Ex Parte Bang et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 28, 2012

10869692 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 28, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE 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. 10/869,692 06/16/2004 Kyu Yong Bang SIP-0004 5995 34610 7590 12/28/2012 KED & ASSOCIATES, LLP P.O. Box 8638 Reston, VA 20195 EXAMINER NGUYEN, ANTHONY H ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2854 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/28/2012 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte KYU YONG BANG and YONG KYU SEO ____________ Appeal 2010-000381 Application 10/869,692 Technology Center 2800 ____________ Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, and CARL W. WHITEHEAD, JR., Administrative Patent Judges. MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-000381 Application 10/869,692 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 10-19 and 24-28. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. THE INVENTION Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to a paste dispenser wherein the measuring device and the substrate remain stationary relative to one another as the measuring device measures a given section of the paste pattern (¶¶ [0013]-[0015]). Independent claim 10, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal. 10. A paste dispenser that dispenses a paste pattern on a substrate, the paste dispenser comprising: a stage that receives a substrate thereon; a nozzle having a paste discharge opening positioned opposite a receiving surface of the substrate, wherein the nozzle discharges paste onto the receiving surface as it moves relative to the stage so as to form a paste pattern on the substrate; a measuring device that measures a form and an area of a section of the paste pattern formed on the substrate, wherein the measuring device and the substrate remain stationary relative to one another as the measuring device measures a given section of the paste pattern. REFERENCES and REJECTIONS 1. The Examiner rejected claims 10-12 and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Yamasaki (US 2002/0007743 A1; Jan. 24, 2002). Appeal 2010-000381 Application 10/869,692 3 2. The Examiner rejected claims 13-19 and 25-28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Yamasaki in view of Kato (US 6,590,670 B1; July 8, 2003). ISSUE The issue is whether the Examiner erred in finding that Yamasaki teaches the limitation of “wherein the measuring device and the substrate remain stationary relative to one another” as recited in claim 10. ANALYSIS Claims 10-12 and 24 Appellants argue that independent claim 10 recites that the measuring device and the substrate remain stationary relative to one another as the measuring device measures a given section of a paste pattern present on the substrate (App. Br. 12). Appellants explain that, in contrast, Yamasaki's measuring device 20 is necessarily in continuous motion with respect to the substrate 6 as a measurement of the solder paste 9 is taken, so that it can collect the continuous stream of points necessary to generate the contour, or image, of the solder paste 9 applied on the substrate 6 (App. Br. 12). We agree with Appellants (App. Br. 12) that Yamasaki teaches a laser measuring device 20 being moved horizontally and vertically with respect to a substrate 6 (see Yamasaki, ¶¶ [0063]-[0065]; Fig. 4 (showing device 20 with respect to substrate 6/R)). Thus, Yamasaki does not teach the limitation of “wherein the measuring device and the substrate remain stationary relative to one another” as recited in claim 10. Appeal 2010-000381 Application 10/869,692 4 Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 10 and for the same reason the rejection of claims 11, 12, and 24. Claims 13-19 and 25-28 We also reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 13-19 and 25-28 because the additional reference of Kato does not cure Yamasaki’s cited deficiency. CONCLUSION The Examiner erred in finding that Yamasaki teaches the limitation of “wherein the measuring device and the substrate remain stationary relative to one another” as recited in claim 10. DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 10-19 and 24-28 is reversed. REVERSED babc