Appeal 2007-2909
Application 10/622,063
1 pen tip and the stage to dispense the material from the pen tip to the
2 workpiece.
3 B. Issue
4 The issue is whether Applicants have shown that the Examiner erred
5 in determining claims 1-3, 11 and 24 to be unpatentable over the prior art as
6 applied by the Examiner.
7 C. Findings of fact (“FF”)
8 The record supports the following findings of fact as well as any other
9 findings of fact set forth in this opinion by at least a preponderance of the
10 evidence.
11 1. Applicants’ claims 1-3, 11 and 24 are the subject of this appeal.
12 2. Independent claims 1, 11 and 24 are reproduced as follows:
13 1. A robotic pen comprising:
14 a machine including a stage for mounting a workpiece for
15 rotation and orthogonal translation, the said stage permitting
16 translation generally in a plane and rotation about an axis generally
17 parallel to said plane, and an elevator for translation from said stage;
18 a pen tip rotatably mounted to said elevator;
19 a dispenser joined in flow communication with said pen tip for
20 ejecting a stream of material atop said workpiece; and
21 a digital controller configured for coordinating relative
22 movement of said pen tip and said stage, and dispensing of said
23 stream from said pen tip.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013