Ex Parte Micheli

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 31, 2013

11927559 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 31, 2013)

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.
11/927,559 10/29/2007 PAUL R. MICHELI GRAC:0005-3/13843 6172
52145 7590 08/01/2013
FLETCHER YODER (ILLINOIS TOOL WORKS INC.)
P.O. BOX 692289
HOUSTON, TX 77269-2289
EXAMINER
BOECKMANN, JASON J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3752
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/01/2013 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 PAUL R. MICHELI
____________

Appeal 2011-006543
Application 11/927,559
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before JOHN C. KERINS, JILL D. HILL and BEVERLY M. BUNTING,
Administrative Patent Judges.

KERINS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-006543
Application 11/927,559

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Paul R. Micheli (Appellant) seeks our review under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134(a) of the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1-7 and 26-43. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE.
THE INVENTION
Appellant’s invention is directed to a spray gun assembly and system.
Independent claim 26, reproduced below, is representative of the claimed
subject matter:
26. An apparatus, comprising:

a spray gun assembly comprising:

a fluid delivery section comprising a central
passage;

a fluid breakup section disposed within the fluid
delivery section, wherein the fluid breakup section
comprises a plurality of converging internal
passages disposed downstream from the central
passage, the plurality of converging internal
passages are configured to converge toward one
another and to impart a swirling motion on a liquid
flowing through the plurality of converging
internal passages, and the fluid breakup section
completely surrounds the plurality of converging
internal passages between upstream and
downstream ports of the plurality of converging
internal passages;

a chamber disposed downstream of the plurality of
converging internal passages; and

a fluid exit disposed downstream of the chamber.

Appeal 2011-006543
Application 11/927,559

3
THE REJECTIONS
Appellant appeals from the following rejections:
(i) claims 26, 27 and 29-32 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Neely (US 2,050,368, issued Aug. 11, 1936); and
(ii) claims 1-7 and 26-43 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Rehman (US 4,630,774, issued Dec. 23, 1986) in view of
Binoche (US 3,907,202, issued Sep. 23, 1975) and Farago (US 5,067,655,
issued Nov. 26, 1991).

ANALYSIS
Claims 26, 27 and 29-32--Anticipation--Neely
The Examiner finds that Neely discloses all limitations set forth in
claim 26, with threaded nut 17 meeting the limitation directed to the claimed
fluid delivery section. Ans. 4, 10-11. Appellant maintains that persons of
ordinary skill in the art would not consider nut 17 to be equivalent to the
claimed fluid delivery section, particularly in view of the statement in Neely
that, “the threaded nut 17 serv[es] only to make tight the two fluid joints.”
Reply Br. 2, citing Neely, p. 2, col. 2, ll. 21-23. Appellant further argues
that even if nut 17 in Neely could be regarded as the claimed fluid delivery
section, the limitation in claim 26 requiring that the fluid breakup section be
within the fluid delivery section is not met, in that the cap 16 regarded as
meeting the fluid breakup section limitation is not “within” the nut 17.
Reply Br. 2-3.
While the recited “fluid delivery section” lacks attendant specific
structural features, we agree with Appellant that a person of ordinary skill in
the art would not, in view of Appellant’s Specification, properly regard a
Appeal 2011-006543
Application 11/927,559

4
threaded nut 17 disclosed as being provided solely to urge plug 21 into cap
16 and to make tight surrounding fluid joints as being a fluid delivery
section. The Examiner has further not adequately explained how cap 16,
found responsive to the claimed fluid breakup section, is “within” the
threaded nut 17, given that it protrudes therefrom, in light of Appellant’s
disclosure.
The rejection of claim 26, and of claims 27 and 29-32 depending
therefrom, as being anticipated by Neely is not sustained.

Claims 1-7 and 26-43--Obviousness-- Rehman/Binoche/Farago
The Examiner concludes that modifying the Rehman spray gun in
view of Binoche would have been obvious, and that conclusion is not
contested by Appellant. Ans. 6; Appeal Br., passim; Reply Br., passim. The
Examiner notes, however, that the proposed modification of Rehman in view
of Binoche fails to specifically disclose a plurality of passages in a fluid
breakup section that both generally converge at a first angle and twist at a
second angle, with the plurality of passages being configured to impart a
swirling motion to a liquid flow. Ans. 6.
The Examiner finds, in this respect, that plug 47 of Rehman
corresponds to the claimed fluid breakup section, and that plug 47 has an
internal passage 51 extending therethrough. Ans. 5-6. The Examiner cites
to Farago as disclosing a spray nozzle having a plurality of passages 42 that
generally converge at a first angle and generally twist at a second angle, and
that the passages are configured to impart a swirling motion to a liquid flow.
Ans. 7. The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious in view of
Farago to modify the Rehman spray gun, and specifically plug 47, to add
Appeal 2011-006543
Application 11/927,559

5
additional internal passages to the fluid breakup section 47 of Rehman, with
the passages generally converging at a first angle and twisting at a second
angle such that they are configured to impart a swirling motion to a liquid
flow. Id. The Examiner maintains that “[t]his improvement would atomize
and whirl the fluid exiting the nozzle” as taught by Farago. Id.
Appellant urges that Farago is not properly combinable with Rehman
in view of the different principles of operation employed by the two devices.
See, e.g., Appeal Br. 17-19. Appellant points out that the purpose of
Rehman, in discharging fluid from the passage 51 in plug 47, is to direct the
fluid to impact a sidewall of the adjacent chamber to induce foam formation.
Appeal Br. 17. In contrast, according to Appellant, the channels employed
in Farago are provided to generate a swirling or rotating liquid film to be
discharged out of an orifice, whereupon the film disintegrates into small
liquid droplets as a result of film instability. Appeal Br. 17-18. Appellant
argues that to modify Rehman in view of Farago would change the principle
of operation of Rehman, and thus persons of ordinary skill in the art would
not have considered the proposed modification to have been obvious.
Appeal Br. 18.
The Examiner counters that Farago “is merely used to add at least one
other internal passage to the existing fluid breakup section of Rehman and to
make the now at least to [sic, two] internal passages converge at a first angle
and generally twist at a second angle.” Ans. 12. The Examiner reiterates
that the motivation for the proposed modification comes from the Fargo
disclosure that providing a plurality of converging and twisting passages
“would atomize and whirl the fluid exiting the nozzle.” Id.
Appeal 2011-006543
Application 11/927,559

6
The Examiner’s position fails to take into account the different nature
of the fluid material being handled by the Rehman device and the Farago
device, as well as the overall constructional differences between the two.
Rehman is directed to spraying high-solids polymeric compositions, which
are not easily and consistently atomized without either the addition of a
solvent or foaming the composition prior to atomization. Rehman, col. 1, ll.
27-38; col. 1, ll. 62-68. Rehman is directed to solving problems that were
found to exist with prior systems that relied on foaming the high-solids
composition prior to atomization. See, e.g., Rehman, col. 2, l. 40-col. 3, l.
20.
Rehman specifically discloses that the fluid discharged from channel
51 in plug 47 is to be effected such that the fluid impacts either the side wall
of the foaming chamber 49 or impacts some other obstacle, in order to
achieve a proper shocking or agitation of the fluid. Rehman, col. 7, ll. 10-
15. Rehman further discloses that, in order to achieve the desired complete
foaming of the material, the cross-sectional area of passage 51 must be at
least as small as, and is preferably five to ten times smaller than, exit orifice
45, in order that the pressure in the foaming chamber is sufficiently below
the pressure at which the fluid had been delivered into passage 51. Rehman,
col. 3, ll. 30-41.
The Examiner has not adequately established that providing additional
passages in Rehman, and having the passages converge and twist, will
predictably result in the desired foaming of the fluids being processed by the
Rehman spray gun. The proposed combination is thus lacking in rational
underpinnings, and the rejection of the claims involving the modification of
Rehman in view of Farago is not sustained.
Appeal 2011-006543
Application 11/927,559

7
DECISION
The rejection of claims 26, 27 and 29-32 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is
reversed.
The rejection of claims 1-7 and 26-43 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is
reversed.

REVERSED

hh