GEMA SWITZERLAND GMBH

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardJul 9, 2020

2019005340 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 9, 2020)

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. 15/313,879 11/23/2016 Felix Mauchle G382.312-0020 2126 164 7590 07/09/2020 KINNEY & LANGE, P.A. 312 SOUTH THIRD STREET MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55415-1002 EXAMINER THOMAS, BINU ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1717 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 07/09/2020 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): dabulmer@kinney.com uspatdocket@kinney.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte FELIX MAUCHLE and PETER STEIGER Appeal 2019-005340 Application 15/313,879 Technology Center 1700 Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, JEFFREY T. SMITH, and JEFFREY B. ROBERTSON, Administrative Patent Judges. ROBERTSON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL1 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 4, and 7–11. Appeal Br. 4. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). 1 This Decision includes citations to the following documents: Specification filed November 23, 2016 (“Spec.”); Non-Final Office Action mailed October 12, 2018 (“Final Act.”); Appeal Brief filed March 11, 2019 (“Appeal Br.”); Examiner’s Answer mailed May 3, 2019 (“Ans.”); and Reply Brief filed July 3, 2019 (“Reply Br.”). 2 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as GEMA SWITZERLAND GMBH. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2019-005340 Application 15/313,879 2 We affirm. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Appellant states the invention relates to a powder spray coating booth. Spec. ¶ 1. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A powder spray coating booth having a booth interior and a booth substructure, wherein the powder spray coating booth comprises a suction channel arrangement for suctioning air and excess powder out of the booth interior of the powder spray coating booth, and wherein the suction channel arrangement has a suction channel disposed in the booth substructure which is fluidly connected to the booth interior by means of at least one exhaust vent, the suction channel is further fluidly connected or connectable to at least two channel sections leading out of the booth substructure by means of a manifold arranged in the booth substructure, and wherein the powder spray coating booth comprises a flow- switching device, wherein the flow-switching device is provided to alternatingly form and cut off a fluid connection between the suction channel disposed in the booth substructure and one of the at least two channel sections leading out of the booth substructure, and wherein each of the channel sections leading out of the booth substructure is allocated a respective powder separator, to which the respective channel section is alternatingly fluidly connectable by means of the flow-switching device allocated to the respective channel section, characterized in that the manifold is configured as a T-piece or a Y-piece having one inlet and two outlets, wherein the inlet of the manifold is fluidly connected or Appeal 2019-005340 Application 15/313,879 3 connectable to the suction channel and the two outlets of the manifold are each fluidly connected or connectable to a respective one of the channel sections leading out of the booth substructure; or the manifold is of star-shaped or cross-shaped configuration and comprises one input and a plurality of outlets, wherein the inlet of the manifold is fluidly connected or connectable to the suction channel and the plurality of outlets of the manifold are each fluidly connected or connectable to a respective one channel section leading out of the booth substructure. Appeal Br. 9 (Claims App.) REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Jensen et al. hereinafter “Jensen” US 3,824,912 July 23, 1974 Shaneyfelt US 5,288,324 Feb. 22, 1994 Keller et al. hereinafter “Keller” US 2001/0039920 A1 Nov. 15, 2011 REJECTION The Examiner rejected claims 1, 4, and 7–11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Keller in view of Jensen and Shaneyfelt. Non-Final Act. 3–6. Appeal 2019-005340 Application 15/313,879 4 OPINION Appellant presents separate arguments for claims 1 and 7. See Appeal Br. 4, 7–8. We select claims 1 and 7 as representative for disposition of this rejection, with the patentability of the other claims standing or falling with claims 1 and 7. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). The Examiner’s Rejection In rejecting claim 1 as obvious over Keller, Jensen, and Shaneyfelt, the Examiner found Keller discloses a powder coating assembly including an exhaust opening connected to a conduit portion (suction channel) connected to a fork member (50, manifold), which is configured as a Y- piece having one inlet and two outlets, and the two outlets are connected to conduit (16) and conduit (18), which deliver the air and powder out of the compartment substructure. Non-Final Act. 3, citing Keller, Figs. 5–7, ¶¶ 28–30. The Examiner found Keller discloses a pair of throttle valves (42a, 42b) connected to conduits (16, 18), the throttle valves being controlled by a control unit (7). Id. at 3–4, citing Keller, Figs. 1, 5–7; ¶¶ 22, 30–38. The Examiner found conduits (16, 18) are connected to a cyclone powder recovery unit (5) and filter unit (4) (powder separator), and that the conduits are capable of being fluidly connected to the filter unit through the use of throttle valves. Id. Appeal 2019-005340 Application 15/313,879 5 Figure 5 of Keller is reproduced below: Figure 5 is a top plan view of a powder coating assembly having an exhaust opening (19), throttle flaps (42a and 42b), which may be adjusted by means of a control unit (7) to be in an open or closed position, such that when throttle flap (42a) is in a closed position and throttle flap (42b) is in an open position, flow is directed through conduit (18) into cyclone (5), and then through conduit (6) to filter unit (4). When throttle flap (42a) is in an open position and throttle flap (42b) is in a closed position, excess powder flows through conduit (16) into filter unit (4). Keller, ¶¶ 17, 29–34; Fig. 6. The Examiner found Keller does not explicitly disclose the compartment or booth includes a booth substructure, a suction channel disposed in the booth structure, and an exhaust vent. Non-Final Act. 4. The Examiner found Jensen discloses a powder spray booth with a bottom panel, powder deflector, and powder outlet opening, and determined it would have been obvious to have incorporated such structures into the exhaust opening Appeal 2019-005340 Application 15/313,879 6 and conduit portion of Keller to provide controlled air flow that reduces the noise level in the booth. Id. The Examiner found Keller and Jensen do not explicitly teach each of the conduit (16) and conduit (18) (channel sections) is allocated to a respective powder separator. Id. at 5. The Examiner found Shaneyfelt discloses a paint booth (20) comprising a plurality of hoppers (44/46) connected to paint chambers (24, 26, 28, 30), where each hopper is connected to respective outlet conduits (110) by an outlet (52). Id. The Examiner found Shaneyfelt discloses each of the outlet conduits are connected to individual powder recycling apparatuses, which are provided for each color. Id., citing Shaneyfelt, Figs. 1–5, 16, col. 16, ll. 13–25. The Examiner found each of the powder cycling apparatuses contains a cyclone (114), which returns the separated paint powder into storage bin (124) for each color. Id., citing Shaneyfelt Figs. 1, 3, 16; col. 6, ll. 13–30, col. 7, ll. 25–40. Appeal 2019-005340 Application 15/313,879 7 Figure 1 of Shaneyfelt is reproduced below: Figure 1 of Shaneyfelt is a perspective view of a paint recovery apparatus (10) including flexible outlet conduit (110) for each color of paint (Figure 1 shows only one conduit (110)), which leads to paint recycling apparatus 112 (four are shown) for each color, each recycling apparatus including cyclone (114), fan (116), secondary filter (128) and storage bin (124). Shaneyfelt, col. 2, ll. 66–67; col. 6, ll. 14–39. The Examiner determined it would have been obvious to have incorporated the paint boot connections for each color as disclosed in Shaneyfelt into the powder spray booth of Keller as modified by Jensen, because Shaneyfelt discloses such a configuration provides automatic Appeal 2019-005340 Application 15/313,879 8 recycling of powder paint from a paint booth for reuse with an applicator. Non-Final Act. 5, citing Shaneyfelt, col. 2, ll. 20–25. As the Examiner further explained, the combination of the outlet conduits (110) and individual powder recycling apparatus (112) disclosed in Shaneyfelt with the pair of throttle valves connected to conduits (16, 18) disclosed in Keller (in view of Jensen), results in a fluid connection between the suction channel and at least one of the two channel sections leading out of the booth substructure as recited in claim 1. Ans. 6. The Examiner explained the pair of throttle valves (42a, 42b) connected to conduits (16, 18) disclosed in Keller will individually connect to the outlet conduits (110) and individual powder recycling apparatus (112) disclosed in Shaneyfelt, thus meeting the recitation in claim 1 that the flow switching device alternatingly forms and cuts off a fluid connection. Id. at 7. Appellant’s Contentions Appellant argues the prior art does not disclose or suggest a powder spray coating booth having a flow switching device to alternatingly form and cut off a fluid connection between a suction channel and one of at least two channel sections leading out of a booth substructure, wherein each of the channel sections is allocated a respective powder separator, as recited in claim 1. Appeal Br. 5. In particular, Appellant argues Shaneyfelt’s gate valve (54), which Appellant alleges the Examiner identified as corresponding to the flow-switching device recited in claim 1, does not operate to alternatingly form and cut off a fluid connection. Id. at 6. Appellant argues Shaneyfelt discloses both the primary hopper (44) and the secondary hopper (46) are continually connected to the suction channel, and Appeal 2019-005340 Application 15/313,879 9 both hoppers are continually filled with paint particles. Id. Appellant argues the secondary hopper (46) is continually operated and connected to the output channel, and as such the flow through secondary hopper (46) is never switched. Id. In this regard, Appellant argues also that the gate valve (54) does not operate to alternatingly fluidly connect the channel for the secondary hopper (46) to a powder separator as required by claim 1. Id. at 6–7. Issue The dispositive issue with respect to this rejection is: Did the Examiner err in determining the powder coating booth including a flow-switching device to alternatingly form and cut off a fluid connection between the suction channel disposed in the booth substructure, and one of the at least two channel sections leading out of the booth substructure as recited in claim 1 would have been obvious in view of Keller, Jensen, and Shaneyfelt? Discussion We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. In particular, Appellant’s arguments that the presence of the primary and secondary hoppers (44 and 46) disclosed in Shaneyfelt are continually connected to the suction channel and gate valve (54) in Shaneyfelt (see Shaneyfelt Figs. 4–5) is not a flow switching device, do not address the Examiner’s findings and reasoning for combining the prior art. It is true the Examiner discusses the disclosure of the primary and secondary hoppers and gate valve disclosed in Shaneyfelt. Non-Final Act. 5. However, as discussed above, the Examiner’s rejection relies on the throttle valves disclosed in Keller (42a, Appeal 2019-005340 Application 15/313,879 10 42b) as the flow switching device to provide for the alternating fluid connection recited in claim 1, not the gate valve (54) of Shaneyfelt. Ans. 7. Further, the Examiner does not rely on the hoppers (44 and 46) disclosed in Shaneyfelt in order to support the rejection of claim 1. Id. Rather, as discussed above, the Examiner’s combination relies on the conduits (110) and paint recycling apparatus (112) disclosed in Shaneyfelt in combination with the paint booth apparatus disclosed in Keller in view of Jensen. Id. at 6–7. Thus, Appellant’s arguments relating to the continual operation of hoppers (44 and 46) in Shaneyfelt are insufficient to demonstrate reversible error in the Examiner’s rejection. In our view, the Examiner’s rejection is reasonably supported by the record, given the purpose in both Keller and Shaneyfelt is to provide quick and simple change over between paints in powder coating assemblies. Keller, ¶¶ 9, 38; Shaneyfelt, col. 1, ll. 6–9, col. 2, ll. 20–25, col. 7, ll. 31–38. Regarding claim 7, although Appellant emphasizes that claim 7 recites at least one valve or one valve gate per channel section, Appellant again argues that hopper (46) in Shaneyfelt is continually connected. Appeal Br. 7–8. Thus, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments for similar reasons as discussed above with respect to claim 1. As a result, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 4, and 7– 11 as obvious over Keller, Jensen, and Shaneyfelt. Appeal 2019-005340 Application 15/313,879 11 DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 4, 7–11 103 Keller, Jensen, Shaneyfelt 1, 4, 7–11 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED