Ex Parte Chiari et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 4, 2018

13816836 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 4, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/816,836 02/13/2013 Mauro Chiari
2352 7590 10/09/2018
OSTROLENK FABER LLP
845 THIRD A VENUE
NEW YORK, NY 10022
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
P/3328-143 (V 26106) 1252
EXAMINER
CULLER, JILL E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2854
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/09/2018 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
pat@ostrolenk.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MAURO CHIARI, PIERRE GRETSCH,
BENOIT ROSSET, and DANIEL TATTI
Appeal 2018-003211
Application 13/816,83 6
Technology Center 2800
Before JAMES C. HOUSEL, JEFFREY R. SNAY, and
SHELDON M. McGEE, Administrative Patent Judges.
PERCURIAM
DECISION ON APPEAL 1
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellants2 appeal from the
Examiner's decision finally rejecting claims 1-15, 18, and 19 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Muller3 in view ofTakeuchi. 4 We
have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
1 Our Decision refers to the Specification (Spec.) filed February 13, 2013,
the Examiner's Final Office Action dated January 10, 2017, Appellants'
Appeal Brief (Br.) filed October 2, 2017, and the Examiner's Answer (Ans.)
dated December 15, 201 7.
2 Appellants identify BOBST MEX SA in the Appeal Brief as the real party
in interest (Br. 1 ).
3 Muller et al., US 7,337,035 B2, issued February 26, 2008 ("Muller").
4 Takeuchi et al., US 5,715,498, issued February 3, 1998 ("Takeuchi").
Appeal 2018-003211
Application 13/816,836
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The invention relates to a method and arrangement for automatically
registering colors in a printing machine (Spec. 1 ).
Claim 1, reproduced below from the Claims Appendix to the Appeal
Brief, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal. The limitations at issue
are italicized.
1. A method for registering at least two colors for a machine for
printing plate elements, each said plate element defining a
lateral direction and a longitudinal direction;
the machine being equipped with at least two printing
units for printing the plate elements, each of the at least two
printing units comprising a printing plate mounted on a plate
cylinder, the method comprising the steps of:
printing on a plate element a first mark of a first color
using a first printing unit, the printed first mark serving as a
reference mark for the first color;
printing on the plate element a second mark at a distance
from the first mark also of the first color and also using the first
printing unit, the printed second mark serving as another
reference mark for the first color;
printing on the plate element a third mark of a second
color using a second printing unit,
predetermining an intended positional relationship
between the first mark and the third mark;
printing on the plate element a fourth mark at a distance
from the third mark also of the second color and also using the
second printing unit,
predetermining an intended positional relationship
between the second mark and the fourth mark;
utilizing a vision system to detect on the plate element
respective positions of the printed first and third marks and
respective positions of the printed second and fourth marks with
reference to said vision system, and to generate a detection
signal representative of said respective positions;
receiving said detection signal with a calculation and
2
Appeal 2018-003211
Application 13/816,836
control unit connected to the vision system and the printing
units, and with said calculation and control unit, comparing said
detected respective positions of said printed marks, and, based
on said detected respective positions:
determining a first position deviation between the first
mark and the third mark and comparing the first determined
deviation with the intended positional relationship between the
first mark and the third mark,
determining a second position deviation between the
second mark and the fourth mark and comparing the second
determined deviation with the intended positional relationship
between the second mark and the fourth mark; and
generating an adjustment signal for the second printing
unit as a function of said comparisons, and applying the
adjustment signal for adjusting the second printing unit so as to
register the second color relative to the first color on the plate
elements;
the calculation and control unit being operable to
generate said adjustment signal to adjust the second printing
unit laterally, longitudinally, and both laterally and
longitudinally, as a function of said comparisons.
Remaining independent claim 11 recites an arrangement for
registering at least two colors including at least one vision system installed
downstream of first and second printing units and a calculation and control
unit functioning to perform a process similar to that recited in claim 1.
ANALYSIS
After review of the opposing positions articulated by Appellants and
the Examiner, the applied prior art, and Appellants' claims and Specification
disclosures, we determine that Appellants' arguments are insufficient to
identify reversible error in the Examiner's obviousness rejection. In re Jung,
637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011). A preponderance of the evidence
3
Appeal 2018-003211
Application 13/816,836
supports the Examiner's findings of fact and conclusions of law with respect
to the Examiner's conclusion that the subject matter of Appellants' claims
on appeal are unpatentable over the applied prior art. Therefore, we sustain
the above rejection based on the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and
rebuttals to arguments expressed by the Examiner in the Final Office Action
and the Answer, which we adopt hereby as our own without repetition. We
add the following for emphasis.
Appellants argue that there is nothing in either Muller or Takeuchi
regarding the steps of (a) predetermining an intended positional relationship
between the first and third marks of one color, and between the second and
fourth marks of the other color; (b) the steps of comparing the determined
deviations between the respective marks of each color with the intended
positional relationships for that color; nor ( c) the final step of adjusting the
second printing unit as a function of the two comparison steps (Br. 5).
Appellants disagree with the Examiner's finding that Muller teaches the
steps of determining first and second position deviations between the first
and third marks and the second and fourth marks, respectively, and
comparing these determined deviations with the respective intended
positional relationships (id.). In particular, Appellants contend that the Final
Office Action fails to point out where these steps are shown, although
Appellants acknowledge that the Action does cite to specific blocks of text
in Muller and Takeuchi (id.). Appellants also acknowledge the Examiner's
position that Muller broadly teaches intended positions for register marks,
checks the positions of these marks, and indirectly teaches the steps
discussed above (id.).
4
Appeal 2018-003211
Application 13/816,836
Appellants' arguments are not persuasive of reversible error in the
Examiner's obviousness rejection. The Examiner provides a detailed
explanation as to where and how Muller teaches each of the steps Appellants
allege to be missing therein (see Ans. 3--4). In addition, the Examiner
reiterates the findings set forth in the Pre-Appeal Brief Conference Decision
dated May 3 0, 2017, including that Muller teaches, if not explicitly, at least
implicitly, steps of predetermining intended positions for each of the marks,
at least indirectly predetermines an intended positional deviation between
the marks, and necessarily compares the determined deviations to the
intended positional relationships (Ans. 4).
Appellants fail to rebut these findings or otherwise address them with
any particularity. Therefore, Appellants' arguments provide no basis to
reject the Examiner's findings on those points. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.3 7 ( c )( 1 )(iv) ("A statement which merely points out what a claim recites
will not be considered an argument for separate patentability of the claim");
see also In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (holding that "the
Board reasonably interpreted Rule 41.37 to require more substantive
arguments in an appeal brief than a mere recitation of the claim elements and
a naked assertion that the corresponding elements were not found in the
prior art").
DECISION
Upon consideration of the record, and for the reasons given in the
Final Office Action and the Examiner's Answer, the decision of the
Examiner rejecting claims 1-15, 18, and 19 is affirmed.
5
Appeal 2018-003211
Application 13/816,836
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal maybe extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l).
AFFIRMED
6