HEWLETT-PACKARD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, L.P.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 25, 2022

2021003894 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 25, 2022)

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. 16/347,128 05/02/2019 David Butinya 85735219 8215 22879 7590 03/25/2022 HP Inc. 3390 E. Harmony Road Mail Stop 35 Fort Collins, CO 80528-9544 EXAMINER ZIMMERMANN, JOHN P ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2853 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/25/2022 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 jessica.pazdan@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 DAVID BUTINYA Appeal 2021-003894 Application 16/347,128 Technology Center 2800 Before JAMES C. HOUSEL, N. WHITNEY WILSON, and SHELDON M. MCGEE, Administrative Patent Judges. MCGEE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction. 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. 1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2021-003894 Application 16/347,128 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to primer apparatus for a print head structure of an inkjet printer, and methods for delivering at least two distinct pressurized air flows in such apparatus. See Appeal Br. 22-25 (Claims App.). Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed subject matter and is reproduced below with key limitations on appeal italicized: 1. A primer apparatus for a print head structure of an inkjet printer, the primer apparatus comprising: a pump to supply a flow of air to the print head structure; an outlet valve; and a control valve in fluid communication with and disposed between the pump and the outlet valve, the outlet valve comprising a venting structure to reduce the pressure of a flow of air supplied to the print head structure when the control valve is open. REJECTIONS The claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as follows: I. Claims 1-4, 7, and 14-20 over Senior (US 2007/0195136 A1, published August 23, 2007) and Comas (US 7,887,167 B2, issued February 15, 2011). II. Claims 5 and 6 over Senior, Comas, and Ros Cerro (9,168,752 B2, issued October 27, 2015). III. Claims 8-13 over Senior, Comas, and Snyder (US 7,762,656 B2, issued July 27, 2010). OPINION Claims 1-7 and 14-20 The dispositive issue with respect to apparatus claims 1-7 and 14-20 is whether the Examiner has established by a preponderance of the evidence Appeal 2021-003894 Application 16/347,128 3 that the applied prior art evinces a primer apparatus for a print head structure including a control valve between an air pump and outlet valve with a venting structure which reduces the pressure of a flow of air supplied to a print head structure when the control valve is open. Because the Examiner has failed to do so on this record, we do not sustain the rejection of these claims. The Examiner finds that Senior teaches the claimed primer apparatus for a print head structure. Final Act. 4. Relevant to this appeal, the Examiner appears to map2 the claimed “control valve” to vent port 16’ of Senior. Id.; see also Advisory Act.3 2 (referring to the previous rejection which, according to the Examiner, identified that “the vent port of Senior et al. can be selectively engaged [i.e., controlled]”). Appellant argues that Senior’s passive vent ports are not “control valves.” Appeal Br. 11-12. According to Appellant, “the claimed control valve is not passive, but is actively controlled to actively regulate ‘the pressure of a flow of air supplied to the print head structure.” Id. at 12. That argument, to which the Examiner does not directly respond, has merit. See generally Ans. The Specification indicates that the control valve can be “any valve having at least two ports [which] can be used to open or close the circuit,” such as “a normally open (NO) solenoid valve.” Spec. ¶ 14. The Examiner provides no evidence that Senior’s passive vent ports 16, 16’ have the ability to open and close. Rather, these vent ports appear to always be 2 The Examiner’s mapping is ambiguous because it appears to map the claimed “outlet valve” to Senior’s element 16, but then additionally identifies elements 16, 16’, and 84 when discussing the “control valve” limitation. Final Act. 4. 3 Advisory Action dated October 22, 2020. Appeal 2021-003894 Application 16/347,128 4 “open” in the sense that they receive priming seals 20, 20’. This is illustrated in Senior’s Figures 1, 1A, 1B, and 2 reproduced below, with annotations added for clarity: Annotated Figure 1 of Senior is a cutaway perspective view of an embodiment of a set of printheads installed in a printing device. Senior ¶ 6. Appeal 2021-003894 Application 16/347,128 5 The printheads of Figure 1 depict pump 24, connected to passive vents 12, 12’ via air tube 28. Id. ¶¶ 14, 15. “The passive vent 12, 12’ is disposed in the priming seal 20, 20’ such that the passive vent 12, 12’ is sealingly engaged with the vent port 16, 16’.” Id. ¶ 14. Figure 1A is an enlarged cutaway, perspective view of passive vent 12 resting atop priming seal 20, and identifies the vent’s three openings: opening 36 to pump 24, opening 32 to the printhead, and opening 40 to ambient air. Id. ¶ 15. Figure 1B is an alternative perspective view of passive vent 12, and illustrates the aperture through which air travels through from opening 32 and vent port 16 to pressure regulating system 84. Id. Figure 2 is a perspective view of a labyrinth screw shown in Figure 1A. Id. ¶ 9. Because vent ports 16, 16’ appear to always remain open, it is unclear on this record how such a configuration satisfies the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed “control valve.” Even assuming that Senior’s vent port 16’ constitutes a “control valve” within the meaning of the claim, the Examiner’s mapping is insufficient to evince the claim limitation requiring a “reduce[d] . . . pressure of a flow of air supplied to the print head structure.” As argued by Appellant, Senior describes vent ports 16, 16’ as “sealingly engaged with” passive vents 12, 12’. Senior ¶ 14; Appeal Br. 11-12. “[V]ent 12 includes three openings: opening 32 to the printhead 10, opening 36 to the air pump 24, and opening 40 to ambient.” Id. ¶ 15. “[A]ir pump 24 may provide air pressure to the vent ports 16, 16’ such that the pressure inside the printhead 10 increases.” Id. ¶ 26 (emphasis added). “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a system claim having structure that performs a function, which only needs to occur if a condition precedent is met, still requires structure for performing the function should Appeal 2021-003894 Application 16/347,128 6 the condition occur.” Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal No. 2013-007847, 2016 WL 6277792, at *7 (PTAB Apr. 28, 2016) (precedential). On this record, the Examiner has not established that a reduction in air pressure is supplied to the print head when Senior’s vent ports 16, 16’ are open. Indeed, it appears that the opposite is true. Senior ¶ 26. We observe that the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 14 also makes a reference to Senior’s element 84, although it is manifestly unclear whether the Examiner is mapping that element to the claimed “control valve.” Final Act. 4. To the extent the Examiner intended to rely on that element to evince the disputed limitation here, such reliance fares no better than the Examiner’s finding regarding vent ports 16, 16’. Final Act. 4. Element 84 is identified in Senior as a “pressure regulating system for blow priming passive vent opening 32.” Senior ¶ 15. Senior does not teach that element 84 is a valve, but instead discloses that this element can be “a flexible bag” which “causes the pressure on the fluid within the reservoir 80 to increase, whereby the fluid is forced out of the printhead 10 through the nozzle(s).” Id. ¶ 26 (emphasis added). At best, this disclosure evinces that element 84--like vent ports 16, 16’--increases the air pressure supplied to printhead 10, which is the opposite of what is claimed. We furthermore note the Examiner’s reference to Comas for its “more clear[] depict[ion]” of a control valve. Final Act. 4-5 (citing Comas Figure 5, element 52). The Examiner finds that [i]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art . . . to specify the use of a ‘control valve’ in Senior et al. with the control valve in Comas et al. in an effort to provide a controller to control the flow of gas through the connecting assembly to provide upon demand gas under pressure to the printhead. Id. (emphasis added). Appeal 2021-003894 Application 16/347,128 7 To the extent the Examiner intended to rely on Comas to establish the limitation in claim 14 that when the control valve is open, the pressure of air supplied to the print head structure is reduced, such reliance falls short on this record. As argued by Appellant, and seemingly recognized in the express language of the rejection, opening Comas’ element 52 would allow air flow to increase to the printhead. Comas 3:53-55; see Appeal Br. 14 (arguing that “the pressure supplied to the printhead is increased or greatest when the connecting assembly is open and allowing the flow.”). In view of these deficiencies, we cannot sustain the Examiner’s rejection of these claims. Claims 8-13 Claim 8 recites “[a] method for delivering at least two distinct pressurized air flows in a primer apparatus.” Claim 8 requires “providing a control valve,” and “when the control valve is closed,” a purge pressure is supplied to the print head structure, and “when the control valve is open, . . . a second, lower pressure [is supplied] to the print head structure that circulates fluid through the print head structure.” Appeal Br. 22 (Claims App.). Appellants argue, inter alia, that “[a]s demonstrated above, Senior and Comas do not teach a control valve between a pump and outlet valve, as claimed.” Appeal Br. 17. 4 In this portion of the rejection, the Examiner references “the control valve is switchable between a closed state and an open state”--a limitation expressly recited in claim 14, but not claim 1. Thus, it is unclear whether the Examiner relies on Comas’ disclosure with respect to claim 1. Appeal 2021-003894 Application 16/347,128 8 For the reasons discussed supra, we agree with Appellant. In the rejection of claim 8, the Examiner again appears to rely5 on Senior’s vent port 16 for the outlet valve and vent port 16’ as the control valve. Final Act. 9. The Examiner provides no evidence, however, that vent port 16’ is capable of being opened and closed. Rather, these vent ports appear to always be “open” in the sense that they receive priming seals 20, 20’. Senior ¶ 14. Therefore, the Examiner has not established that Senior discloses the claimed “control valve.”6 For this reason alone, the rejection cannot be sustained. The rejection is also deficient for another reason. Claim 8 requires that “when the control valve is open, supplying a second, lower pressure to the print head structure that circulates fluid through the print head structure.” Appeal Br. 22 (emphasis added). The Examiner points to Snyder in an effort to satisfy this limitation.7 Final Act. 10 (citing Snyder 5:18-58; Figs. 4, 6). That disclosure is deficient however because, as correctly argued by Appellant, “Snyder describes applying a high, purge pressure and a lesser pressure that prevents melting ink from flowing.” Appeal Br. 18. See Snyder 5:25-28 (“To prevent ink from being pushed back into the print head 50 via the nozzles during wiping, the purge system 200 may also be configured to deliver a low pressure assist pressure to the print head 5 As with the Examiner’s rejection of the apparatus claims, the mapping with respect to claim 8 is ambiguous. Final Act. 4, 9. 6 The Examiner makes a vague reference to “the combination of Senior et al. and Comas et al.” in the rejection of claim 8, but fails to explain how that combination teaches or suggests the claimed “control valve.” Final Act. 9. Namely, the Examiner makes no specific citation to Comas. Id. 7 The Examiner, however, makes no express finding that Snyder’s lower pressure “circulates fluid through the print head structure.” Final Act. 9-10. Appeal 2021-003894 Application 16/347,128 9 assembly.”). The Examiner’s responsive citation to Comas in the Answer in an attempt to satisfy the limitation regarding ink circulation lacks merit. Ans. 7 (citing Comas 6:17-48). We have reviewed the cited portion of Comas and find no disclosure regarding the circulation of ink in a print head, much less at the claimed “lower pressure” vis-à-vis a purge pressure. Thus, for these reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 8-13 cannot be sustained. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s rejections are reversed. DECISION SUMMARY Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s) / Basis Affirmed Reversed 1-4, 7, 14-20 103(a) Senior, Comas 1-4, 7, 14-20 5, 6 103(a) Senior, Comas, Ros Cerro 5, 6 8-13 103(a) Senior, Comas, Snyder 8-13 Overall Outcome 1-20 REVERSED