Appeal No. 2005-2119
Application No. 10/103,063
a paint color adjuster associated with the second paint
application station, the controller communicating with the
second sensor and selectively causing the paint color adjuster
to adjust the color of paint applied at the second paint
application station such that the color of the second portion of
the vehicle matches the color of the first portion of the vehicle.
The Examiner rejected claims 1-4, 14-17 and 20-23 under 35 U.S.C.
§102(e) as anticipated by Corrigan.
According to the Examiner,
Corrigan discloses a paint matching system utilizing a first
sensor (handheld scanner, see for example column 6, lines 1-
3 and 24-30), a controller which communicates with the
sensor (remote terminal, see column 5, line 65 to column 22),
and a paint color adjuster and adjusting process (column 8,
line 60, to column 13, line 3, which describes the remote
paint matching process).
Corrigan also discloses that the paint matching system is
intended to be duplicated from one repair/painting shop to
the next (see column 1, line 62). Thus, the overall system
discloses first and second (and more) sensors at each
remote locations, a controller (at each location and a
central location), and a paint color adjuster at the second
location (and in fact, at each location). Therefore, the
system of Corrigan, when duplicated across repair shops as
disclosed and intended, discloses each element of the
claimed system. (Answer, pp. 3-4).
Appellant argues that although the system of Corrigan may have
multiple sensors, these sensors do not correspond to the claimed first and
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007