Ex Parte Levin et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 3, 2010

11194423 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 3, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte LEONARD LEVIN and SOPHIA LEVIN
____________

Appeal 2010-000623
Application 11/194,423
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before EDWARD C. KIMLIN, PETER F. KRATZ, and MARK NAGUMO,
Administrative Patent Judges.

KRATZ, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1
This is a decision on an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1-13. We have jurisdiction pursuant to
35 U.S.C. § 6.

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE”
(paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery
mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.

Appeal 2010-000623
Application 11/194,423

Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to a method and apparatus
of monitoring a fluid bead pattern applied to a substrate via a fluid
dispensing device.
According to Appellants,
a monitoring apparatus in accordance with the present
invention computes time differences associated with the sensing
of a particular substrate location and leading and trailing edges
of one or more fluid beads applied to the substrate to be
monitored. These time differences are used to develop
dimensionless ratio values, which are compared to
corresponding ratios developed from a sample or reference
pattern. As the ratios are dimensionless, their numerical values
are not speed-dependent, and thus are applicable at any line
speed for a given pattern.
The monitoring system of the present invention permits
the dispensing of adhesive or other liquids onto a moving
substrate to be accurately and continuously tracked without a
complicated interface with the dispensing circuitry. By
accurately computing delay ratios and comparing them with the
corresponding delay ratios extracted from the sample pattern,
the monitoring system provides information for a variety of
quality control processes.

Spec. ¶ ¶ 0008 and 0009.

Claims 1, 6, and 10 are illustrative and reproduced below:
1. A method for monitoring a pattern of fluid beads applied by a
fluid applicator to a substrate moving with respect to the fluid applicator,
comprising the steps of:

(a) generating a first signal corresponding to a time of passage of a
first, leading point on the substrate past a reference location;

(b) generating second and third signals corresponding to a time of
passage of a leading edge and a trailing edge, respectively, of a fluid pattern
bead applied to the substrate past a reference location;
2
Appeal 2010-000623
Application 11/194,423

(c) calculating a first time difference between the first signal and
the second signal and a second time difference between the first signal and
the third signal;

(d) calculating a ratio between the first and second time
differences; and

(e) comparing the ratio to a reference ratio and generating a signal
corresponding to the results of the comparison.

6. An apparatus for monitoring a pattern of a fluid applied by a
fluid dispensing device onto a substrate moving with respect to the fluid
dispensing device, wherein a trigger sensor is disposed for providing a
trigger signal in response to detecting an edge of a substrate element and a
sensor is disposed for providing a sensor signal in response to detecting an
edge of the fluid applied to the substrate element, the apparatus comprising:

an input processor for detecting the trigger and sensor signals and
providing representations of the corresponding edges of the substrate
element or fluid;

a timer connected to said input processor and configured for
measuring time delays between trigger signals and sensor signals associated
with a substrate element;

memory cells connected to the timer for storing a first data value
corresponding to a time delay between a given substrate leading edge trigger
signal and a liquid leading edge sensor signal and a second data value
corresponding to a time delay between the given substrate leading edge
trigger signal and a liquid trailing edge sensor signal;

means connected to the timer for computing and storing a data value
corresponding to a ratio between the first and second data values; and

an output processor configured for comparing the data value to a
reference ratio data value and generating a output signal representative of
results of the comparison.

3
Appeal 2010-000623
Application 11/194,423

10. A method of monitoring a pattern of a fluid dispensed by a fluid
dispensing device on a substrate moving with respect to the fluid dispensing
device, the method comprising the evaluation of quality of the pattern by
comparing a ratio of delays associated designated locations on the pattern
with a corresponding rato of delays associated with a reference pattern of the
fluid.

The Examiner lists the following prior art references (Ans. 2):
Klein 2006/0096530 A1 May 11, 2006
Estelle2 6,770,142 B2 Aug. 03, 2004
Claims 1-13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Klein.
We reverse the stated rejection for substantially the reasons set forth
in the Appeal Brief and the Reply Brief.
Klein is directed to a closed loop adhesive registration system and
method. A command signal that is used to change an operating state of a
fluid dispensing gun is automatically adjusted by the closed loop control
system. In Klein, the closed loop control process is used for applying
adhesive to a substrate using trigger and adhesive sensors to effect an
adjustment to a command signal used to adjust an operating state of a fluid
dispensing gun. On or off time compensation and pressure compensation
parameters are adjusted when a number of consecutive measurements of an
adhesive bead characteristic (such as the distance a leading edge of a bead is
from an edge of a substrate) is outside a predetermined tolerance range.
In Klein, for example, Xon is an on time compensation value for an
operating parameter that is used to generate a command signal for a glue

2 The Examiner does not employ Estelle in rejecting the claims. While
Appellants refer to Estelle in rebuttal (App. Br. 17-18), we do not reach this
evidence in deciding this appeal.
4
Appeal 2010-000623
Application 11/194,423

gun, not the command signal itself (¶ 0028). Xon corresponds to the distance
that a moving substrate is up line from a glue gun at which the gun should
initiate a process to apply adhesive or change its state so that the adhesive is
properly placed on the substrate (¶ 0029). As explained in Klein, a glue
applicator gun may apply adhesive to a location other than desired as a result
of variable glue valve delays (variable glue gun switching time), glue
pressure or glue consistency variations, and/or other delays or variations
associated with glue dispensing operations (¶¶ 0002-0012).
Klein employs control processes to automatically compensate for such
switching delays and other delays in the dispensing process, including
providing for adjustments to the aforementioned on time compensation
value, Xon (¶¶ 0014-0017). When a selected number of consecutive adhesive
bead characteristic measurements are outside a predetermined tolerance
range for these measurements, an adjustment can be made to the Xon
operating parameter (¶ 0015).
Klein teaches that a sensor can be used to generate a feedback signal
that is employed to communicate a measurable difference between actual
and desired bead characteristics such as a distance from a substrate edge to a
bead edge (¶ 0018). Klein’s system uses the feedback signal in determining
an adjustment to Xon. Id. In Figure 4 of the drawings, Klein provides a
flowchart for depicting the processes employed in adjusting the on time
compensation value, Xon (Fig. 4; ¶¶ 0062 -0073).
The Examiner has determined that Klein does not disclose calculating
and/or comparing time difference ratios (ratios of delays) as part of the fluid
bead application method thereof or describe a control system including
components that perform fluid bead monitoring, as here-claimed (Ans. 3, 5,
5
Appeal 2010-000623
Application 11/194,423

6, and 7). In addressing this acknowledged difference between the claimed
process and apparatus and Klein, the Examiner basically maintains that it
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to perform (or
provide means for performing) time difference ratio calculations and/or ratio
comparisons as part of Klein’s control system so as to result in the process
or apparatus, as claimed by Appellants (see generally Ans.).
The principal issue before us is:
Has the Examiner established that it would have been obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art to modify the control process or control system
taught by Klein to include time difference ratio calculations and/or ratio
comparisons as claimed by Appellants, as proposed in the rejection?
We answer this question in the negative.
It is well settled that the burden of establishing a prima facie case of
non-patentability resides with the Examiner. See In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d
1468, 1472 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Here, the Examiner’s obviousness rejection
lacks an adequate factual predicate properly founded upon the disclosure of
Klein and a persuasive rationale for the proposed modification of Klein that
would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to the claimed subject matter.
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner refers to sensors 38, 39, and 80,
counter 74, steps 124, 130, 154, and 184, and paragraphs 0042 and 0043 of
Klein (Figs. 1, 3, 4, and 5) followed by opining that:
Both signal processing techniques represent the same
underlying quantity and inform on the accuracy of the
underlying dispense, and one skilled in the art would appreciate
that the signal of Klein are mathematically identical in
informational content to the signals claimed, especially since
Klein acquires the same sensor information as claimed.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
6
Appeal 2010-000623
Application 11/194,423

in the art at the time of the invention to have utilized ratio
measurements in lieu of two direct measurements because both
techniques represent the same underlying quantity.

Ans. 3-4.
However, the Examiner does not follow through by explaining how
and/or why this proposed substitution would have been implemented by one
of ordinary skill in the art in concert with the control system of Klein based
on the teachings of Klein. Thus, even accepting, arguendo, the Examiner’s
position that Appellants’ and Klein’s signal processing techniques did
involve “the same underlying quantity”, the Examiner’s rejection falls short
in articulating why the Examiner’s proposed modifications to the processing
steps and apparatus of Klein would have been implemented by an ordinary
skilled artisan in order to advance Klein’s objectives.
The Examiner points to paragraphs 0062- 0073 of Klein (Ans. 3).
These latter paragraphs of Klein are repeatedly referred to by the Examiner
and relate to Klein’s individual distance value comparisons for adjustment of
Klein’s distance-based on time compensation value Xon, as discussed above
and, as more specifically described in Klein (Ans. 3, 5, 6, 7, and 13; Klein,
¶¶ 0062 -0073). The Examiner does not point to any particularly relevant
disclosure in Klein within these paragraphs and explain how such particular
disclosure would have reasonably suggested to one of ordinary skill in the
art the proposed substitutions to the control scheme of Klein that are relied
upon by the Examiner in rejecting all of the appealed claims.
As basically argued by Appellants, Klein’s method and apparatus
involve individually comparing a collection of distance measurements to
corresponding standards, require use of an encoder coupled to a conveyor
7
Appeal 2010-000623
Application 11/194,423

shaft, and require that each distance comparison is separate or independent
to allow its feedback system to process the differences and determine an
appropriate response, based on the difference data considered (App. Br. 11-
12, 15-16, 18-19). The Examiner has not established that the applied prior
art would have suggested the use of Appellants’ time difference ratios as a
substitution for Klein’s direct comparison of separate distance values with a
standard corresponding to each as employed by Klein in making adjustments
in the disclosed control system.
For example, Klein details in the flowcharts of Figures 3-5 how the
system of Figure 1 employs separate/individual distance comparisons to
adjust compensation values employed in the control system that relate to
intrinsic glue gun switching time variations. The Examiner has not
explained how Appellants’ claimed calculated time difference ratios and
comparisons of such would have been suggested to one of ordinary skill in
the art as viable processing and data substitutions for determining
appropriate corrections to Klein’s glue gun switching operations via the
parameters or compensation values, systems and method employed by Klein,
or by any obvious proposed alternatives that have been established by the
Examiner. In this regard, the Examiner’s reference to Klein’s generic
mention of a time-based implementation in paragraph 0088 of the published
U.S. Patent Application does not per se establish that the here-claimed
monitoring process and/or apparatus would have been an obvious option to
one of ordinary skill in the art (Ans. 12).
On this record, the Examiner has not reasonably established the
obviousness of the claimed subject matter over Klein based on the proposed
8
Appeal 2010-000623
Application 11/194,423

modifications to Klein’s closed loop control process and apparatus advanced
in the stated rejection.

CONCLUSION/ORDER
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-13 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Klein is reversed.

REVERSED

Ssl

LADAS & PARRY LLP
26 WEST 61ST STREET
NEW YORK, NY 10023
9