Wagner Spray Tech Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 9, 2022

2021004188 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 9, 2022)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 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 APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 15/057,608 03/01/2016 Jeffrey Scott Jerdee W92.12-0177 1192 117849 7590 03/09/2022 Kelly, Holt & Christenson, P.L.L.C. 141 West 1st Street, Suite 100 Waconia, MN 55387 EXAMINER LIEUWEN, CODY J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3752 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/09/2022 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): jcurtis@khcip.com patents@khcip.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE __________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD __________ Ex parte JEFFREY SCOTT JERDEE, SHAWN CAMERON JOHNSON, and LAM HUU NGUYEN __________ Appeal 2021-004188 Application 15/057,608 Technology Center 3700 __________ Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, MICHAEL L. HOELTER, and MICHAEL L. WOODS, Administrative Patent Judges. HOELTER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s final decision to reject claims 1, 4-6, 8-10, 21, 22, 24, 25, 27- 31, 33, 34, 36, and 37. See Appeal Br. 1, 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). For the reasons explained below, we AFFIRM the Examiner’s rejections. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies “Wagner Spray Tech Corporation” as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2021-004188 Application 15/057,608 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The disclosed subject matter pertains to a “liquid dispensing system” and particularly a system that “maintain[s] a consistent pressure at the liquid applicator.” Spec. ¶¶ 2, 3. Apparatus claims 1, 24, and 28 are independent system claims. Claim 1 is illustrative of the claims on appeal, and is reproduced below. 1. An airless liquid spraying system comprising: a hand-held spray gun having a body, a handle, an inlet configured to receive liquid, an outlet configured to spray the liquid, and a user-actuatable trigger pivotably coupled to the body, wherein the trigger is actuatable between a closed position that blocks liquid flow to the outlet and an open position that allows liquid flow to the outlet; a pump system configured to pump the liquid through a hose along a liquid flow path towards the inlet of the hand-held spray gun; and a pressure relief system comprising: a return line; a pressure sensor at a sensor location along the liquid flow path that is between the hose and the inlet of the hand-held spray gun, and closer to the inlet of the hand-held spray gun than to the pump system, wherein, when the trigger is in the closed position that blocks liquid flow from the outlet, the sensor location is at a stagnation point of the liquid flow and the pressure sensor senses a static liquid pressure; and a pressure relief valve, wherein the pressure relief system is configured to: while the trigger is in the closed position, actuate the pressure relief valve based on the static liquid pressure sensed by the pressure sensor at the sensor location, wherein the pressure relief valve controls liquid flow through the return line to reduce the static liquid pressure at the sensor location to at or below a pressure threshold. Appeal 2021-004188 Application 15/057,608 3 REFERENCES Name Reference Date Bjorn et al. (“Bjorn”) US 4,355,761 Oct. 26, 1982 Hartle et al. (“Hartle”) US 2003/0006322 A1 Jan. 9, 2003 Matsumoto US 2005/0127201 A1 June 16, 2005 Olsson et al. (“Olsson”) US 2010/0310765 A1 Dec. 9, 2010 THE REJECTIONS ON APPEAL Claims 1, 4-6, 8, 21, 22, 24, 27-31, 33, and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Bjorn and Matsumoto. Claims 9, 10, 25, and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Bjorn, Matsumoto, and Olsson. Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Bjorn, Matsumoto, and Hartle. ANALYSIS The rejection of claims 1, 4-6, 8, 21, 22, 24, 27-31, 33, and 37 as unpatentable over Bjorn and Matsumoto Appellant argues all these claims together, and also presents additional arguments regarding dependent claim 24. See Appeal Br. 7-18. We select claims 1 and 24 for review, with the remaining claims standing or falling with their respective parent claim. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2019). CLAIM 1 The Examiner primarily relies on Bjorn for disclosing nearly all the limitations of claim 1, but acknowledges that “Bjorn does not disclose . . . the sensor location” as recited. Final Act. 4. To be clear, the Examiner states, “the pressure sensor of Matsumoto is not being substituted for that of Appeal 2021-004188 Application 15/057,608 4 Bjorn[]; rather, the location of the pressure sensor of Bjorn is being modified to be arranged at the inlet of the spray gun, as taught by Ma[t]sumoto.” Final Act. 15 (italics added). The Examiner explains that the relocation of Bjorn’s sensor would have been obvious because “[s]uch a modification will more accurately control the pressure of the liquid being sprayed.” Final Act. 4; see also Ans. 3 (referencing Bjorn 1:7-11). Appellant addresses the Examiner’s rationale (i.e., “more accurately control the pressure of the liquid”) contending that this reasoning “is instead gleaned solely from paragraph [0013] of the present application.” Appeal Br. 8. The Examiner disagrees stating that “the rationale for the combination is provided in the prior art” and that it “was not gleaned solely from Applicant’s specification.” Ans. 4. Bjorn teaches that “it is important to accurately control the pressure of material flowing from a pump to the airless spray gun in order to provide a well distributed and well defined spray pattern.” Bjorn 1:6-11. Matsumoto teaches accuracy by explaining how a user “can readily check the pressure in spraying a paint and appropriately adjust the air pressure at the spray gun itself.” Matsumoto ¶ 21; see also id. ¶¶ 10 (“by providing a spray gun usable with an accurate, easy-to-view pressure gauge which allows a spray coating of [] stable and high quality”), 22 (“the user can instantly correct the pressure to a correct one”). In view of the above, the Examiner has the stronger position based upon Bjorn’s teaching of the importance of accurate pressure control to achieve a proper spray pattern and Matsumoto’s teaching of such control being at the spray gun itself. See above. We also note Matsumoto’s benefit of adjusting “the air pressure at the spray gun itself without [the user] Appeal 2021-004188 Application 15/057,608 5 leaving his or her spraying position.” Matsumoto ¶ 21. Accordingly, we are not persuaded of Examiner error based on Appellant’s hindsight argument. Appellant further contends “that neither of the references recognize the problem the claimed invention seeks to solve” and thereafter identifies “[t]wo problems recognized by the present disclosure.” Appeal Br. 9. The two identified problems are “[a]ctuating a dispensing system when an application pressure is too high” and the need to accommodate “friction losses” in the fluid line. Appeal Br. 9. Appellant contends that Bjorn does not contemplate “that there may be increases in pressure at the gun due to a release of the gun trigger” (i.e., stopping fluid flow therethrough) and “that there may be decreased pressure at the gun due to pressure loss in the line.” Appeal Br. 9-10. Likewise, Appellant contends that “Matsumoto also does not recognize problems recognized by the present application and sought to be solved by the claimed invention.” Appeal Br. 11. The Examiner states, the fact that Appellant “has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious.” Ans. 4 (reference omitted). The Supreme Court has also provided instruction that “neither the particular motivation nor the avowed purposed of the patentee controls” the determination whether a claimed invention would have been obvious. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 419 (2007). On the other hand, however, we have also been instructed that where a problem was not known in the art, the solution to that problem may be non-obvious. See Leo Pharm. Prods., Ltd. v. Rea, 726 F.3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Appeal 2021-004188 Application 15/057,608 6 Here, however, it cannot be said that the two problems identified above were not already known in the art. First, it is not reasonable for Appellant to contend that Bjorn or Matsumoto (or any person skilled in the art of fluid dynamics) would have been unaware of Bernoulli’s principle which states, in effect, that an increase in the speed of a fluid occurs simultaneously with a decrease in the pressure of the fluid. Or, conversely, how a skilled person would not be aware that closing Bjorn’s trigger would, as per Bernoulli’s principle, naturally result in a fluid pressure increase at the spray gun. Regarding the second problem identified by Appellant above, (i.e., friction losses in a fluid line), again it is not reasonable that Bjorn or Matsumoto (or a skilled person) would be unaware of friction losses in a flow path. Thus, as best understood, Appellant appears to have employed good engineering judgement in addressing these problems, but such problems can also be said to have been previously addressed or known by others. To be clear, “[t]he use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain.” In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (italics added). Accordingly, we are not persuaded of Examiner error based on Appellant’s “problem” argument. Appellant also addresses Bjorn stating that this reference does not teach sensing pressure “downstream of any lines that run to the spray gun” (i.e., at the spray gun itself). Appeal Br. 10. However, as indicated above, the Examiner relies on Matsumoto, not Bjorn, for the location of the pressure sensor (see Final Act. 4, 15), and Appellant does not explain how Appeal 2021-004188 Application 15/057,608 7 the Examiner’s reliance on Matsumoto’s location was in error. Appellant also alleges that “Matsumoto does not teach or suggest that the air pressure sensor . . . at the gun is better, more accurate or more desirable in any way.” However, Appellant appears to disregard the teachings found in Paragraphs 21 and 22 of Matsumoto discussed above. Appellant further argues that “Matsumoto teaches away from the use of a bulky sensor” and contends that Bjorn’s sensor is bulky. Appeal Br. 11. Appellant bases this characterization on Figure 1 of Bjorn concluding that because Bjorn’s disclosed pressure sensor assembly 21 (along with Bjorn’s pump 12, motor 16, and gear reduction assembly 37) is mounted to a frame “supported on the floor by spaced wheel and tire assemblies” that this “suggest[s] that the pressure sensor assembly is heavy, cumbersome, or sensitive to movement.” Appeal Br. 14. Appellant addresses the same combination of elements depicted in Figure 2 of Bjorn to reach a similar inference that Bjorn’s pressure sensor is bulky. See Appeal Br. 14. Appellant further contends that “[t]he complexity of the Bjorn pressure sensor likely requires this much space.” Appeal Br. 13. We note that Appellant bases this “bulky” conclusion on the combination of all of Bjorn’s components (i.e., pressure sensor, pump, motor, gear reducer), and not just on Bjorn’s pressure sensor component itself. The Examiner’s states that this “bulky” contention is “speculative and . . . not supported by the reference” because “proportions of features in a drawing are not evidence of actual proportions when drawings are not to scale.” Ans. 5 (referencing MPEP § 2125). The Examiner also explains that Appellant’s “assumption that a complex structure necessarily results in a large size is improper without additional evidence” because, for example, Appeal 2021-004188 Application 15/057,608 8 “mechanical watches are very complex and yet are also small enough to be comfortably worn on a person’s wrist.” Ans. 5. As if to drive the point home, the Examiner states, “[n]ot every component mounted to the frame of Bjorn is heavy, cumbersome, or sensitive to movement.” Ans. 6. Accordingly, Appellant’s contentions are not persuasive of Examiner error. Appellant further contends that Matsumoto “explicitly discourages” the use of Bjorn’s sensor. Appeal Br. 13. This is because Matsumoto, “in the background sections[,] discusses problems with the prior art that it seeks to avoid.” Appeal Br. 11. Appellant references Paragraphs 6 and 9 of Matsumoto, each of which disapprove of the use of a “general-purpose digital gauge . . . because its weight and size are not acceptable in the routine paint spraying jobs” and that if “used on the spray gun” such use “will add to the size and weight of the spray gun.” Appeal Br. 11. Even if Matsumoto might discourage the use of a “general-purpose” pressure gauge as asserted above, Matsumoto clearly teaches use of a gauge at that location stating, “[n]ormally in the spray-coating tests, a spray gun is used with a pressure gauge being attached directly to the spray gun.” Matsumoto ¶ 6; see also Ans. 5 (“Matsumoto also teaches that larger, bulkier sensors are known to be attached directly to the inlet of a spray gun.”). Furthermore, it is not clear that Bjorn’s gauge can be considered a “general-purpose” gauge of the type Matsumoto acknowledges but does not encourage. This is because Bjorn explains that its “apparatus described above, with the exception of the pressure sensor and regulator 21, is conventional.” Bjorn 3:24-25 (italics added); see also id. at 1:6-10 (disclosing that it was known in the art to control the pressure). Hence, Bjorn explicitly discloses use of a non-conventional pressure sensor. Appeal 2021-004188 Application 15/057,608 9 Appellant does not explain how Bjorn’s non-conventional sensor is to be correlated to Matsumoto’s “general-purpose” sensor which Matsumoto appears to dissuade the use thereof. Accordingly, and even presuming that Bjorn’s system might be bulky, the level of Matsumoto’s discouragement relied upon by Appellant above is more indicative of a preference for one type of sensor (less bulky) over another (more bulky). On this point, the Examiner contends that this preference “does not reach a level of teaching away from larger, bulkier pressure sensors.” Ans. 5 (referencing In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1471 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“falls far short of the kind of teaching that would discourage one of skill in the art from fabricating” such a product)); see also id. at 6. Thus, based on the record presented, we are not persuaded that Matsumoto teaches away from the use of Bjorn’s sensor as argued by Appellant. See Appeal Br. 11-14. We sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 (and respectively grouped claims 4-6, 8, 21, 22, 28-31, and 33) as unpatentable over Bjorn and Matsumoto. CLAIM 24 Independent claim 24 includes the limitation of a pump system that is configured to drive flow “from an outlet of the pump system.” The Examiner references Bjorn’s line 19 as teaching such outlet flow. See Final Act. 6. Appellant contends, instead, that “[t]he outlet of Bjorn’s pump system 12 is approximately at reference 23, which is downstream from the asserted line 19.” Appeal Br. 16. The Examiner states that Appellant’s “understanding of Bjorn as indicated by the arguments does not appear to be correct” because “line 19 is downstream from the pump outlet.” Ans. 6 (referencing Bjorn 2:67-3:4). Appeal 2021-004188 Application 15/057,608 10 We agree with the Examiner’s interpretation of Bjorn because Bjorn explicitly teaches that “[p]aint under pressure exits the [pump] cylinder 18 through line 19.” Bjorn 3:3-4. Appellant does not further challenge this teaching in Bjorn. Claim 24 additionally recites the limitation “wherein the pressure sensor is located at a point in the liquid flow path between two fluid lines.” Italics added. Appellant contends that should the teachings of Bjorn and Matsumoto be combined, then, as expressed by the Examiner, the sensor would be “disposed at the inlet of the handle of the spray gun.” Final Act. 7; see also Appeal Br. 16, 17. Appellant contends that “if this modification is made as explicitly stated, then the pressure sensor would not be ‘located at a point in the liquid flow path between two fluid lines’ as claimed, because the sensor would be connected to a line on one side and the spray gun on the other.” Appeal Br. 16 (italics added). As per Appellant, by making the Examiner’s modification, Bjorn’s sensor would be disposed at the air gun inlet and “not be ‘located at a point in the liquid flow path between two fluid lines’ as claimed.” Appeal Br. 17-18. The Examiner explains that “words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification.” Ans. 7 (referencing MPEP § 2111.01(I)); see also Reply Br. 2. The Examiner states that “[t]he plain and ordinary meaning of the term ‘fluid line’ is interpreted to be ‘a piping for conveying fluid’, as defined by the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary (www.m-w.com/dictionary/line).” Ans. 7. Thus, as per the Examiner, “the piping within the handle 7 of the spray gun shown by figure 1 of Matsumoto is interpreted to be a ‘fluid line’, Appeal 2021-004188 Application 15/057,608 11 and the sensor is located between two fluid lines, as required by the claim.” Ans. 7. Appellant contends that “reading the internal portion of the handle of the spray gun as a ‘fluid line’ is an unreasonable interpretation because it contradicts the claim language which requires the fluid line to be before the inlet of the hand-held spray gun.” Reply Br. 2. Appellant provides support by addressing lines 124, 210, and 412 as being “lines that deliver liquid to the gun in the specification and drawings . . . (with an intervening pressure sensor).” Reply Br. 2. However, each of these “lines” are depicted only on the upstream side of Appellant’s pressure sensor and none of Appellant’s figures depict any of these “lines” on the downstream side thereby having an “intervening pressure sensor” as stated above. See Figs. 1, 2, and 4B. In fact, Appellant’s Figure 1 only depicts pathway 140 as downstream as Appellant’s pressure sensor, and this item 140 is clearly identified by Appellant as an “applicator inlet” (i.e., spray gun inlet). Spec. ¶¶ 14, 18. Thus, Appellant’s Figure 1 clearly illustrates a pressure sensor “between” “line 124” and “applicator inlet 140.” See also Spec. Figs. 5A-C (depicting pressure transducer 558 connecting directly between a line (unnumbered) and spray gun 560), 6A-B (depicting pressure sensor 604 connecting directly between a line (unnumbered) and spray gun 602). Appellant does not identify where Appellant’s Specification describes any other arrangement,2 and thus, consistent with Appellant’s Specification, the recited “fluid lines” must also encompass “the piping within the handle 2 Appellant describes a “commercial embodiment” where the pressure sensor is placed between two hoses of different lengths (Reply Br. 3), but no such embodiment can be found in Appellant’s Specification. Appeal 2021-004188 Application 15/057,608 12 [] of the spray gun” as understood by the Examiner and as depicted in Appellant’s drawings. Ans. 7. It is not self-evident that such interpretation is inconsistent with Appellant’s Specification. Accordingly, and based on the record presented, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 24 and additionally claims 27 and 37 which depend therefrom. The rejection of (a) claims 9, 10, 25, and 36 as unpatentable over Bjorn, Matsumoto, and Olsson; and, (b) claim 34 as unpatentable over Bjorn, Matsumoto, and Hartle Appellant presents no arguments regarding these two rejections, or with respect to the Examiner’s additional reliance on Olsson and Hartle. We sustain their rejections. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s decisions to reject claims 1, 4-6, 8-10, 21, 22, 24, 25, 27-31, 33, 34, 36, and 37 are affirmed. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 4-6, 8, 21, 22, 24, 27-31, 33, 37 103 Bjorn, Matsumoto 1, 4-6, 8, 21, 22, 24, 27-31, 33, 37 9, 10, 25, 36 103 Bjorn, Matsumoto, Olsson 9, 10, 25, 36 34 103 Bjorn, Matsumoto, Hartle 34 Appeal 2021-004188 Application 15/057,608 13 Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed Overall Outcome 1, 4-6, 8- 10, 21, 22, 24, 25, 27-31, 33, 34, 36, 37 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED