Opinion ID: 182232
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Reexamination Proceeding

Text: The '503 patent issued to Glatt on August 17, 1993. On February 8, 2007, a third party requested ex parte reexamination of the patent. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) granted reexamination as to claims 5-8 and 10 of the '503 patent. During reexamination, Glatt canceled claims 6, 7, and 9-11, limiting the reexamination to unamended claim 5 and amended claim 8. The examiner rejected unamended claim 5, but allowed amended claim 8. Glatt appealed the examiner's rejection of claim 5 to the Board, which affirmed the examiner's rejection. Because claim 5 is written in Jepson format, the Wurster coating apparatus described in the claim's preamble is prior art. See, e.g., In re Ehrreich, 590 F.2d 902, 909 (CCPA 1979) ([T]he preamble elements in a Jepson-type claim are impliedly admitted to be old in the art. . . .). Accordingly, the examiner rejected claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious in view of the admitted prior art from the claim preamble and a single cited reference, German Patent DE 3323418 (Naunapper). J.A. 493. Looking to the specification of the '503 patent, the examiner construed claim 5's shielding means to include formation of an air wall or stream that surrounds the nozzle and prevents particles from prematurely entering into the spray pattern (air wall). J.A. 495. The examiner determined that Naunapper teaches a shielding means. J.A. 494. According to the examiner, Naunapper's shielding means is an air wall, or air jacket, surrounding said spray nozzle. Id. The examiner concluded that [i]t would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a shielding means . . . as taught by Naunapper. . . [in the admitted prior art Wurster coater]. Id. Thus, the examiner's rejection was based on Naunapper allegedly teaching an air wall shielding means. In addition to traversing the examiner's obviousness rejection, Glatt offered various types of secondary considerations evidence, including evidence of unexpected results, long-felt need, and commercial success due to the improvement, to rebut the examiner's prima facie case. [1] The examiner determined that Glatt's evidence of commercial success was not commensurate in scope with claim 5. J.A. 499-500. In light of this, and other, alleged deficiencies in Glatt's secondary considerations evidence, the examiner found Glatt's evidence insufficient to overcome the prima facie case of obviousness. Glatt appealed the examiner's final rejection of claim 5 to the Board, and the Board affirmed the examiner. The Board agreed that claim 5's shielding means includes an air wall. Decision at 12-13. It found that Naunapper plainly teaches an arrangement that can provide . . . an air wall or stream surrounding the [coating spray] nozzle to address the same or similar problem discussed in the '503 Patent, and concluded that the arrangement described in Naunapper would inherently or necessarily be capable of performing the same function recited for the claimed `shielding means.' Id. at 13-14. Like the examiner's rejection, the Board's determination was based on its finding that Naunapper teaches shielding the coating spray nozzle. The Board also addressed Glatt's secondary considerations evidence. Id. at 14-15. It noted that none of the submitted affidavits included a comparison of the claimed invention against an air wall shield such as the one taught by Naunapper. The Board agreed that the examiner properly found Glatt's evidence unpersuasive because no evidence demonstrates any unexpected result or commercial success based on the actual difference between the claimed invention, as broadly recited, and Naunapper's apparatus. Id. at 15 (emphasis omitted). It therefore concluded that Glatt's evidence of nonobviousness was insufficient to outweigh the evidence of obviousness. Id. Glatt timely appealed. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A).