Ex Parte Caron

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 22, 2017

14627980 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 22, 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.
14/627,980 02/20/2015 Glen Roger Caron 6003.126ICON 6916
23280 7590 09/26/2017
Davidson, Davidson & Kappel, LLC
589 8th Avenue
16th Floor
New York, NY 10018
EXAMINER
CULLER, JILL E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2854
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/26/2017 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):
ddk @ ddkpatent .com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GLEN ROGER CARON
(Applicant: Goss International Americas, Inc.)
Appeal 2017-002803
Application 14/627,980
Technology Center 2800
Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, JAMES C. HOUSEL, and
JENNIFER R. GUPTA, Administrative Patent Judges.
HANLON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
A. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellant filed an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from an
Examiner’s decision finally rejecting claims 1—4, 7—13, 15, and 16 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Zlatin et al.1 2 3in view of Gaston et
al.2,3 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
1 US 2012/0012017 Al, published January 19, 2012 (“Zlatin”).
2 US 4,216,718, issued August 12, 1980 (“Gaston”).
3 Claims 5, 6, and 14 are also pending but do not stand rejected on appeal.
According to an Applicant-Initiated Interview Summary dated February 22,
2016, the Examiner indicted that claims 5, 6, and 14 are objected to as being
Appeal 2017-002803
Application 14/627,980
We AFFIRM.
The claims on appeal are directed to a variable cutoff printing press
and a method of operating a variable cutoff printing press. The Appellant
discloses that a variable cutoff printing press “refers to a printing press that
can be modified between print jobs so that the printing press can print
repeating images of different lengths during different print jobs.”
Spec. 113. According to the Appellant, “[t]he length of the repeating
images printing during a particular print job is commonly referred to as a
cutoff length or a cutoff.” Spec. 113. Plate cylinders and blanket cylinders
that print the repeating images for a particular print job are said to have that
cutoff length or cutoff. Spec. 113.
Representative claim 1 is reproduced below from the Claims
Appendix of the Appeal Brief dated May 24, 2016 (“Br.”). The limitation at
issue is italicized.
1. A variable cutoff printing press comprising:
a plate cylinder;
a plate cylinder support removably supporting the plate
cylinder;
a blanket cylinder;
a blanket cylinder support removably supporting the
blanket cylinder;
an impression cylinder;
an impression cylinder support;
an actuator for moving the blanket cylinder support to
accommodate different blanket cylinder sizes, the actuator
further moving the impression cylinder support so that
dependent upon a rejected claim but would be allowable if rewritten in
independent form.
2
Appeal 2017-002803
Application 14/627,980
regardless of blanket cylinder size a gap exists between the
blanket cylinder support and the impression cylinder support;
and
an on impression actuator for moving the impression
cylinder support against the blanket cylinder support to set a
desired print load.
Br., Claims Appendix 1.
B. DISCUSSION
1. Claim 1
The Examiner finds Zlatin discloses a variable cutoff printing press
comprising plate cylinder 54, blanket cylinder 56, impression cylinder 58,
and corresponding cylinder supports 14, 16, and 18. Final Act. 2.4 The
Examiner finds the printing press also includes actuator 24 for moving
blanket cylinder support 16 to accommodate different blanket cylinder sizes
and on impression actuator 26 for moving impression cylinder support 18
against blanket cylinder support 16 to set a desired print load. Final Act. 2—
3.
The Examiner finds Zlatin does not disclose that actuator 24 moves
impression cylinder support 18 “so that regardless of blanket cylinder size a
gap exists between the blanket cylinder support [ 16] and the impression
cylinder support [18]” as recited in claim 1. Final Act. 3. Thus, the
Examiner turns to Gaston.
The Examiner finds Gaston discloses a printing press comprising:
a plate cylinder, a plate cylinder support, a blanket cylinder, 14,
a blanket cylinder support, 24, an impression cylinder, 16, an
impression cylinder support, 26, a[n] actuator, 38, for moving
the blanket cylinder support, 24, toward and away from the
4 Final Office Action dated August 28, 2015.
3
Appeal 2017-002803
Application 14/627,980
plate cylinder support, the actuator further moving the
impression cylinder support, 26, so that regardless of blanket
cylinder size a gap exists between the blanket cylinder support
[24] and the impression cylinder support [26].
Final Act. 3 (citing Gaston, col. 2,1. 42—col. 3,1. 23; Gaston Fig. 1).
The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art
to modify the structure of Zlatin to include a connection
between the actuator [24] and the impression cylinder support
[18], as taught by Gaston, in order to ensure that the blanket
cylinder [56] and impression cylinder [58] are both moved out
of the way when the first actuator is activated.
Final Act. 3.
The Appellant argues that “there is no factual support that Gaston
teaches or discloses ‘the actuator further moving the impression cylinder
support so that regardless of blanket cylinder size a gap exists between the
blanket cylinder support and the impression cylinder support,’ as recited in
claim 1.” Br. 8 (emphasis omitted).
To the contrary, Gaston Figure 1 clearly shows a gap between blanket
cylinder support 24 and impression cylinder support 26 that is maintained by
tumbuckle 36. See Gaston, col. 2,11. 65—68; see also Ans. 2 (finding that the
linkage in Gaston “is designed such that a gap always exists between the
blanket cylinder support and the impression cylinder support”).5
The Appellant also argues:
Zlatin discloses a “[b]lanket cylinder support 16 and impression
cylinder support 18 each include respective cams 36, 38 that
contact one another.” . . . Accordingly, blanket cylinder
support 16 and impression cylinder support 18 contact one
5 Examiner’s Answer dated July 28, 2016.
4
Appeal 2017-002803
Application 14/627,980
another because cams 36 and 38 contact one another. Even if
one “modif[ied] the structure of Zlatin to include a connection
between the actuator and the impression cylinder support as
taught by Gaston” . . . cams 36 and 38 would contact one
another. Therefore, combining the operational steps of Gaston
with Zlatin would not and could not result in a printing press, as
recited in claim 1, where “regardless of the blanket cylinder
size a gap exists between the blanket cylinder support and the
impression cylinder support,” because Zlatin teaches that no
gap exists between the blanket cylinder support and the
impression cylinder support.
Br. 9 (emphasis and citations omitted).
In response, the Examiner finds:
[I]t can be seen from the disclosure of Gaston that the actuator
connects the blanket cylinder support and the impression
cylinder support in such a way that they are never in contact
with one another [i.e., via tumbuckle 36]. Therefore, if the
structure of Zlatin is modified to include the actuator of Gaston
it would include the teaching of Gaston that the blanket
cylinder support and the impression cylinder support are never
in contact with one another, since there is no need for the
supports to interact with one another when they are connected
as taught by Gaston.
Ans. 3^4.
The Appellant does not direct us to any error in the Examiner’s
finding. Moreover, we note that claim 1 merely recites that gap exists
between the blanket cylinder support and the impression cylinder support.”
Br., Claims Appendix 1 (emphasis added). Claim 1 does not recite the
location of the gap or recite that the gap spans the entire space between the
blanket cylinder support and the impression cylinder support.
5
Appeal 2017-002803
Application 14/627,980
As for the Examiner’s reason for combining Zlatin and Gaston,6 the
Appellant argues that claim 1 recites that a gap is maintained between the
blanket cylinder support and the impression cylinder support, not between
the blanket cylinder and the impression cylinder. Br. 9.
In response, the Examiner finds:
Gaston teaches that it is advantageous to adjust, vary and
regulate a host of print variables which affect the print quality
on the finished product, and that it is therefore important to be
able to adjust the pressure between two cylinders in the printing
press. . . . Because Gaston teaches that this adjustment can be
accomplished through an actuator which adjust[s] the location
of the cylinder support of both cylinders, it would have been
obvious to apply [Gaston’s] actuator to the structure of Zlatin in
order to achieve the ability for exact adjustment of pressure
between the cylinders taught by Gaston. Another advantage of
this combination is that, during a printer maintenance operation,
a single actuator is sufficient to move both of the cylinders
apart from one another.
Ans. 3. Significantly, the Appellant does not address the additional reasons
proposed by the Examiner, and thus does not show they are erroneous.
Finally, the Appellant argues:
[T]he structure of Gaston uses a common worm drive to power
drive cylinders and fixed gear trains. A person having ordinary
skill in the art would not combine Zlatin with Gaston because
the structure of Gaston is not conducive to allowing using “an
actuator for moving the blanket cylinder support to
accommodate different blanket cylinder sizes,” as recited in
claim 1, because the gear train would also need to be changed
in order to accommodate a different blanket cylinder size.
6 The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to combine
Zlatin and Gaston “in order to ensure that the blanket cylinder and
impression cylinder are both moved out of the way when the first actuator is
activated.” Final Act. 3 (emphasis added).
6
Appeal 2017-002803
Application 14/627,980
Br. 9.
In response, the Examiner finds that “one having ordinary skill in the
art would be readily able to compensate for any additional modifications
required to the gear train or other structures in order to incorporate the
advantages of Gaston into the invention of Zlatin.” Ans. 4. The Appellant
does not direct us to any error in the Examiner’s finding. See Br. 9—10
(contending that “[a] person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize
that in order to accommodate a different blanket cylinder size the gear train,
of Gaston, must be changed”).
For the reasons set forth above, the § 103(a) rejection of claim 1 is
sustained. The Appellant does not present arguments in support of the
separate patentability of any of dependent claims 2-4 and 7—10. Therefore,
the § 103(a) rejection of claims 2-4 and 7—10 is also sustained.
2. Claim 11
Claim 11 recites “[a] method of operating a variable cutoff printing
press including,” inter alia, the following two steps:
setting a first desired blanket cylinder position for a first
blanket cylinder using a first actuator, an impression cylinder
also being moved by the actuator while a gap is maintained
between a blanket cylinder support and an impression cylinder
support; [and]
setting a second desired blanket cylinder position for a different
sized second blanket cylinder using the first actuator, the gap
being maintained between the blanket cylinder support and the
impression cylinder support....
Br., Claims Appendix 2.
7
Appeal 2017-002803
Application 14/627,980
The Examiner concludes that the method recited in claim 11 is
rendered obvious by the combination of Zlatin and Gaston. See Final
Act. 4—5.
The Appellant presents substantially the same arguments in response
to the § 103(a) rejection of claim 11 that were presented in response to the
§ 103(a) rejection of claim 1. For the reasons set forth above, those
arguments are not persuasive of reversible error. Therefore, the § 103(a)
rejection of claim 11 is sustained.
The Appellant does not present arguments in support of the separate
patentability of claims 12, 13, 15, and 16. Therefore, the § 103(a) rejection
of claims 12, 13, 15, and 16 is also sustained.
C. DECISION
The Examiner’s decision is affirmed.
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).
AFFIRMED
8