Appeal 2007-1904
Application 10/790,081
Applying the above principles of law, the Examiner has found
(Answer 3) that:
KAYA ET AL teaches the design of an apparatus for coating a
substrate comprising: a support 7 supporting a substrate; a
coater 3 including a discharging unit for discharging the coating
onto substrate and coating the substrate; a detector 1 for
detecting coating defects which can include foreign
matters on the surface of the substrate, and a controller
controlling the coater and the detector. KAYA ET AL teaches
the nozzles are movable in accordance with which reads on the
term "along" the shape of the substrate (see column 2 line 52 to
column 3 line 35).
As is apparent from the above findings, the Examiner has relied on a
conveyor belt 7 as corresponding the claimed support, a marking block
comprising having piezo pumps and a nozzle as corresponding to the
claimed coater having a discharging unit, moving means for moving and
pivoting piezo pumps and nozzles as corresponding to the claimed transfer
unit for moving the discharging unit, an imaging block (detector) as
corresponding to the claimed detector, and a system controller as
corresponding to the claimed controller.
The Appellants have not disputed that Kaya teaches the claimed
support, detector, transfer unit and controller (Br. 4-17). We find that
substantial evidence also supports the Examiner’s finding that the marking
device taught by Kaya is capable of coating a photosensitive layer on a
substrate having a plurality of unit substrates. We find that Kaya indeed
teaches employing the discharging nozzle of its marking block to provide a
jet of a marking solution towards car body surfaces (corresponding to
surfaces of the claimed plurality of unit substrates) “in the form of a circle of
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013