Ex Parte Takenouchi et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 28, 201311485303 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 28, 2013) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte AKIHIKO TAKENOUCHI, HIROMITSU NUMAUCHI, and AKEHIRO KUSAKA ____________________ Appeal 2011-001452 Application 11/485,303 Technology Center 2800 ____________________ Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JEFFREY S. SMITH, and KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, Administrative Patent Judges. DESHPANDE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-001452 Application 11/485,303 2 STATEMENT OF CASE1 The Appellants seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of a final rejection of claims 1-7, the only claims pending in the application on appeal. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. The Appellants invented a printing press equipped with a movable inking unit. Spec. 1. An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary claim 1, which is reproduced below: 1. A printing press equipped with a movable inking unit, comprising: a printing unit; a first drive source for driving said printing unit; a first drive system for drivingly connecting cylinders of said printing unit to said first drive source; a first cover for covering said first drive system; said movable inking unit movable to be capable of being thrown on and thrown off said printing unit; a second drive system for driving ink rollers of said movable inking unit; a second cover for covering said second drive system; and a second drive source for driving said ink rollers of said movable inking unit via said second drive system, 1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,” filed May 11, 2010) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Sept. 21, 2010), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Jul. 21, 2010), and Final Rejection (“Final Rej.,” mailed Oct. 30, 2010). Appeal 2011-001452 Application 11/485,303 3 wherein a surface of said first cover that covers said first drive train and opposing said second cover extends in a direction parallel to an axial direction of cylinders in said printing unit and is entirely closed, and a surface of said second cover that covers said second drive train and opposing said first cover extends in a direction parallel to an axial direction of rollers in said movable inking unit and is entirely closed. REFERENCES The Examiner relies on the following prior art: Lamatsch Kawaguchi Burke DeMoore Dufour US 2,579,264 US 4,448,125 US 5,813,335 US 5,960,713 US 6,684,775 B2 Dec. 18, 1951 May 15, 1984 Sept. 29, 1998 Oct. 5, 1999 Feb. 3, 2004 REJECTIONS 1. Claims 1 and 2 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over DeMoore and Lamatsch. 2. Claims 3 and 4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over DeMoore, Lamatsch, and Dufour. 3. Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over DeMoore, Lamatsch, Dufour, and Kawaguchi. 4. Claims 6 and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over DeMoore, Lamatsch, and Burke. ISSUES The issue of whether the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) turns on whether the cited combination of references taught or suggested: Appeal 2011-001452 Application 11/485,303 4 wherein a surface of said first cover that covers said first drive train and opposing said second cover extends in a direction parallel to an axial direction of cylinders in said printing unit and is entirely closed, and a surface of said second cover that covers said second drive train and opposing said first cover extends in a direction parallel to an axial direction of rollers in said movable inking unit and is entirely closed. (emphasis added) within the meaning of independent claim 1. ANALYSIS The Appellants contend: Appellants respectfully submitted that neither the relied upon sections nor any other sections of DeMoore is there a teaching or suggestion of a printing press equipped with a movable inking unit, wherein "a surface of said first cover that covers said first drive train and opposing said second cover extends in a direction parallel to an axial direction of cylinders in said printing unit and is entirely closed" as recited in independent claim 1. Emphasis added. App. Br. 7. The Appellants admit that the Examiner did not rely on DeMoore to teach or suggest “a surface of said first cover and said second cover both extend in a direction parallel to an axial direction of cylindrical [sic] in said printing unit and are entirely closed.” App. Br. 8. Appellants argue that Lamatsch fails to cure the deficiencies of DeMoore. Id. Appellants contend that Lamatsch is directed to an added color attachment attachable to, and detachable from, a main printing unit. Reply Br. 3-4; App. Br. 8. The Examiner relied on Lamatsch to teach or suggest the structure of the covers of the drive systems. Ans. 9. The structures in Lamatsch are covers which completed by casing or closure the drive system Appeal 2011-001452 Application 11/485,303 5 to provide “an oil tight closure for the gearing.” Lamatsch, col. 2, ll. 39-43. Therefore, the Examiner relies on the teaching of Lamatsch as evidence that closed structures for drive systems were well-known in the art at the time of Appellants’ invention. As a result, we are in agreement with the Examiner that the other embodiments in Lamatsch were not applied by the Examiner (Ans. 10) and are not relevant to the Examiner’s rejection because the references, DeMoore and Lamatsch are not being bodily incorporated. We agree with the Examiner that the Appellants’ arguments consist of singular attacks of DeMoore and Lamatsch respectively, as well as a conclusion that since the references, individually, do not teach or suggest the limitation at issue, then the combination necessarily fails to teach or suggest the claimed invention. Ans. 9-10. Nonobviousness cannot be established by attacking the references individually when the rejection is predicated upon a combination of prior art disclosures. See In re Merck & Co. Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Based on this record, we conclude that the Examiner did not err in rejecting independent claim 1. Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 and dependent claim 2. As noted above, dependent claims 3-7 stand rejected under § 103 as unpatentable over several combinations of references. Appellants did not present separate arguments for the patentability of claims 3-7 with particularity. Accordingly, we affirm the rejections of claims 3-7 for the same reasons discussed supra. Appeal 2011-001452 Application 11/485,303 6 CONCLUSIONS The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). DECISION The rejections of claims 1-7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are sustained. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2010). AFFIRMED tj Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation