Ex Parte Thoma

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 13, 2013

11386250 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 13, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte AUGUST THOMA
__________

Appeal 2011-008307
Application 11/386,250
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before LINDA M. GAUDETTE, MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, and
DONNA M. PRAISS, Administrative Patent Judges.

COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 the final rejection of claims
1-11, 13-15, and 17-20. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Appellant’s invention is directed to a method and apparatus for
positioning printing plates on cylinders of a press (Spec. para. [0002]).
Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A method for positioning printing plates on plate cylinders of a
press, comprising the steps of:
Appeal 2011-008307
Application 11/386,250

2
a) providing a printing plate encoded with a printing plate code and to
be positioned on a plate cylinder;
b) reading the printing plate code from the printing plate to be
positioned at a reading device belonging to the press before positioning the
printing plate on a plate cylinder manually by an operator;
c) automatically displaying a plate cylinder of a printing unit of the
press and a position on the displayed plate cylinder for the printing plate to
be positioned to the operator before positioning the printing plate on a plate
cylinder corresponding to the displayed plate cylinder manually by the
operator, wherein the step of displaying the plate cylinder and the position
on the plate cylinder includes the step of lighting a display device disposed
adjacent to an insertion opening defined by the press;
d) automatically rotating the plate cylinder corresponding to the
displayed plate cylinder into a position suitable for clamping the printing
plate on the plate cylinder; and
e) manually positioning the printing plate on the plate cylinder
corresponding to the displayed plate cylinder and at the displayed position
on the plate cylinder by the operator.

Appellant appeals the following rejections:
1. Claims 1, 2, 4-11, 13-15, 17, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Miyauti (US 6,505,556 B2, issued
Jan. 14, 2003) in view of Schneider et al. (US 7,331,287 B2, issued
Feb. 19, 2008) and Hashimoto (US 6,257,141 B1, issued Jul. 10,
2001).
2. Claims 3 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Miyauti in view of Schneider, Hashimoto, and
Hartka et al. (US 7,069,856 B2, issued Jul. 4, 2006).

Appellant’s arguments focus solely on subject matter common to
independent claims 1, 11, and 15 (App. Br. 5-9). We select claim 1 as
Appeal 2011-008307
Application 11/386,250

3
representative of the group. The subject matter of claims 2-11, 13-15, and
17-20 will stand or fall with our analysis of claim 1.

ISSUE
Did the Examiner reversibly err in determining that the combined
teachings of Miyauti and Hashimoto1 would have rendered obvious the
method of claim 1 that includes the “step of lighting a display device
disposed adjacent to an insertion opening defined by the press”? We decide
this issue in the negative.

FINDINGS OF FACT AND ANALYSES
The Examiner’s findings and conclusions regarding Miyauti and
Hashimoto are located on pages 4-5, and 6. The Examiner finds that
Miyauti teaches the general process of claim 1, except for, in relevant part,
the “step of lighting a display device disposed adjacent to an insertion
opening” (Ans. 5). The Examiner finds that Hashimoto teaches a method of
changing printing plates that includes displaying the plate cylinder and the
position on the plate cylinder by lighting a display device disposed adjacent
to an insertion opening defined by the print press (id. at 6). The Examiner
concludes that it would have been prima facie obvious “to modify Miyauti
wherein the step of displaying the plate cylinder and the position on the plate
cylinder includes the step of lighting a display device disposed adjacent to
an insertion opening as taught by Hashimoto” in order to “relieve the mental

1 We limit our discussion to the combination of Miyauti and Hashimoto
because Appellant does not specifically contest the Examiner’s combination
of Miyauti and Schneider (App. Br. 5-9).
Appeal 2011-008307
Application 11/386,250

4
burden on the operator, thereby reducing mistakes from mis-mounted plates”
as taught by Hashimoto (Ans. 6).
Appellant argues that Hashimoto fails to teach displaying the plate
cylinder and the position on the plate cylinder by “lighting a display device
disposed adjacent to an insertion opening defined by the press.” (App. Br.
5.) Appellant contends that even if Hashimoto may be found to teach
[D]isplaying the plate cylinder and a position on the plate
cylinder by lighting a display device disposed adjacent to a
press, Hashimoto does not disclose displaying the plate cylinder
and the position on the plate cylinder by lighting a display
device disposed adjacent to an insertion opening defined by the
press

(id. at 5-6).
The Examiner responds that Hashimoto has insertion openings at each
plate cylinder because each plate cylinder must have printing plates removed
and installed (Ans. 17). The Examiner finds that an “insertion opening is the
area through which an operator passes a printing plate when removing and
installing printing plates on a plate cylinder” (id.). The Examiner finds, and
Appellant does not specifically contest, that insertion openings may
generally be within an arms’ length of a plate cylinder (id.).
The preponderance of the evidence favors the Examiner’s obviousness
conclusion. Appellant has not formally defined what is meant by the claim
phrase “defined by the press” with respect to the insertion openings.
Paragraph 17 of the Specification describes that the insertion openings 19
are formed in the front of the press unit. Therefore, we understand “defined
by the press” to mean that the perimeter of the insertion openings is
established by the structure of the press.
Appeal 2011-008307
Application 11/386,250

5
The Examiner’s findings regarding what constitutes an “insertion
opening” are premised on the opening being near or adjacent the print
cylinder to provide easy access to the print cylinder for changing the printing
plates. The Examiner finds that Hashimoto teaches that a light-emitting
display device may be positioned “at” each of the printing-plate mounting
positions to notify the worker of the proper printing plate location on the
print cylinder (Ans. 18; see id. at 6, 18-19). Hashimoto further teaches that a
worker can mount the printing plate at the location specified by light-
emitting display device (col. 11, ll. 30-35). Hashimoto teaches that
providing light-emitting devices at each plate cylinder instructs the worker
where the printing plate is to be mounted in such a manner that the worker
can confirm the mounting position “near” the relevant printing unit or print
cylinder (col. 8, ll. 56-63).
Accordingly, the above teachings of Hashimoto disclose placing a
light-emitting device adjacent to a print cylinder or at a printing plate to
permit the worker to mount the printing plate on the print cylinder at the
location specified by the light-emitting device. To effect this process, we
agree with the Examiner that Hashimoto’s printing press must have, or it
would have been obvious to include, an insertion opening adjacent to the
light-emitting device whose perimeter is established by the structure of the
press to permit the worker access to the printing cylinder so as to mount the
printing plate at the location specified by the light-emitting device, which is
positioned “at” the printing plate. Accordingly, the combined teachings of
the references would have suggested a light-emitting display device adjacent
to an insertion opening defined by the press.
Appeal 2011-008307
Application 11/386,250

6
Appellant further argues that there would have been no reason to
combine Hashimoto’s display device in Miyauti’s device because Miyauti
already provides a system for reducing mistakes from mis-mounted plates
(App. Br. 8). Appellant argues that Miyauti’s system already reduces the
mental burden on workers in determining where the printing plates have to
be placed by providing an alphanumeric indication of where the plate is to
be placed which can be confirmed by the worker mounting the plate. (Id. at
8-9.)
Contrary to Appellant’s argument, Hashimoto teaches that the light-
emitting device may be used to indicate to the worker where the printing
plate is to be placed on the print cylinder (col. 11, ll. 26-35). In other
words, Hashimoto teaches a display device that does not require the
additional burden on the worker of confirming the printing plate location
based on a further examination of the printing cylinder. Rather a simple and
more accurate light-emitting device may be used to indicate the proper
printing plate location.
We agree with the Examiner that Hashimoto’s display device would
have further reduced the burden on the worker by providing a more accurate
method of locating the proper place for the printing plate that complements
Miyauti’s device while avoiding Miyauti’s requirement to further examine
the printing plates to ensure all are in the correct position (Ans. 19-20).
Appellant does not specifically contest the Examiner’s finding that there
would have been a reason to combine the teachings of Hashimoto and
Miayuti (Reply Br. 4). Rather, Appellant argues that the method and system
resulting from the combination of Miyauti and Hashimoto would have been
different than the method that requires a display device disposed adjacent
Appeal 2011-008307
Application 11/386,250

7
to/lighted adjacent to an insertion opening defined by the press, such that via
the lighted insertion opening a printing plate can be supplied to the print
cylinder (App. Br. 8; Reply Br. 4). We are unpersuaded by this argument
for the reasons noted supra.
On this record, we affirm the Examiner’s § 103 rejections.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision is affirmed.
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
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

cdc