Ex Parte Nedelin et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 14, 2018

15089976 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 14, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
15/089,976 04/04/2016
22879 7590 06/18/2018
HP Inc.
3390 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 35
FORT COLLINS, CO 80528-9544
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Peter N edelin
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.
84470019 1515
EXAMINER
AYDIN, SEVAN A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2852
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/18/2018 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):
ipa.mail@hp.com
barbl@hp.com
yvonne.bailey@hp.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PETER NEDELIN, MARK SANDLER, and SHAI LIOR
Appeal2017-009872
Application 15/089 ,97 6
Technology Center 2800
Before GEORGE C. BEST, N. WHITNEY WILSON, and
JANEE. INGLESE, Administrative Patent Judges.
INGLESE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 requests our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's decision to finally reject claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction over
this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellant is the applicant, Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P.,
which, according to the Appeal Brief, is the real party in interest. Appeal
Brief filed March 20, 2017 ("App. Br."), l; Application Data Sheet filed
April 4, 2016.
Appeal2017-009872
Application 15/089,976
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claim 1 illustrates the subject matter on appeal and is reproduced
below with contested language italicized:
1. An image forming apparatus, comprising:
a photoconductive member to move in a rotational
direction;
a single charging unit to charge the photoconductive
member;
a discharging unit to discharge a portion of the
photoconductive member to form a latent image on the
photoconductive member;
a plurality of ink applicator units disposed across from
the photoconductive member and spaced apart from each other
in the rotational direction, the ink applicator units to, in a print
cycle corresponding to one rotation of the photoconductive
member, sequentially apply a plurality of ink layers,
respectively, toward the latent image to form an ink image such
that each one of the ink layers is in contact with another one of
the ink layers,
wherein the sequentially applying the plurality of ink
layers in the print cycle is peiformed with just a single charging
of the photoconductive member in the print cycle by only the
single charging unit and a single discharging of the
photoconductive member in the print cycle by the discharging
unit; and
an intermediate transfer member having an image
transfer blanket to receive the ink image including the plurality
of ink layers from the photoconductive member.
App. Br. Claims Appendix i (spacing added).
The Examiner sets forth the rejection of claims 1-20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Grenek et al. (US
2003/0223781 Al, published December 4, 2003) in view of Tamoto et
al. (US 2009/0180788 Al, published July 16, 2009) in the Final Office
2
Appeal2017-009872
Application 15/089,976
Action entered September 13, 2016 ("Office Act."), and maintains the
rejection in the Examiner's Answer entered May 11, 2017 ("Ans.").
DISCUSSION
Upon consideration of the evidence relied upon in this appeal and
Appellant's timely raised contentions2, we affirm the Examiner's rejection
of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for the reasons set forth in the Final
Action, the Answer, and below.
Appellant argues claims 1-20 as a group on the basis of claim 1, to
which we accordingly limit our discussion. App. Br. 6-15; 37 C.F.R.
§ 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
Grenek discloses an electrophotographic image-forming device that
includes a circumferential photoconductive belt 190 (photoconductive
member) that moves in a counterclockwise direction through various
substations located along the circumference of the belt. ,r,r 2, 3, 64; Fig. 3.
Grenek discloses that the substations include first 121, second 131, and third
141 charging substations ( charging units), exposing substation 142
(discharging unit), and first 153 and second 163 developing substations (ink
applicator units). ,r,r 64---66, 68-70; Fig. 3.
The Examiner finds that Grenek does not disclose that the image-
forming apparatus described in the reference includes a single charging unit,
and the Examiner relies on Tamoto for suggesting this feature. Final Act. 3-
2 We do not consider any new argument raised in Appellant's Reply Brief
that could have been raised in the Appeal Brief. 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv);
3 7 C.F .R. § 41.41 (b )(2) ( arguments raised for the first time in the Reply
Brief that could have been raised in the Appeal Brief will not be considered
by the Board unless good cause is shown).
3
Appeal2017-009872
Application 15/089,976
4. Tamoto's invention addresses the first one-revolution charge problem
that occurs in electrophotographic printing devices. ,r,r 2, 12, 28-33.
Tamoto explains that photoreceptors in image bearing members
(photoconductive members) in such devices become electrostatically
fatigued by repeated use, causing the photoreceptors to have poor charging
during a first revolution, but good charging properties after a second
revolution ("a first one-revolution charge problem"). ,r 12. Tamoto further
explains that holes present in the image-bearing member cause this first one-
revolution charge problem, which can be prevented by allowing the holes to
reach the surface of the image-bearing member at the beginning of the
charging process. ,r 71.
Tamoto discloses determining the real transit time needed for holes to
reach the surface of an image bearing member in Tamoto's
electrophotographic image-forming apparatus, and utilizing a charging
device in the apparatus that can charge the image bearing member
(photoconductive member) for a time not shorter than the real transit time,
thus preventing the first one-revolution charge problem. ,r,r 82, 84. Tomoto
teaches that "it is preferable to use a scorotron charging device for the image
forming apparatus of the present invention because the image bearing
member can be evenly charged, resulting in prevention of occurrence of the
first one-revolution charge problem." ,r 85. The Examiner finds that
"Tamoto [] thus teach[ es] that a single charging device that is capable of
charging the photosensitive layer for a time greater than the minimum time
needed for the holes to migrate to the surface can be used." Final Act. 4
(citing Tamoto ,r 84).
The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to one of
4
Appeal2017-009872
Application 15/089,976
ordinary skill in the art at the time of Appellant's invention "to use a single
charging device that is capable of charging the photosensitive layer for a
time greater than the minimum time needed for the holes to migrate to the
surface" as disclosed in Tamoto in the electrophotographic image-forming
device disclosed in Grenek to prevent the first one-revolution charge
problem. Final Act. 4; Ans. 6.
Appellant argues that Tamoto' s disclosures would not have prompted
one of ordinary skill in the art "to combine Tamoto with Grenek" to achieve
the image forming apparatus of claim 1 having a single charging unit and a
plurality of ink applicator units. App. Br. 9--12. Appellant asserts that
Grenek discloses multiple chargings of a photoconductive belt 190 by
multiple different charging units 121, 131, 141 during a print cycle that
corresponds to one rotation of the photoconductive belt 190, rather than a
single charging of the photoconductive belt 190 (photoconductive member)
with a single charging unit as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 8-9.
Appellant further contends that paragraph 84 of Tamoto refers to
"charging devices," rather than a single charging unit that performs a single
charging of an image bearing member (photoconductive member) during a
print cycle, as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 9-10. Appellant asserts that,
consistent with paragraph 84, Figure 10 of Tamoto illustrates an image
forming apparatus having multiple charging devices. App. Br. 11.
Appellant further argues that Figure 13 of Tamoto illustrates an image
forming apparatus having multiple image forming units in which each image
forming unit has a single charging device and a single developing device
(ink applicator unit), rather than multiple developing devices (ink applicator
units) as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 11-12.
5
Appeal2017-009872
Application 15/089,976
Appellant argues that the combined disclosures of Grenek and Tamoto
therefore would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to (a) use multiple
charging units with multiple developing stations in a print cycle
corresponding to one rotation of the photoconductive member, as illustrated
in Figure 3 of Grenek, (b) use multiple charging units with one developing
station corresponding to one rotation of the photoconductive member as
illustrated in Figure 10 of Tamoto, and ( c) use one developing device with
one charging device in a print cycle corresponding to one rotation of the
photoconductive member of an image forming unit as illustrated in Figure
13 ofTamoto. App. Br. 12-13.
However, although paragraph 84 of Tamoto describes numerous
"charging devices" suitable for use in the image forming apparatus described
in the reference, as discussed above, Tamoto explicitly states that "it is
preferable to use a scorotron charging device for the image forming
apparatus of the present invention because the image bearing member can be
evenly charged, resulting in prevention of occurrence of the first one-
revolution charge problem." ,r 85 (emphasis added). Paragraph 85 of
Tamoto thus discloses using a single charging device to charge the image
bearing member (photoconductive member) of the image forming apparatus
of Tamoto' s invention, while paragraph 84 describes numerous suitable
charging devices for the apparatus.
In addition, Tamoto explains that the image forming apparatus
illustrated in Figure 10 is a non-limiting example of the apparatus of
Tamoto's invention. ,r 104. Although Appellant asserts that this image
forming apparatus includes multiple charging devices, Tamoto teaches that
all but one of the illustrated charging devices (charging device 23) are
6
Appeal2017-009872
Application 15/089,976
optionally included in the image forming apparatus of Tamoto's invention.
,r,r 107-108. Specifically, the image forming apparatus illustrated in Figure
10 of Tamoto includes charging device 23, pre-transfer charger 26, pre-
cleaning charger 32, and a transferring device that includes transfer charger
29 and separating charger 30. ,r,r 104, 106, 107. As Appellant
acknowledges (Reply Br. 3), Tamoto explicitly indicates that the pre-transfer
charger 26 and pre-cleaning charger 3 2 are optional. ,r 107. Tamoto further
teaches that "[ t ]he image forming apparatus of the present invention includes
at least an image bearing member, a charging device, a light irradiating
device, and a developing device, and optionally includes a transferring
device." ,r 108 (emphasis added).
Accordingly, although the exemplary image forming apparatus
illustrated in Figure 10 of Tamoto includes a transferring device having a
transfer charger 29 and a separating charger 30, Tamoto's more general
description of the image forming apparatus of Tamoto's invention teaches
that such a transferring device is optional, thus indicating that a transfer
charger and separating charger are optional. The non-limiting, exemplary
image forming apparatus illustrated in Figure 10 of Tamoto that includes a
transfer charger 29 and a separating charger 30 does not negate Tamoto's
broader disclosure that such chargers are optional.
Relying on paragraph 117 of Tamoto, Appellant argues in the Reply
Brief that although charging units 29 and 30 illustrated in Figure 10 of
Tamoto are part of the transferring device that transfers an image from the
image bearing member to receiving material, charging units 20 and 30
nonetheless charge the image bearing member (photoconductive member) to
perform the transfer. Reply Br. 4--5.
7
Appeal2017-009872
Application 15/089,976
However, it is questionable whether paragraph 117 of Tamoto teaches
that that transfer charger 29 and separating charger 30 actually charge the
image bearing member. Regardless, as discussed above, Tamoto teaches
that these charging units are optionally included in the image forming
apparatus of Tamoto's invention. Consequently, based on Tamoto's
disclosures as a whole, one of ordinary skill in the art would have
understood that the image forming apparatus of Tamoto 's invention need
only include a single charging device, although additional charging devices
may optionally be included.
Accordingly, contrary to Appellant's arguments, Tamoto's disclosure
of an image forming apparatus having a single charging device, which
charges an image bearing member (photoconductive member) for a time not
shorter than the minimum time needed for holes to migrate to the surface of
the image bearing member, would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to
include such a single charging device in the electrophotographic image-
forming device disclosed in Grenek having first and second developing
substations ( a plurality of ink applicator units), as recited in claim 1, in order
to prevent the first one-revolution charge problem, as disclosed in Tamoto.
We accordingly sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).
8
Appeal2017-009872
Application 15/089,976
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
9