Ex Parte GeserichDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardMar 10, 201612500704 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 10, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/500,704 07/10/2009 26574 7590 03/14/2016 SCHIFF HARDIN, LLP PA TENT DEPARTMENT 233 S. Wacker Drive-Suite 6600 CHICAGO, IL 60606-6473 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Frank Geserich 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. P09,0l 19 (26988-0186) 2874 EXAMINER VALENCIA, ALEJANDRO ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2853 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/14/2016 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): patents-CH@schiffhardin.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte FRANK GESERICH Appeal2014-004066 Application 12/500,704 Technology Center 2800 Before ROMULO H. DELMENDO, GEORGE C. BEST, and JULIA HEANEY, Administrative Patent Judges. DELMENDO, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL The Appellant1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of a decision of the Primary Examiner to reject claims 1-8. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We AFFIRM for the reasons given by the Examiner and add the following for emphasis. 1 The Appellant states that "Francotyp-Postalia GmbH" is the real party in interest (Appeal Brief filed October 21, 2013, hereinafter "App. Br.," 1). Appeal2014-004066 Application 12/500,704 BACKGROUND The subject matter on appeal relates to an ink dispensing device including a device for cleaning an ink jet print head (Specification, hereinafter "Spec.," 1, 11. 6-9). Representative claim 1 is reproduced from page 16-17 of the Appeal Brief (Claims App.) (some indentations, bracketed material, and underlining omitted) as follows: 1. An ink dispensing device comprising: a chassis configured to allow transport of items to be printed along an x-direction of a Cartesian coordinate system; a print cartridge [sic, carriage] that carries an ink jet print head for printing on said items in a succession of printing procedures, said print carriage being movable to a print position along a y-direction of said Cartesian coordinate system, said ink jet print head having a surface on which ink accumulates during printing; a wiping lip mount stationarily situated on said chassis, that carries a wiping lip that remove said accumulated ink from said surface in between printing procedures in said succession, thereby resulting in removed ink accumulating on said wiping lip; said print carriage having a stripper element integrally formed as part of said print carriage at a projecting edge of said print carriage at a location spaced and separate from said inkjet print head, said stripper element cleaning said wiping lip by doctoring said accumulated removed ink therefrom at said location when said print carriage is moved from said print position in said y-direction, thereby resulting in doctored ink accumulating on said stripper element; a cowling carriage that carries at least one cowling that encloses said print head during cleaning thereof at said wiping lip, said cowling carriage being mounted on said chassis for movement in the y-direction and a z-direction of said Cartesian coordinate system, said cowling carriage having an entraining hook and lateral guide pins; an ink absorber in a holder mounted at a distance in the y-direction from a rear side of said cowling carriage, said 2 Appeal2014-004066 Application 12/500,704 stripper element of said print carriage being disposed opposite said ink absorber during a maintenance interval following doctoring of said wiping lip by said stripper element, in a position reached when a segment of said stripper element of said print carriage abuts said entraining hook of said cowling carriage; said cowling carriage being configured to move toward and away from said print carriage in the z-direction of said Cartesian coordinate system with said lateral guide pins being guided in a slotted guide bar, while said print carriage is moved further, with said movement in the z-direction, in combination with said movement of the cowling carriage in the y-direction, causing said cowling carriage to execute a zig-zag movement; and said ink absorber being configured to clean said stripper element during said movement of said cowling carriage in said direction by being pushed by said cowling carriage partially over said stripper element to absorb said accumulated doctored ink from said stripper element. THE REJECTIONS The Examiner rejected the claims as follows: I. Claims 1--4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Murcia et al. ("Murcia"), 2 Tanaka et al. ("Tanaka"),3 Anderson, Jr. et al. ("Anderson"),4 and Kawarama et al. ("Kawarama");5 2 US Patent 6,520,619 Bl, issued February 18, 2003. 3 US 2005/0259126 Al, published November 24, 2005. 4 US Patent 7,188,927 B2, issued March 13, 2007. 5 US Patent 6,179,404 Bl, issued January 30, 2001. 3 Appeal2014-004066 Application 12/500,704 IL Claims 5 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Murcia, Tanaka, Anderson, Kawarama, and Murayama;6 III. Claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Murcia, Tanaka, Anderson, Kawarama, Murayama, and Tsujimoto et al. ("Tsujimoto");7 and IV. Claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Murcia, Tanaka, Anderson, Kawarama, Maruyama and Arakawa. 8 (Examiner's Answer, entered December 16, 2013, hereafter "Ans.," 2-3; Final Office Action entered June 4, 2013, hereinafter "Final Act.," 2-11.) DISCUSSION I In arguing for the reversal of Rejection I, the Appellant argues claims 1--4 together, focusing on independent claim 1 (App. Br. 3-14). Therefore, consistent with 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv), we confine our discussion to representative claim 1. The Examiner found that Murcia describes, or would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art, an ink dispensing device including every limitation of claim 1 except for "an entraining hook and wherein the absorber contacts the stripper when the entraining hook abuts the stripper," "a stripper element for doctoring said wiper lips," and "the absorber moves 6 US 2008/0012896 Al, published January 17, 2008. 7 US Patent 7,431,438 B2, issued October 7, 2008. 8 US Patent 6,679,578 B2, issued January 20, 2004. 4 Appeal2014-004066 Application 12/500,704 to contact the stripper element while the cowling carriage moves in the z direction" in a manner as recited by the claim (Final Act. 2-7). With respect to the "an entraining hook and wherein the absorber contacts the stripper when the entraining hook abuts the stripper" issue, the Examiner found that Tanaka discloses an entraining hook that meets the claim requirements and concluded that "[i]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to align the absorber with the stripper, as taught by Murcia, when the entraining hook contacts the stripper, as taught by Tanaka, because doing so would amount to the substitution of one known element for another to yield predictable results" (id. at 5). With respect to "a stripper element for doctoring said wiper lips," the Examiner found that Anderson discloses a "print carriage has a stripper element integrally formed thereon ... that cleans said wiper lips by doctoring said accumulated removed ink therefrom" and thus concluded that "[i]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to add a stripper element specifically and dedicatedly for the purpose of doctoring a wiper blade ... because doing so would amount to combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results" (id.). With respect to the requirement that "the absorber moves to contact the stripper element while the cowling carriage moves in the z direction," the Examiner found that Kawarama teaches an absorber is moved in the z- direction to contact an ink soiled element that needs ink absorbed from it and thus concluded that "[i]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to move the absorber upwardly, as taught by 5 Appeal2014-004066 Application 12/500,704 Kawarama, instead of horizontally. [D]oing so would amount to the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results" (id. at 7). The Appellant contends the Examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case of obviousness because, inter alia, the Examiner's interpretation of Murcia is improper (App. Br. 4). Specifically, the Appellant contends that the Examiner's position that the leading edge of Murcia's print head "functions as a stripper element" is "not a reasonable interpretation of the function[]. .. ofth[e] leading edge" of Murcia (id.). The Appellant further contends that the Examiner's interpretation "is contrary to the most likely and reasonable manner that a person of ordinary skill in the relevant technology would interpret this portion of the Murcia et al. structure" (id. at 6). We have considered fully the Appellant's analysis of the Murcia reference and the Examiner's interpretation of the teachings; however, we find that Appellant's analysis fails to reveal any reversible error in the Examiner's factual findings, analysis, and conclusions of obviousness. The test of obviousness is not whether an express suggestion of the claimed invention is present in any or all references but rather what the references taken collectively would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art presumed to be familiar with them. In re Rossel et, 34 7 F .2d 84 7, 851 (CCPA 1965); In re Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038, 1041 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Additionally, a reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art. Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 807 (Fed. Cir. 1989) ("the mere absence 6 Appeal2014-004066 Application 12/500,704 from the prior art of a teaching or a limitation recited in the patent at issue is insufficient for a conclusion of nonobviousness"). As found by the Examiner (Final Act. 12), Murcia discloses an ink dispensing device that includes a "leading edge" that contacts the wiper blades (col. 11, 11. 37-53; Fig. 7). Additionally, Murcia discloses the wiper blades "wick or draw ink from the nozzles through capillary action" (col. 10, 11. 60-65). Taking these teaching, we hold that it would be reasonable to conclude that the leading edge does contact the wiper blades, which are taught to remove ink, and some degree of ink residue will be doctored or stripped from the wiper blades. Notwithstanding this position, the Examiner concedes (Ans. 3), and the Appellant acknowledges (Reply Brief mailed December 16, 2003 at 2), that Murcia does not explicitly teach a stripper element for doctoring said wiper lips. To remedy this deficiency, the Examiner cited Anderson (Final Act. 5-6), discussed supra. The Appellant has proffered no objective factual evidence to rebut the Examiners factual findings, analysis, and conclusions of obviousness with respect to Murcia in combination with Anderson. In view of the insufficient factual evidence or arguments proffered with respect to Murcia with Anderson, we agree with the Examiner's factual findings, analysis, and conclusions of obviousness because one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually when the rejection is based on a combination of reference. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). The Appellant further contends that ink adherence to the leading edge would be "considered a nuisance and an annoyance ... and, if it occurred, it would most likely be countered not by trying to modify the Murcia et al. 7 Appeal2014-004066 Application 12/500,704 reference with some type of added structure, but merely by repeated wiping the leading edge ... with a rag or a paper towel" (App. Br. 6). In addition, the Appellant further argues that because the location of the leading edge of Murcia is "already crowded with other components, a person of ordinary skill in the printing technology would not even consider the Murcia et al. reference as being a 'candidate' for modification" (id.). We find these arguments unpersuasive because they are considered mere attorney speculation not supported by factual objective evidence. See In re Scarborough, 500 F.2d 560, 566 (CCPA 1974). The Appellant argues Murcia is not concerned with cleaning but rather is directed "to prevent[ing] excessive solvent and ink from accumulating in the first place" because Murcia discloses "dispens[ing] exactly the right amount of solvent onto the print head, so that excessive solvent does not accumulate" (App. Br. 9). Thus the Appellant concludes "[a] person of ordinary skill in the relevant technology reading that disclosure would assume that the apparatus disclosed in the Murcia et al. reference does, in fact, operate as intended, and therefore does, in fact, apply just the 'right' amount of solvent to the print head, thereby avoiding the need for any further cleaning means" (id. at 10). We find this unsubstantiated inference unpersuasive because Appellant has not proffered any objective evidence that Murcia indicates that one of ordinary skill in the art would not be concerned with cleaning an ink jet print head. See DyStar Textilfabren GmbH v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ("We will not read into a reference a teaching away ... where no such language exists."). Additionally, we are unpersuaded that Murcia's disclosure would lead one of ordinary skill in the art to avoid further cleaning means because 8 Appeal2014-004066 Application 12/500,704 the test of obviousness is not express suggestion of the claimed invention in any or all references but rather what the references taken collectively would suggest to those of ordinary skill in the art presumed to be familiar with them. Rosselet, 347 F.2d at 851; Hedges, 783 F.2d at 1041. The Appellant argues against the plurality of secondary references stating that each of the secondary references is concerned with "components [that] have been intentionally designed in order to remove ink or other residue from a surface" (App. Br. 8). In view of this recognition, the Appellant maintains that because ink accumulation on the leading edge of Murcia "would be completely uncontrolled and unpredictable[,]" it is "speculation on the part of the Examiner that any of the structure disclosed in Tanaka et al., Anderson, Jr. et al. and Kawarama et al. could be used, or would be considered by a person ordinary skill in the art to be usable" (id. at 8). As found by the Examiner (Final Act. 5-6), Anderson discloses the print carriage has a stripper element integrally formed thereon that cleans the wiper lips by doctoring any accumulated removed ink therefrom when said print carriage is moved thereby resulting in doctored ink accumulating on said stripper element (Fig. 2-3; col. 5, 11. 38--47, 62-65). In view of this disclosure, we fully agree with the Examiner's factual findings and conclusion that adding the stripping element as taught by Anderson to Murcia would have been obvious to prevent the spread of waste onto undesired surfaces. See KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416- 417 (2007) ("The combination of familiar elements according to known method is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results"). Again, as outlined supra, one cannot show nonobviousness by 9 Appeal2014-004066 Application 12/500,704 attacking references individually when the rejection is based on a combination of reference. See Keller, 642 F.2d at 425. In so holding, we note the Appellant has primarily focused their analysis on Murcia alone, with no individual articulated arguments or evidence to dispute the Examiner's factual findings, analysis and conclusions of obviousness with respect to Tanaka, Anderson and Kawarama or their combination with Murcia. We find the Examiner has made extensive factual findings with respect to Tanaka, Anderson and Kawarama (Final Act. 5-8), which we adopt as our own, and the Appellant has proffered insufficient articulated arguments to the contrary to reveal reversible error in the conclusion of obviousness. Additionally, in view of the lack of articulated arguments, we do not further discuss the teachings of Tanaka, Anderson and Kawarama or their combination with Murcia. Again, the relevant inquiry is whether the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to those ordinary skill in the art in light of the combined teachings of those references. See Keller, 642 F.2d at 425. The Appellant argues that Murcia does not disclose the "zig-zag movement" as embodied by claim 1 (App. Br. 7). However, we reject this position because the Examiner, giving the terms of the claims their broadest reasonable interpretation, has determined Murcia discloses the "zig-zag movement" is encompassed by the movement as taught by Murcia (Ans. 4) and the Appellant has proffered insufficient objective evidence to rebut the examiners interpretation. During patent examination, the pending claims must be "given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification" by giving words their plain meaning unless the specification provides a clear definition. See In re Prater 415 F.2d 1393, 1404 (CCPA 10 Appeal2014-004066 Application 12/500,704 1969); In re Zletz 893 F.2d 319, 321 (CCPA 1989). The Examiner has found this limitation is disclosed or suggested in the prior art reference, and the Appellant's mere assertions to the contrary are insufficient to identify a reversible error. See Ex parte Belinne, No 2009-004693, 2009 WL 2477843 (BP AI 2009) (informative) ("[W]e find that the Examiner has made extensive specific fact finding ... with respect to each of the argued claims. Appellants' argument ... repeatedly restates elements of the claim language and simply argues that the elements are missing from the reference. However, Appellants do not present any arguments to explain why the Examiner's explicit fact finding is in error"). See also 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(vii) (nothing that an argument that merely points out what a claim recites is unpersuasive). For the above reasons, we uphold the Examiner's rejection of claim 1--4. II In arguing for the reversal of Rejection II, the Appellant presents no additional arguments and, therefore, we sustain this rejection for substantially the same reasons as set forth above. III In arguing for the reversal of Rejection III, the Appellant presents no additional arguments and, therefore, we sustain this rejection for substantially the same reasons as set forth above. 11 Appeal2014-004066 Application 12/500,704 IV In arguing for the reversal of Rejection III, the Appellant presents no additional arguments and, therefore, we sustain this rejection for substantially the same reasons as set forth above. SUMMARY For these reasons and those set forth in the answer, Rejections I, II, III, and IV are affirmed. Therefore, the Examiner's final decision to reject claims 1-8 is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 3 7 C.F .R. § 1.13 6( a )(1 ). AFFIRMED 12 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation