DÜRR SYSTEMS GMBH

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardMar 11, 2021

2020005328 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 11, 2021)

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. 14/766,459 08/07/2015 Hans-Georg Fritz 66835-0245 9178 109973 7590 03/11/2021 Bejin Bieneman PLC 2000 Town Center Suite 800 Southfield, MI 48075 EXAMINER LEONG, NATHAN T ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1715 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/11/2021 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): docket@b2iplaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte HANS-GEORG FRITZ, BENJAMIN WOHR, MARCUS KLEINER, TIMO BEYL, and FRANK HERRE Appeal 2020-005328 Application 14/766,459 Technology Center 1700 Before TERRY J. OWENS, N. WHITNEY WILSON, and LILAN REN, Administrative Patent Judges. OWENS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), the Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 36–39. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. The Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Dürr Systems GmbH (Appeal Br. 3). Appeal 2020-005328 Application 14/766,459 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to a coating medium application system. Claim 36, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 36. A system for application of a coating medium onto a component, comprising: an application device arranged to emit a coating medium jet in response to a switch, wherein, after emerging from the application device, the coating medium jet has a continuous region in the jet direction until said jet reaches a disintegration distance, whereupon, after the disintegration distance, the coating medium jet then disintegrates into droplets that are separate from one another in the jet direction; a positioning device to position the application device at an application distance away from the component, the application distance being no greater than 200mm while the application device is emitting a coating; and means for sensing that senses the application distance of the application device, the means for sensing coupled to the switch wherein the switch emits the coating medium jet in response to the means for sensing only when the sensing means detects the application distance to be less than the disintegration distance of the coating medium jet. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Nakamura US 5,112,656 May 12, 1992 Hynes US 2004/0217202 A1 Nov. 4, 2004 Herre US 2011/0262622 A1 Oct. 27, 2011 Fritz US 2013/0284833 A1 Oct. 31, 2013 Appeal 2020-005328 Application 14/766,459 3 REJECTIONS Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis 36–38 103(a) Hynes, Herre, Nakamura 39 103(a) Hynes, Herre, Nakamura, Fritz OPINION We need address only the sole independent claim, i.e., claim 36. Hynes discloses an airless conformal coating apparatus comprising a multiport spray nozzle (100) having a plurality of dispensing orifices (120) through which a fluidic material is applied to a workpiece (110) as elongated bead-shaped spray patterns which spread sideways to blend together as a continuous conformal coating layer (¶¶ 27, 30; Figs. 1, 3A). A robotic controller (500) positions the multiport spray nozzle (100) and controls the fluid flow therefrom (¶¶ 9, 43; Fig. 6). Herre discloses a motor vehicle body painting apparatus comprising a sensor (62) which is attached to a robot (58) and detects the course of a guide path so the robot can position a print head (59) in relation to the guide path to apply a paint path at a position relative to a previous paint path (¶¶ 88, 89, 93, 163, 164; Fig. 24). The guide path can have a normally invisible color that is visible to the sensor only when illuminated with ultraviolet or infrared light (¶ 91). Nakamura discloses a paint gun (12) and switches which, when turned on, cause the paint gun (12) to discharge a paint beam (13) as a spiral pattern or a solid coating around a rotating cylinder (8) (col. 7, ll. 34–47; Fig. 4A). Appeal 2020-005328 Application 14/766,459 4 The Examiner finds that “Herre teaches an optical sensor that responds to UV light and therefore is considered a UV sensor [0091]” (Final Rej. 7–8), and concludes that “[i]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have included a UV sensor because Herre teaches that such a sensor can aid in detecting previous paint paths and to act as a guide path [0091]” (Final Rej. 8). Setting forth a prima facie case of obviousness requires establishing that the applied prior art would have provided one of ordinary skill in the art with an apparent reason to modify the prior art to arrive at the claimed invention. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). The Appellant’s claim 36 requires a means for sensing which detects when a coating medium application device’s application distance is less than the disintegration distance of a coating medium jet emitted from the application device. The means for sensing includes the corresponding structure disclosed in the Appellant’s Specification and equivalents thereof. See In re Donaldson Co., 16 F.3d 1189, 1195 (Fed. Cir. 1994). The corresponding structure in the Appellant’s Specification is a camera, an ultrasonic sensor, an inductive or capacitive sensor, or a laser sensor (Spec. 9:21–24). The Examiner does not establish that the applied references would have provided one of ordinary skill in the art with an apparent reason to include in Hynes’s apparatus a sensor capable of detecting when an application distance of a coating medium application device is less than the disintegration distance of a jet of coating medium from the application device. The Examiner, therefore, has not established a prima facie case of obviousness of the Appellant’s claimed apparatus. Appeal 2020-005328 Application 14/766,459 5 CONCLUSION The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 36–39 is REVERSED. DECISION SUMMARY Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 36–38 103(a) Hynes, Herre, Nakamura 36–38 39 103(a) Hynes, Herre, Nakamura, Fritz 39 Overall Outcome 36–39 REVERSED