Ex Parte Cousin et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 30, 2016

11645027 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 30, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
11/645,027 12/22/2006
23280 7590 04/01/2016
Davidson, Davidson & Kappel, LLC
589 8th A venue
16th Floor
New York, NY 10018
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Philippe Cousin
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
6003.1111 6192
EXAMINER
BANH, DAVID H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2854
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/01/2016 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 PHILIPPE COUSIN and JULIEN SAMAL
Appeal2014-004474
Application 11/645,027
Technology Center 2800
Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, and
CHRISTOPHER L. OGDEN, Administrative Patent Judges.
COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 the non-final rejection of
twice rejected claims 1-26. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Appellants' invention is directed to a press for printing a web of
paper, of the type including at least one printing unit, the printing unit itself
including a frame and at least an upper printing group and a lower printing
group, each printing group including a blanket cylinder and a plate cylinder
(Spec. i-f 2; claim 1 ).
Appeal2014-004474
Application 11/645,027
Claim 1, as reproduced from the Claims Appendix of the Appeal
Brief, is illustrative:
1. An offset printing press for printing a web of paper comprising:
an unwinding device unwinding the web of paper;
at least one printing unit; the at least on[ e] printing unit including:
a frame;
at least an upper printing group and a lower printing group, the
upper printing group including an upper blanket cylinder and an upper
plate cylinder, the lower printing group a lower blanket cylinder and a
lower plate cylinder; and
a cylinder support and movement mechanism moving the
printing unit into at least one throw-on configuration and at least one
throw-off configuration;
the at least one throw-on configuration occurring when the
upper blanket cylinder is pressed against the lower blanket cylinder
and the upper and lower blanket cylinders are pressed against the
upper and lower plate cylinders, respectively,
the at least one throw-off configuration occurring when the
upper blanket cylinder is spaced apart from the lower blanket
cylinder; and
an engagement device; the engagement device including:
a traction bar for the web of paper extendable inside the frame
substantially over an entire length of the upper and lower blanket
cylinders; and
at least one movement device moving the traction bar along a path
downstream through a space between the upper and lower blanket
cylinders when the printing unit is in a throw-off configuration.
Appellants appeal the following rejections:
1. Claims 1-10, 14--19, 22, 24, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Okamura (US 5, 119,725, issued Jun. 9,
1992) in view of Knauer (US 6,019,039, issued Feb. 1, 2000) and
Reponty (US 5,320,039, issued Jun. 14, 1994).
2. Claims 11-13, 20, 21, 23, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
2
Appeal2014-004474
Application 11/645,027
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Okamura in view of Knauer, Reponty and
Winterholler (US 3,995,553, issued Dec. 7, 1976).
Regarding rejection (1), Appellants' arguments focus on the subject
matter common to independent claims 1 and 26 (Br. 5, 10). We select claim
1 as representative. Appellants' arguments regarding rejection (2) contend
that Winterholler does not cure the alleged deficiencies with regard to
Okamura, Knauer and Reponty (Br. 10). Accordingly, claims 2-26 will
stand for fall with our analysis regarding the rejection of claim 1.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND ANALYSES
The Examiner's findings and conclusions regarding the teachings of
Okamura, Knauer and Reponty are located on pages 3-9 of the Non-Final
Action. The Examiner finds that Okamura teaches the subject matter of
claim 1, except for the movement mechanism that moves the printing unit
into throw-on and a throw-off configurations and a traction bar and a
movement device to move the traction bar (Non-Final Act. 3--4). The
Examiner finds that Knauer teaches a support and movement mechanism
which moves a printing unit having four cylinders from a throw-on to a
throw-off configuration (Non-Final Act. 4). The Examiner concludes that it
would have been obvious to provide the printing units in Okamura's printing
press with support and movement mechanism for throwing-on and throwing-
off the printing cylinders as taught by Knauer in order to allow selectively
deactivating and performing maintenance on some printing units (Non-Final
Act. 4).
3
Appeal2014-004474
Application 11/645,027
The Examiner further finds that Reponty teaches a web engagement
system for a printing press comprising a traction bar extending substantially
over the entire length of the blanket cylinders and movement device that
employs chains to drive the traction bar (Non-Final Act. 5). The Examiner
concludes that it would have been obvious to provide the press of Okamura
and Knauer with an engagement device including a traction bar extending
substantially over the entire length of the blanket cylinders and a movement
system as taught by Reponty in order to pull the web through the printing
system to thread the web easily (Non-Final Act. 5).
Appellants argue that Reponty fails to teach a traction bar that extends
across the entire length of the upper and lower blanket cylinders (Br. 7).
Appellants' argument is not persuasive because the Examiner finds that the
claim requires that the traction bar extends "substantially over" the entire
length of the blanket cylinders, which does not exclude the bar arrangement
taught by Reponty (Ans. 2). The Examiner further finds, and Appellants do
not contest, that Reponty's traction bar that is driven by attaching chains to
the sides of the traction bar must have a length that extends the entire length
of the blanket cylinders in order for the chains to engage the bar and not
interfere with the cylinder operation (Ans. 3). Indeed, Reponty discloses
that the chains or cables are attached to the sides of the bar and the chains or
cables are run over pulleys, the axles of which are fastened on either side of
the frames of the machine (col. 2, 11. 18-22).
Appellants argue that the Examiner's reason for combining Knauer's
printing unit movement mechanism with Okamura's printing press lacks
support, is conclusory, and is based upon impermissible hindsight (Br. 7, 8,
and 9). Appellants contend that Okamura's printing press already has the
4
Appeal2014-004474
Application 11/645,027
capability of moving the pnntmg units from a throw-on to a throw-off
position such that there is no reason for modifying Okamura's printing press
that already has a movement mechanism. Id.
Appellants' arguments are not persuasive in that the Examiner's
reason for the modification are based upon the teachings of the applied prior
art (Ans. 3--4). The Examiner finds that although Okamura teaches that the
printing unit may be moved from a throw-on to a throw-off position,
Okamura is silent regarding the specifics of how that movement is
accomplished. The Examiner finds the ordinarily skilled artisan would have
looked to other related art, such as Knauer, for the specific structure to
accomplish the movement of the printing units (Ans. 4). Knauer, as found
by the Examiner, teaches that by using the disclosed mechanism that throws
on and throws off the printing units, rapid production changes in the printing
unit are possible while allowing continued printing for those printing presses
not subject to the throw-off operation (col. 1, 11. 66----67; col. 2, 11. 20--41).
Reponty discloses that threading a web through a printing press by
hand is laborious, and using a traction device with chains makes it easier to
accomplish the required threading of the web (col. 1, 11. 34--46). Reponty
discloses that using a bar and chains to thread the web is generally
satisfactory for a single path web, but does not permit such a threading of the
web along varied paths (col. 2, 11. 14--36; 64--68).
Accordingly, we find that the Examiner's reasons for modifying
Okamura to use Knauer's movement mechanism for the printing units and
Reponty's bar and movement device to thread the web to be printed upon is
not conclusory or based on impermissible hindsight. Rather, the use of
Knauer's movement mechanism for printing units and Reponty's bar and
5
Appeal2014-004474
Application 11/645,027
movement device to thread the web in a pnntmg press in Okamura's prmtmg
press is nothing more than the predictable use of prior art elements (i.e.,
printing unit movement mechanism and threading devices for printing
presses) according to their established functions (i.e., movement of printing
units for maintenance and threading the web).
On this record, we affirm the Examiner's§ 103 rejections.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision is affirmed.
TIME PERIOD
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
6