Magna Exteriors GmbH

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardMar 1, 2021

2020002610 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 1, 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. 15/344,718 11/07/2016 Johannes G¿TZELMANN 0548-1602 8842 65363 7590 03/01/2021 Todd A. VAUGHN Jordan IP Law, LLC 12501 Prosperity Drive, Suite 401 Silver Spring, MD 20904 EXAMINER LEONG, NATHAN T ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1715 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/01/2021 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): admin4@jordaniplaw.com admin@jordaniplaw.com tvaughn@jordaniplaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE _________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD __________ Ex parte JOHANNES GÖTZELMANN __________ Appeal 2020-002610 Application 15/344,718 Technology Center 1700 ___________ Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, JEFFREY T. SMITH, and LILAN REN, Administrative Patent Judges. HANLON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL A. STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Appellant1 filed an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from an Examiner’s decision finally rejecting claims 2–6 and 17–29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Dattilo2 in view of York et al.3 or Berdin et al.4 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. The Appellant identifies the real party in interest as MAGNA Exteriors GmbH. Appeal Brief dated August 1, 2019 (“Appeal Br.”), at 3. 2 US 2009/0104357 A1, published April 23, 2009 (“Dattilo”). 3 US 6,573,325 B1, issued June 3, 2003 (“York”). 4 US 6,699,324 B1, issued March 2, 2004 (“Berdin”). Appeal 2020-002610 Application 15/344,718 2 We AFFIRM. The Appellant’s invention is directed to a modular coating unit for coating a plastic automotive component. The unit comprises a coating preparation module and a coating module. The coating preparation module comprises a plurality of containers containing materials for forming a coating material, and the coating module comprises a coating apparatus for spraying the coating material on the plastic component. Representative claim 17 is reproduced below from the Claims Appendix to the Appeal Brief. 17. A modular coating unit for coating a plastic component of a motor vehicle, the modular coating unit comprising: a coating preparation module to include a plurality of containers, including a first container containing a base material having non-volatile constituents, a second container containing a solvent or water, the solvent having volatile constituents, and a plurality of third containers containing concentrated colour pigments and/or effect pigments; and a coating module to coat the plastic component with a coating material that includes the base material, the solvent or water, and the concentrated colour pigments and/or effect pigments, the coating module including a coating apparatus to spray a mist of the coating material on the plastic component, the coating apparatus having integrated therein a mixer fluidically connected to the first container, the second container, and the third containers, and which is configured to admix directly in the coating apparatus and in situ, the base material, the solvent or water, and the concentrated colour pigments and/or effect pigments to form the coating material. Appeal Br. 15–16. B. DISCUSSION Dattilo discloses a coating system that is suitable for coating metal or polymeric automotive substrates. Dattilo ¶¶ 9, 22. The Examiner finds that the Appeal 2020-002610 Application 15/344,718 3 system includes a modular coating unit comprising at least three supply units or containers, a mixing device, and an applicator. Final Act. 2.5 The Examiner concludes that “the various coating materials including non-volatile components, solvents/water and colour pigments” recited in the claims on appeal “are not given patentable weight . . . because these materials do not impart any structural limitations on the apparatus.” Final Act. 3 (citing MPEP § 2115). The Appellant argues that the Examiner has not shown that the combination of Dattilo and York or Berdin teaches a coating preparation module as claimed.6 Appeal Br. 11. The Appellant’s argument is not persuasive of reversible error. Consistent with the Examiner’s finding that Dattilo’s modular coating unit comprises at least three supply units or containers, it is reasonable to find that those units or containers constitute a coating preparation module as claimed. More specifically, Dattilo Figure 1 shows various coating stations including a first basecoat station 22 comprising a first basecoat supply 26. Dattilo ¶ 29. Dattilo discloses that the first basecoat material at the first basecoat station 22 can be dynamically mixed from two or more individual components to form a mixed or blended material that is applied to an automotive substrate using applicator 24. Dattilo ¶ 35. Dattilo Figure 3, for example, shows a dynamic coating device 86 comprising individual coating component supplies 76, 80, and 88. Dattilo ¶ 36. In an alternative 5 Final Office Action dated December 10, 2018. 6 The Examiner finds that York and Berdin each disclose a mixer integrated with an applicator head as recited in the claims on appeal. Final Act. 3. The Appellant does not direct us to any error in the Examiner’s findings as to York and Berdin or the Examiner’s conclusion that integrating Dattilo’s mixer 96/140 and applicator head 98/108 as taught by York and Berdin would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Appeal 2020-002610 Application 15/344,718 4 embodiment, Dattilo Figure 5 shows a plurality of coating supplies 122a–122e and a base supply 130 that are selectively mixed together to form a coating material of a selected color. Dattilo ¶ 66. Significantly, the Appellant does not identify any structure implied by the term “module” or explain why the plurality of containers in Dattilo’s dynamic coating system do not comprise a coating preparation module as recited in the claims on appeal. The Appellant also argues that the Examiner erred by failing to give patentable weight to the contents of the containers in the claimed coating preparation module. Appeal Br. 12. Claim 17 recites “a coating preparation module to include a plurality of containers.” Appeal Br. 15 (emphasis added). In other words, claim 17 recites that the coating preparation module is intended to include a plurality of containers. Thus, consistent with the Examiner’s interpretation of claim 17, we conclude that neither the plurality of containers nor the contents of those containers are positively recited in claim 17. Claim 18 recites, in relevant part, a coating preparation module including: - a first container containing a base material having non- volatile constituents, - a second container containing a solvent or water, the solvent having volatile constituents, and - a plurality of third containers containing concentrated colour pigments and/or effect pigments. Appeal Br. 16 (emphasis added). Claim 24 recites, in relevant part, a coating preparation module including: Appeal 2020-002610 Application 15/344,718 5 - a first container containing a base material to include non- volatile constituents; - a second container containing a solvent or water, the solvent to include volatile constituents; and - a plurality of third containers containing concentrated colour pigments and/or effect pigments. Appeal Br. 17 (emphasis added). Claims 18 and 24 recite a coating preparation module including first, second, and third containers. Thus, claims 18 and 24, in contrast to claim 17, positively recite that the coating preparation module includes or comprises first, second, and third containers. As for the contents of the claimed containers, the language of claims 18 and 24 does not exclude additional unrecited materials in each of the claimed containers.7 See Mars, Inc. v. H.J. Heinz Co., L.P., 377 F.3d 1369, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“containing,” like the term “comprising,” is open-ended). The Examiner directs our attention to the three supply units or containers 76, 80, and 88 illustrated in Dattilo Figure 3. Final Act. 2. Dattilo discloses that those containers each comprise a waterborne coating component substantially free of effect pigment and each preferably of a differing primary color such that the color of the first coating material applied over the substrate 12 can be varied by changing the amounts of the selected coating components supplied to the bell applicator 98. 7 Claim 24 recites “a first container containing a base material to include non- volatile constituents” and “a second container containing a solvent or water, the solvent to include volatile constituents.” Appeal Br. 17 (emphasis added). Claim 24 does not positively recite the non-volatile constituents that are intended to be included in the first container, and although recited in the alternative, the volatile constituents intended to be included in the second container are not positively recited in claim 24. Appeal 2020-002610 Application 15/344,718 6 Dattilo ¶ 37. Alternatively, Dattilo discloses that the supply units may contain (1) a first waterborne coating component having color pigment, (2) a second waterborne effect-pigmented component, and (3) a clear blending base.8 Dattilo ¶ 63. Dattilo Figure 5 similarly shows a plurality of coating supplies 122a–122e, each containing waterbourne, substantially non-effect pigmented coating components,9 and base supply 130 containing a waterborne base component. Dattilo ¶ 66. Thus, we find that the contents of the containers disclosed in Dattilo satisfy the container contents recited in claims 18 and 24. For the reasons discussed above, the obviousness rejection of claims 2–6 and 17–29 is sustained. C. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s decision is affirmed. In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 2–6, 17–29 103 Dattilo, York, Berdin 2–6, 17–29 8 See Dattilo ¶ 43 (disclosing that the first basecoat material is preferably a waterborne coating material but can comprise volatile materials). 9 Claims 18 and 24 recite the contents of the second container in the alternative, i.e., “a second container containing a solvent or water.” Appeal Br. 16, 17 (emphasis added). The waterborne pigmented coating components in supplies 122a–122e contain water. Thus, each pigmented coating component in supplies 122a–122e satisfies either the contents of the second container or the contents of the plurality of third containers recited in claims 18 and 24. Appeal 2020-002610 Application 15/344,718 7 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