Ex Parte Campbell-Brown et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 31, 2017

14863902 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 31, 2017)

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.
14/863,902 09/24/2015 Iain Campbell-Brown 84365733 6790
22879
HP Tnr
7590 11/02/2017 EXAMINER
3390 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 35
ZIMMERMANN, JOHN P
FORT COLLINS, CO 80528-9544 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2853
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/02/2017 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):
ipa.mail@hp.com
barbl@hp.com
y vonne.bailey @ hp. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte IAIN CAMPBELL-BROWN, MARK WALSH, JOHN OLIVER,
JEFFERSON P. WARD, and AMY SHIPMAN
Appeal 2017-001243
Application 14/863,902
Technology Center 2800
Before TERRY J. OWENS, N. WHITNEY WILSON,
and MICHAEL G. McMANUS, Administrative Patent Judges.
McMANUS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
The Examiner finally rejected claims 16—31 of Application
14/863,902 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious. Final Act. (April 4, 2016)
2—13. Appellants1 seek reversal of these rejections pursuant to 35 U.S.C.
§ 134(a). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.
For the reasons set forth below, we REVERSE.
1 Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. is identified as the real party
in interest. App. Br. 1.
Appeal 2017-001243
Application 14/863,902
BACKGROUND
The present application generally relates to a flexible substrate for a
fluid cartridge, comprising an integrated circuit connected to the flexible
substrate, and electrical connector pads arranged on the flexible substrate for
connection to the integrated circuit. Spec., Abstract.
Claim 16 is representative of the pending claims and is reproduced
below:
16. A flexible circuit for a fluid cartridge, comprising:
a single flexible substrate;
an integrated circuit attached to the single flexible
substrate; and
multiple electrical connector pads on the single flexible
substrate for connection to a host device, comprising first
electrical connector pads connected to the integrated circuit and
second electrical connector pads, not connected to the
integrated circuit, for connection to a fluid dispensing die.
App. Br. 9 (Claims App.).
REJECTIONS
On appeal, the Examiner maintains the following rejections:
1. Claims 16—18 and 20-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as obvious over Murray (US 5,610,635, iss. Mar. 11, 1997) in view of
Schloeman et al. (US 2004/0141019 Al, pub. July 22, 2004) (hereinafter
“Schloeman”). Final Act. 3—12.
2. Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Murray and Schloeman in view of Chen et al. (US 6,533,396 B2, iss Mar.
18, 2003) (hereinafter “Chen”). Id. at 12-13.
2
Appeal 2017-001243
Application 14/863,902
DISCUSSION
Rejection 1. The Examiner rejected claims 16—18 and 20—31 as
obvious over Murray in view of Schloeman. Final Act. 3—12. In support of
such rejection, the Examiner finds that Murray teaches “second electrical
connector pads, not connected to the integrated circuit for connection to a
fluid dispensing die.” Id. at 4. The Examiner predicates this finding upon
Figure 3 of the Murray reference, reproduced below:
Figure 3 of Murray is a cutaway perspective view of the printer embodiment
of the printer ink cartridge illustrating the jet plate (44), flexible connector
(46), integrated circuit (49), and connector pads (50).
The Examiner finds that “in Figure 3, there are connector pads not
connected to the integrated circuit (Murray et al. - Figure 3) and the fact that
there are no conductors connected to those pads further teaches the final
structural limitation of Appellant — ‘second electrical connector pads, not
connected to the integrated circuit.’” Answer 2.
3
Appeal 2017-001243
Application 14/863,902
The Examiner’s findings regarding Murray are at odds with Murray’s
teachings. Murray teaches that “[a] second plurality of electrical conductors
64 on the flexible electrical connector 46 terminate at one end 66 into the
first plurality of electrical contacts 50 and are connected at an opposite end
68 to the integrated circuit 49.” Murray 5:38 42. Similarly, Figure 6 clearly
depicts all connector pads (50) connected to the integrated circuit 49.
Figure 3 of Murray is a cutaway perspective. Murray 4:1—3. A
cutaway perspective is a drawing where surface elements of a three-
dimensional model are selectively removed, to make internal features
visible, but without sacrificing the outer context entirely. Thus, the
truncated conductors and unconnected contacts of Figure 3 must be viewed
in the context of the entire disclosure.
The Examiner additionally relies upon Schloeman for “more clearly
teaching electrical connections directly to the fluid dispensing die, bypassing
[i.e. not connected to] an Integrated Circuit (Schloeman et al. - Title;
Abstract; and Figure 7, Reference #52-#60, shown below).” Final Act. 5.
The Examiner cites to Figure 7 of Schloeman in support of such finding.
4
Appeal 2017-001243
Application 14/863,902
£2
_]____________2£il
S6 54
\ ANALOS 5V
ANALOG GROUND
* \
60 56
/
^oaic £ ROUND
Figure 7 is a block diagram illustrating a portion of an inkjet printhead
having fire pulse generator circuitry according to the present invention.
Schloeman 129.
The Examiner cites to the components of Figure 7 designated 52—60.
These components include “a Vpp power supply 52 and corresponding power
ground 54 supply power to the firing resisters in printheads 40.” Schloeman.
1 65. The Examiner’s citation additionally includes “[a]n example 5-volt
analog power supply 56 and corresponding analog ground 58 supply power
to the analog electronic components in printhead assembly 12.” Id. The
Examiner’s citation may also include “An example 5-volt logic supply 60
and a corresponding logic ground 62 supply power to logic devices requiring
a 5-volt logic power source.” Id. The Examiner does not find that
Schloeman teaches connector pads as claimed.
The Examiner then determines that “one of ordinary skill in the art at
the time the invention was made would have been motivated to modify the
connector pads of Murray et al. with the specific connections of as taught by
5
Appeal 2017-001243
Application 14/863,902
Schloeman et al.” Final Act. 6 | b. The basis of such motivation is said to
be “to provide a printhead with the capability of printing multiple columns
while minimizing the number of fire signals and storing information on the
cartridge and thereby simplify the system and reduce wiring complexity
while providing specific power requirements.” Id.
Because Murray does not teach “connector pads, not connected to the
integrated circuit,” we find that the Examiner has failed to make a prima
facie case of obviousness. Accordingly, we reverse the rejections at issue.
Rejection 2. The Examiner rejected claim 19 as obvious over Murray
in view of Schloeman and further in view of Chen. Final Act. 12—13.
Appellants allege error in regard to this rejection on the same basis as with
regard to claims 16—18 and 20-31. App. Br. 4. As we have determined that
the rejection of claims 16—18 and 20—31 is in error, we similarly determine
that the rejection of claim 19 is in error.
CONCLUSION
The rejections of claims 16—31 as obvious are reversed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
REVERSED
6