argue that Iimori teaches maintaining a fixed clearance between the nozzle 25 and application surface 45a and does teach changing the height of the nozzle while the apparatus is moving (Br. 5). The Examiner does not respond to Appellants' argument regarding claims 5 and 6. We agree with Appellants that Iimori teaches using a contact member 3 3 that rides along the surface of the panel during deposition to provide a fixed distance for the nozzle from the panel (i-fi-f 18, 21, and 22). Iimori teaches adjusting the contact member 33 in advance of running the apparatus to set the clearance between the nozzle and the panel (i-f 21 ). Accordingly, the Examiner has not directed us to any teaching that the nozzle height is adjusted as the robot arm is moved. On this record, we affirm the Examiner's § 102 (b) rejection of claims 1--4, 7, and 8 over Iimori and we reverse the Examiner's§ 102(b) rejection of claim 5 and 6 over Iimori. REJECTION (2): § 103(a) Iimori in view of Hicks Appellants separately argue claims 9, 10, and 11 (Br. 11-12). Regarding claim 9 Appellants argue that Hicks does not sense the height of the nozzle from the substrate surface while dispensing solder (Br. 12). 5 Appeal 2014-003118 Application 13/177,651 The Examiner finds that Iimori teaches the subject matter of claim 9, except for the use of a non-contact sensor (Final Act. 2, 4). The Examiner finds that Hicks teaches using a non-contact sensor to control nozzle height during operation of the solder nozzle along a preprogrammed path about the surface (Final Act. 4--5). The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to have modified Iimori's process by including a non-contact height sensing apparatus as taught by Hicks with the expectation of achieving a more uniform desired thickness of the dispensed material (Final Act. 5). Appellants' argument regarding Hicks' sensing of the nozzle height during movement of the nozzle is unpersuasive. Hicks teaches "accurate sensing of the height of a solder nozzle above a circuit board during operation of the solder nozzle" (col. 3, 11. 8-11 ). Hicks further discloses that the robot control unit 32 moves the solder nozzle 12 throughout a preprogrammed path above the surface of a circuit board or other planar member, with the understanding that variations in the circuit board thickness make it necessary to adjust the nozzle height above the surface of the circuit board to provide a uniform and desired solder thickness (col. 4, 11. 5-1 7). Accordingly, Hicks teaches or would have suggested adjusting the nozzle height as the robot arm moves the nozzle around a preprogrammed path of the circuit board during operation of the deposition process. We further note that claim 9 recites "adjusting at least one of the height of the nozzle relative to the surface of the panel and a flow rate of the conductive ink out of the nozzle as the member is moved." By the plain language of claim 9, either adjusting the nozzle height, adjusting the flow rate of the conductive ink, or both adjustments need to be performed to satisfy that limitation of the claim. The Examiner relies on Hicks to teach 6 Appeal 2014-003118 Application 13/177,651 using a non-contact sensor to adjust the height of the nozzle. Appellants do not specifically contest the combination of Hicks' non-contact sensor (i.e., pneumatic switch nozzle 24) for Iimori's contact member 33. Indeed, Hicks discloses advantages in using a non-contact sensor over using a contact sensor for controlling nozzle height (col 6, 11. 61---68, col. 7, 11. 1-7). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to include Hicks' non-contact sensor with the Iimori' s process to sense nozzle height. As noted above, we find that the Examiner has established that Iimori inherently teaches adjusting the flow rate of the conductive ink as the nozzle member is moved. Therefore, Iimori alone would teach the disputed adjusting step. For this additional reason, we find that the combination of Iimori and Hicks would have suggested the subject matter of claim 9. Claim 10 depends from claim 9 and recites "wherein the non-contact sensing is performed with a laser triangulation sensor." Appellants argue that Hicks does not teach using a laser triangulation sensor (Br. 12). The Examiner finds that using a laser triangulation sensor would have been within the skill of the ordinarily skilled artisan, since Hicks discloses sensing with light sources (Ans. 4). Appellants do not respond to or otherwise show error with this finding of the Examiner. Any finding of the Examiner not shown to be in error may be accepted as fact. In re Kunzmann, 326 F.2d 424, 425 n.3 (CCPA 1964). We are unpersuaded that the Examiner erred in determining that using a laser triangulation sensor would have been obvious in light of Iimori' s and Hicks' teachings. Claim 11 depends from claim 9 and further recites "forming the plastic panel with a curved surface to be printed on." Appellants argue that Hicks does not teach a curved panel surface such that one of ordinary skill in 7 Appeal 2014-003118 Application 13/177,651 the art would not have considered Hicks' disclosures (Br. 12). Iimori, however, teaches using a curved resin sheet 45 (i-f 21 ). Accordingly, the fact that Hicks teaches printing on a planar substrate does not detract from Iimori's teachings to use a curved panel. Moreover, the Examiner relies on Hicks to teach a non-contact sensor to adjust the distance between the nozzle and the surface of the panel. Therefore, whether Hicks' teaches a curved panel is not determinative as the Examiner has shown that the ordinarily skilled artisan would have used Hicks' non-contact sensor in lieu of Iimori's contact sensor to achieve the advantages disclosed by Hicks. On this record, we affirm the Examiner's§ 103(a) rejection of claims 9--15 over Iimori and Hicks. REJECTION (3): § 103(a) Thompson in view of Hicks Appellants argue the subject matter of claims 1, 2, 3, 9, and 10 (Br. 6- 11). For reasons evident below, we need to consider only Appellants' arguments regarding claims 1, 2, 3, and 9. The Examiner finds that Thompson discloses the subject matter of claim 1 and claim 9, except for adjusting the height of the nozzle from the substrate using a non-contact sensor (Final Act. 3--4). The Examiner finds that Hicks teaches using a non-contact sensor to determine the distance between a surface and nozzle (Final Act. 4). The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to modify Thompson's process by including a non-contact height sensing apparatus as taught by Hicks with the expectation of achieving a more uniform desired thickness of the dispensed material (Final Act. 4 ). 8 Appeal 2014-003118 Application 13/177,651 Regarding claim 1, Appellants argue that Thompson and Hicks fail to teach the claim limitation of "sensing the surface of the panel relative to the height of the nozzle off of the panel" (Br. 6). Contrary to Appellants' argument, Thompson teaches that the pen (i.e., nozzle) height is measured and determined relative to the level at the sampling time (i.e., when the pen is resting on the substrate 20) (Fig. 7; i-f 31 ). Thompson discloses that the pen initially rests on the substrate and the ink pushes the pen upward (i-f 31 ). A pen height signal as the pen is pushed upward by the ink is compared to a preset pen height and the pen stops when the preset distance between the substrate and the pen tip is reached. Id. Based on Thompson's disclosures, the Examiner's factual findings are sufficient to support the conclusion that the argued limitation of claim 1 is met by Thompson alone. Thompson measures the distance between the substrate surface and the pen by sensing when the pen is touching the substrate and by sensing when the pen has risen to a desired level off the substrate. As we understand the Examiner's rejection, Hicks' teaching regarding the non-contact sensor is applied to meet the requirements of claim 9 only. Regarding claim 2, Appellants argue that neither Thompson nor Hicks teaches the plastic panel is formed with a curved surface to be printed upon (Br. 10). Thompson, however, teaches printing on a warped (i.e., curved surface). As with claim 1, we understand the Examiner's rejection of claim 2 not to require Hicks' disclosure. Claim 3 depends from claim 2 and recites "wherein the sensing step directly senses the height of the nozzle relative to the surface of the panel." 9 Appeal 2014-003118 Application 13/177,651 Appellants argue that Hicks fails to teach directly sensing the height of the nozzle relative to the surface of the panel (Br. 10-11). Appellants, however, do not explain how the phrase "directly senses" should be construed in light of the Specification. The Specification discloses that any sensor may be used to measure the distance between the nozzle and the substrate surface (Spec. i-f 28). The Specification exemplifies using a laser triangulation sensor to determine the distance of the sensor to the surface is determined. Id. The determined distance from the surface to the sensor is then used to calculate the height of the nozzle by the controller 45 based on the signal from the sensor and the known position of the actuator and the nozzle. Id. Appellants do not explain why Thompson's sensing of the distance of the pen tip (i.e., nozzle) to the surface of the substrate is not considered "directly sensing." Like Appellants' disclosed embodiment, Thompson measures the distance of the nozzle relative to the substrate surface and when the nozzle reaches a preset height, the force applied to the pen tip is controlled. Accordingly, the pen tip height relative to the surface of the substrate is directly sensed by measuring the movement of the pen tip away from the substrate surface by the conductive ink. Regarding claim 9, Appellants argue that there is no reason for the ordinarily skilled artisan to combine Hicks' non-contact sensor with Thompson's process that relies on "dynamic pen control" (i.e., contact between the pen tip and the viscous conductive ink) to measure nozzle height and control force (Br. 8). We agree with Appellants. Notably, the Examiner agrees in part with Appellants' argument, but the Examiner finds that Hicks teaches advantages to using a non-contact sensor (Ans. 2-3). The Examiner's findings fail to address Appellants' 10 Appeal 2014-003118 Application 13/177,651 specific arguments that Thompson is directed to sensing and controlling the nozzle height based upon the movement of the pen tip by the conductive ink (Thompson i-f 31, 33). Thompson further discloses that by using the dynamic pen control the process can be operated without the use of a surface sensing outrigger probe (i-f 33). Although non-contact sensors have advantages over the use of contact sensors, Thompson uses specific dynamic pen control that relies on contact with the substrate to provide the desired control without a separate outrigger sensor probe. Accordingly, modifying Thompson's process to use Hicks' non-contact sensor would have required a substantial redesign and reconstruction of the elements shown in Thompson and the modification would have changed the principle of operation of Thompson's device such that the modification would not have been obvious. In re Ratti, 270 F.2d 810, 813 (CCPA 1959). On this record and for the above reasons, we affirm the Examiner's § 103 rejection of claims 1-8 over Thompson. We reverse the Examiner's § 103(a) rejection of claims 9-15 over Thompson in view of Hicks. DECISION We affirm the 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claims 1--4, 7, and 8 over Iimori. We reverse the 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claims 5 and 6 over Iimori. We affirm the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 9-15 over Iimori in view of Hicks. We affirm the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 1-8 over Thompson in view of Hicks. 11 Appeal 2014-003118 Application 13/177,651 We reverse the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 9-- 15 over Thompson in view of Hicks. The Examiner's decision is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal maybe extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l). lp ORDER AFFIRMED 12 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation