Ex Parte Tribble et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 9, 201713399092 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 9, 2017) Copy Citation United States Patent and Trademark Office 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 APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 14/105,365 12/13/2013 James Messer DAY 0960 PA/34380.379 4297 23368 7590 06/13/2017 DINSMORE & SHOHL LLP FIFTH THIRD CENTER, ONE SOUTH MAIN STREET SUITE 1300 DAYTON, OH 45402-2023 EXAMINER CULLER, JILL E ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2854 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/13/2017 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): daytonipdocket@dinsmore.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JAMES MESSER, BRIAN JAMES, and THOMAS SMATLAK Appeal 2016-005124 Application 14/105,365 Technology Center 2800 Before TERRY J. OWENS, MARK NAGUMO, and MONTE T. SQUIRE, Administrative Patent Judges. OWENS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—4 and 6—12. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). The Invention The Appellants claim a printing blanket and a printing blanket mounted on a blanket cylinder. Claim 1 is illustrative: 1. A printing blanket comprising at least a printable surface layer and a non-extensible backing layer, said printing blanket having lead and trail ends adapted to be inserted into the gap of a printing blanket cylinder; said lead end of said blanket including a first relief area positioned inwardly from said lead end and extending substantially across the width of said blanket, said first relief area defined by a gap in the blanket Appeal 2016-005124 Application 14/105,365 carcass and bounded on either side by blanket walls; said lead end of said blanket including a blanket bar extending around said blanket carcass and said non-extensible backing layer; said non-extensible backing layer extends beyond said blanket carcass on said trail end of said blanket; said blanket including a second relief area positioned inwardly from said trail end and extending substantially across the width of said blanket, said second relief area defined by a gap in the blanket carcass and bounded on either side by blanket walls, said first and second relief areas positioned such that when said blanket is mounted on said blanket cylinder, said relief areas substantially align with the point at which the lead and trail ends of said blanket are inserted into said gap in said blanket cylinder. Shoji Andrew Czemer The References US 5,787,812 US 6,530,321 B2 US 2007/0101884 A1 The Rejections Aug. 4, 1998 Mar. 11,2003 May 10, 2007 The claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as follows: claims 1— 4, 6, 7, and 12 over Czemer in view of Andrew and claims 8—11 over Shoji in view of Czemer and Andrew. OPINION We reverse the rejections. Rejection of claims 1—4, 6, 7, and 12 over Czerner in view of Andrew We need address only the independent claims (1 and 12). Claim 1 requires a printing blanket having a lead end including a blanket bar extending around a blanket carcass and a non-extensible backing layer, and a trail end whereat the non-extensible backing layer extends beyond the blanket carcass. Claim 12 requires a printing blanket having a lead end 2 Appeal 2016-005124 Application 14/105,365 whereat a non-extensible backing layer is coextensive with the end of a blanket carcass, and a trail end whereat the non-extensible backing layer extends beyond the blanket carcass. Czemer discloses a printing blanket (10) which has a relief area (24) near its leading (42) and trailing (40) ends and includes a coextensive, non-extensible backing layer (18) flflf 9-12, 19, 42, 50; Figs. 2A, 5A). “[T]he relief area(s) [24] are positioned such that when the ends of the blanket [10] is [sic, are] inserted into the gap [34] of the blanket cylinder [32], the blanket [10] is bent along the relief area(s) [24]” (| 19; Fig. 5A). Andrew discloses a printing blanket (15) including a non-extensible base layer (20) having leading and trailing ends (22) which extend beyond the printing blanket (15)’s other plies (14) and are bent and inserted into a blanket cylinder (12)’s gap (16) (col. 6,11. 34—39; Fig. 2). The Examiner finds that “the combination of [Czemer’s] layer, 18, and the blanket bar, 62, could together be considered to be the claimed non-extensible backing layer, in which case this embodiment could be considered to teach that the non-extensible backing layer extends beyond the blanket carcass [Fig. 4B]” (Ans. 2—3). Czemer’s blanket bar (62) cannot reasonably be considered part of the non-extensible backing layer (18) because the blanket bar (62) and the non-extensible backing layer (18) are separate components of the printing blanket (10) (148). The Examiner finds that “[although Czemer teaches that both ends of the blanket include backing layers which are co-extensive with the blanket carcass, the teachings of Andrew suggest that one having ordinary skill in 3 Appeal 2016-005124 Application 14/105,365 the art would be aware of other options” (Ans. 4), and concludes that “[i]t would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the structure of Czemer such that the non-extensible backing layer extends beyond the blanket carcass, as taught by Andrew, as a known and therefore obvious alternative structure which allows locking up the ends of the backing layer without contacting the blanket carcass” (Non- final Act. 3^4)1 and that “it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that the blanket bars taught in [Andrew’s] Figs. 9-14 are functional equivalents of one another, and that any of these configurations, including the one of Fig. 9, in which the non-extensible backing layer, 20, extends beyond the blanket carcass, 14, could be substituted for the configuration taught by Czemer, on either of the blanket ends, in order to meet the requirements of a different type of printing press, blanket cylinder, or lock-up mechanism” (Ans. 5). The Appellants challenge the Examiner’s finding that the embodiments in Andrew’s Figures 9 to 14 are functional equivalents (Reply Br. 4). Therefore, we do not accept that finding as fact. See In re Kunzmann, 326 F.2d 424, 425 n.3 (CCPA 1964). Regardless, establishing a prima facie case of obviousness requires an apparent reason to modify the prior art as proposed by the Examiner. See KSR Int 7 Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). The Examiner’s finding that Andrew’s stmcture “could be substituted for the configuration taught by Czemer” (Ans. 5) and the Examiner’s conclusion that Andrew’s stmcture was a “known and therefore obvious alternative stmcture” (Non-final Act. 3 4) do not provide 1 Citations herein to the Non-final Action are to the action mailed on July 8, 2015. 4 Appeal 2016-005124 Application 14/105,365 the required reason why extending Czemer’s non-extensible backing layer (18) beyond the blanket carcass at the blanket’s trail end but not at its lead end would have been apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art from the references. Rejection of claims 8—11 over Shoji in view of Czerner and Andrew Claim 8, which is the only independent claim among claims 8—11, requires that respective portions of a blanket carcass which are positioned beyond first and second relief areas meet in frictional engagement in a gap in a blanket cylinder. Shoji discloses a blanket cylinder (1) whose gap (3) has a notch (16) which is blocked by a printing blanket (2)’s leading edge flat bar (15a) such that the printing blanket (2)’s leading (2a) and tail (2b) edges contact each other where the printing blanket (2) enters the gap (3) so that “the non printing length L produced by the gap width of the blanket cylinder can be decreased to a dimension equivalent to the maximum thickness of two blankets” (col. 4,1. 16 —col. 5,1. 1). The Examiner finds that “Shoji does not teach. . . . wherein respective portions of said blanket carcass which are positioned beyond said first and second relief areas meet in frictional engagement in said gap in said blanket cylinder” (Non-final Act. 6), but also finds, regarding the end portions of Czemer’s printing blanket (10) meeting in frictional engagement and entering the gap (34) in the blanket cylinder (32), that “the end portions of the blanket in Shoji clearly do both of these things and therefore it would be obvious that a combination of Shoji and Czemer would result in this frictional engagement” (Ans. 6—7). 5 Appeal 2016-005124 Application 14/105,365 The Examiner does not address the differences between Shoji’s and Czemer’s printing blankets and blanket cylinders and establish that regardless of those differences, those references would have provided one of ordinary skill in the art with an apparent reason to combine their disclosures as proposed by the Examiner. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. The Examiner, therefore, has not established a prima facie case of obviousness of the Appellants’ claimed printing blanket (claims 1 and 12) or printing blanket mounted on a blanket cylinder (claim 8). DECISION/ORDER The rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 1—4, 6, 7, and 12 over Czemer in view of Andrew and claims 8—11 over Shoji in view of Czemer and Andrew are reversed. It is ordered that the Examiner’s decision is reversed. REVERSED 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation