Ex Parte Seitz et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 17, 2013

11830288 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 17, 2013)

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.
11/830,288 07/30/2007 David M. Seitz ITW0195.US/15623 2582
48494 7590 07/17/2013
TAYLOR IP, P.C.
ILLINOIS TOOL WORKS INC.
142 S. MAIN ST
PO BOX 560
AVILLA, IN 46710
EXAMINER
REIS, RYAN ALEXANDER
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3752
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/17/2013 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 DAVID M. SEITZ and ROGER T. CEDOZ
____________

Appeal 2011-002790
Application 11/830,288
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, HYUN J. JUNG, and
ADAM V. FLOYD, Administrative Patent Judges.

STAICOVICI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-002790
Application 11/830,288

3

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
David M. Seitz and Roger T. Cedoz (Appellants) appeal under 35
U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s decision finally rejecting claims 1, 2, and
11 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Yoshioka (US 5,813,608, iss.
Sep. 29, 1998) and claims 3-10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Yoshioka and Clifford (US 6,569,258 B2, iss. May 27, 2003). Claims
12-23 have been withdrawn. We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).

INVENTION
Appellants’ invention relates to a cleaning system “for cleaning rotary
atomizing applicators used to apply paint and other coatings.” Spec. 1, para.
[02].
Claim 1, the sole independent claim, is representative of the claimed
invention and reads as follows:
1. A coating material applicator comprising:
an applicator body;
an atomizing head at one end of said body, including a bell cup
having a base end, a forward end, an interior surface and an exterior
surface;
a solvent source;
a pressurized air source;
fluid outlets on the inside and outside of said bell cup for
supplying fluid to said interior surface and to said exterior surface;
and
a fluids control system including valves for controlling flow of
solvent from said solvent source and air from said air source to said
fluid outlets, and a controller for opening and closing at least some of
said valves to produce an air/solvent chop including a sequence of
successive pulses of air without solvent and solvent without air in
Appeal 2011-002790
Application 11/830,288

4

controlled alternating pulses to at least one of said interior surface of
said bell cup and said exterior surface of said bell cup.

SUMMARY OF DECISION
We AFFIRM.

ANALYSIS
The anticipation rejection
Independent claim 1 requires, inter alia, a controller for providing
successive pulses of air without solvent and solvent without air. App. Br.,
Claims App’x.
The Examiner found that Yoshioka teaches a coating material
applicator including a controller “for opening and closing at least some of
the valves to produce an air/solvent chop including a sequence of successive
pulses of air without solvent and solvent without air in controlled alternating
pulses.” Ans. 3-4.
Appellants argue that, “nothing in the teaching of Yoshioka et al.
suggests the use of pulses or bursts of exclusively solvent and exclusively
air, without mixture of solvent and air, as recited in the pending claims.”
App. Br. 12.
Pointing to column 7, lines 28-45 of Yoshioka the Examiner responds
that:
Yoshioka et al. discloses the operation of opening
a valve to supply solvent to the nozzle and the
operation of opening a valve to supply air to the
nozzle are alternately repeating. Since the
operations of opening are alternately repeated,
Appeal 2011-002790
Application 11/830,288

5

then it is clear that the solvent valve and air valve
alternate opening with respect to each other.
Ans. 8.
Appellants counter that, “[e]ven if the valves [of Yoshioka] are
alternately opened and closed they could be alternately opened and closed in
unison.” App. Br. 12. According to Appellants, “nothing in the teaching of
Yoshioka et al. suggests that each of the valves is closed before the other of
the valves is opened.” Reply Br. 3 (emphasis added). Thus, Appellants
explain that:
. . . . if the solvent valve is opened and then the air
valve is opened, solvent is followed by a mixture
of air and solvent. The air valve could then be
closed followed by the solvent valve to complete
the cycle; however, at no time was a pulse of air
without solvent provided. Even if the solvent
valve were the first valve closed, so that the
sequence of fluids included first solvent alone,
followed by an air/solvent mixture, followed by air
alone; the sequence would not be as recited in
appealed claim 1. . . . As yet another example, the
solvent valve could be opened, and the air valve
could be opened, following which both valves
could be closed simultaneously.
Reply Br. 4.
Although we appreciate Appellants’ position, nonetheless, Yoshioka
specifically teaches that, “operation of opening the seventh and ninth gate
valves 37 and 39 . . . and operation of opening the eighth and ninth gate
valves 38 and 39 . . . are alternately repeated. ”1 Yoshioka, col. 7, ll. 31-38.

1 An ordinary and customary meaning of the term “alternate” is “occurring
or succeeding by turns.” MERRIAM WEBSTER’S COLLEGIATE DICTIONARY
(10th Ed. 1997).
Appeal 2011-002790
Application 11/830,288

6

In other words, Yoshioka does not teach that opening of the solvent and air
valves 37, 38 are “alternately repeated,” as Appellants contend, but rather
that the operation of opening the set of valves 37, 39 (solvent valve set) and
the set of valves 38, 39 (pressurized air valve set) are “alternately repeated.”
It is, well settled that what a reference teaches or suggests must be examined
in the context of the knowledge, skill, and reasoning ability of a skilled
artisan. What a reference teaches a person of ordinary skill is not limited to
what a reference specifically “talks about” or what is specifically
“mentioned” or “written” in the reference. Syntex (U.S.A.) LLC v. Apotex,
Inc. 407 F.3d 1371, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Here, in Yoshioka, if solvent
valve set 37, 39 is open, the air valve set 38, 39 cannot then be opened in
turn (alternately), as Appellants opine, because valve 39 is already opened as
part of the solvent valve set 37, 39. Thus, in order for the operation of
opening valve set 37, 39 and air valve set 38, 39 to be “alternately repeated,”
as Yoshioka teaches, solvent valve set 37, 39 is closed prior to opening air
valve set 38, 39. Moreover, such an interpretation of the teachings of
Yoshioka is also consistent with the description in Yoshioka of cleaning
pipings 11e through 16e and coating material nozzles “by the thinner or
pressurized air.” Yoshioka, col. 5, l. 60 through col. 6, l. 6 (emphasis
added). We thus agree with the Examiner that, “it cannot be the case that the
solvent valve and air valve open and close in unison as suggested by
appellant.” Ans. 8.
In conclusion, for the foregoing reasons, we sustain the rejection of
claims 1, 2, and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Yoshioka.

Appeal 2011-002790
Application 11/830,288

7

The obviousness rejection
Appellants do not make any other substantive arguments separate
from the arguments presented supra with respect to the anticipation rejection
based upon Yoshioka. App. Br. 16-18. Therefore, the rejection of claims 3-
10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Yoshioka and Clifford is
likewise sustained.

SUMMARY
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-11 is affirmed.
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

rvb