Ex Parte D et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 23, 2018

13985610 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 23, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/985,610 10/24/2013
22045 7590 03/27/2018
BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C.
1000 TOWN CENTER
TWENTY-SECOND FLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Federico D'Annunzio
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.
SIBROlOlPUSA 2433
EXAMINER
ZHANG, FAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2674
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/27/2018 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):
docketing@brookskushman.com
kdilucia@brookskushman.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte FEDERICO D' ANNUNZIO and MATTEO CARDINOTTI
Appeal2017-009618
Application 13/985,610 1
Technology Center 2600
Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., NABEEL U. KHAN, and
AMBER L. HAGY, Administrative Patent Judges.
KHAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection
of claims 9-22, which are all of the pending claims. 2 We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify NUOVA GIDUE S.R.L. as the real party in interest.
App. Br. 1.
2 Claims 1-8 are cancelled.
Appeal2017-009618
Application 13/985,610
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
THE INVENTION
According to Appellants, the invention relates to "a method and a
device for the control and management of the printing parameters of a
printing machine, particularly with a plurality of consecutive printing
processes." Spec. 1:5-7.
Exemplary independent claim 9 is reproduced below with the disputed
limitation emphasized.
9. A device for the control and management of the printing
parameters of a plurality of consecutive printing assemblies, the
device comprising:
a plurality of video cameras positioned consecutively such
that at least one video camera is positioned after each of the
plurality of consecutive printing and conversion assemblies, each
video camera movable along a motorized guide in order to
acquire an image of a print medium; and
image processing means functionally associated with each
video camera to search, recognize and measure on the image of
the print medium acquired by each video camera the printing
values of at least one reference register mark reproduced on the
print medium, wherein the image processing means is
programmed to detect the printing values comprising:
a density based on a reflection of incident light from
a lighting means,
a contact pressure based on a number of pixels, and
a lateral and longitudinal position of the register
mark; and
means for actuation of the printing and conversion
assembly to correct and restabilize the printing values according
to the difference between the printing values measured by the
image processing means and the desired theoretical printing
values.
2
Appeal2017-009618
Application 13/985,610
REFERENCES AND REJECTIONS
1. Claims 9, 11, 15, 17, and 20-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Lewis Jr. (US 2004/0163562 Al, Aug. 26,
2004), Tokiwa (US 2004/0118311 Al, June 24, 2004), Nishiyama (US
2012/0118186 Al, May 17, 2012) and Rider (US 2002/0129658 Al, Sept.
19, 2002). Final Act. 2-7.
2. Claims 10, 14, 16, 18, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Lewis Jr., Tokiwa, Nishiyama, Rider, and
Ohno (US 5,813,333, Sept. 29, 1998). Final Act. 7-9.
3. Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Lewis Jr., Tokiwa, Nishiyama, Rider, Ohno, and Sainio
(US 5,689,425, Nov. 18, 1997). Final Act. 9.
4. Claim 13 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Lewis Jr., Tokiwa, Nishiyama, Rider, and Totsuka (JP
2007/030173 A, Feb. 8, 2007). Final Act. 10.
ANALYSIS
Claim 9
The Examiner finds Lewis Jr., Tokiwa, Nishiyama, and Rider teach or
suggest the limitations of claim 1. Final Act. 2-5. Specifically, Nishiyama
is relied upon as teaching that contact pressure of print rollers may be
adjusted to correct for print misalignment by analyzing images taken by
cameras of the print out. Final Act. 4 (citing Nishiyama i-fi-f l, 57, and 88);
Ans. 3. Although Nishiyama teaches using cameras for the purpose of
adjusting contact pressure of rollers, it does not explicitly teach that this
contact pressure is determined "based on a number of pixels." Final Act. 4.
To remedy this deficiency, the Examiner relies on Rider as teaching a
3
Appeal2017-009618
Application 13/985,610
determination of contact pressure between two pieces of film pressed
together, based on a number of pixels. Final Act. 4 (citing Rider i-fi-f 13, 17).
Appellants argue "Rider describes a completely different method to
measure contact pressure that cannot be combined with the references
because it would make Lewis, Tokiwa and Nishiyama inoperable for their
intended purpose." App. Br. 7. For example, Appellants argue "Rider is
only concerned with producing an image of a force on the special film in
order to analyze the pressure distribution of the force. Rider does not deal
with printing processes or printing assemblies." App. Br. 8 (citing Lewis Jr.
i1329; Nishiyama i12). According to Appellants"[ c ]ombining the multi-
color printing processes of Lewis, Nishiyama or Tokiwa with Rider would
have an unpredictable result since Rider is analyzing the change in color of
the special film to determine pressure and the color printing process would
interfere with the colors produced by the special film." App. Br. 8. Finally,
Appellants argue "the Office has not provided a reasonable explanation of
how or why the references would be combined or modified to achieve the
limitations of the claims." App. Br. 8.
Appellants' arguments are unpersuasive. Instead, we agree with and
adopt as our own the Examiner's findings of facts and conclusions as set
forth in the Answer and in the Action from which this appeal was taken. In
particular, we find the Examiner has articulated a reason with rational
underpinning for combining the prior art references to teach the claimed
invention. See Ans. 3---6. For example, the Examiner explains that
Nishiyama uses cameras to "take[] images of register marks ... compares
positions of the register marks ... [to determine] misalignment between a
print web and print images, and adjusts pressure amounts of pressure rollers
4
Appeal2017-009618
Application 13/985,610
to correct misalignment." Ans. 3 (citing Nishiyama i-f 88). The Examiner
finds "[h ]aving at least a camera for each printing assembly to detect an
image for obtaining printing parameters for correcting pressure, and printing
registers based on difference between measured and predetermined values
has been well practiced in the art as prescribed by Nishiyama." Final Act. 4.
Thus, the Examiner's findings show Nishiyama teaches determining contact
pressure by analyzing images taken by a camera. All that is missing from
the combination, the Examiner explains, is that the measured contact
pressure be based on a number of pixels. See Final Act. 4 ("Lewis JR. et al
in view of Tokiwa and Nishiyama et al do not teach determining contact
pressure based on a number of pixels."); Ans. 3.
The Examiner, therefore, relies on Rider for teaching that contact
pressure can be determined by counting the number of pixels formed from
colored dyes being pressed between two pieces of film. Final Act. 4 (citing
Rider i-f 17). The intensity of color is related to the pressure at the point and
is calculated based on total pixel areas. Rider i-fi-1 13, 16, 17. Appellants'
Specification describes a similar method of determining contact pressure by
measuring the size of a mark calculated in number of pixels. Spec. 7 :2-9.
Appellants' arguments that Rider's use of two pieces of film would
render the other cited references inoperable for their intended purpose is
unpersuasive, because, as the Examiner explains, Rider is not relied upon
specifically for its use of the two pieces of film; rather, Rider "is only used
to show that information related to a contact pressure of printing assemblies
based on a number of pixels can be obtained from a mark on a print
medium." Ans. 5. Appellants' argument that Rider does not deal with
printing processes or printing assemblies is unpersuasive because the
5
Appeal2017-009618
Application 13/985,610
Examiner relies on Lewis Jr., Tokiwa, and Nishiyama to teach these aspects
of the claim. Final Act. 3--4.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 9 and of
independent claim 17, which was argued together with claim 9. See App.
Br. 9.
Claim 15
Claim 15 depends from claim 9 and recites, in pertinent part,
"measuring, on the image of the print medium acquired by the video camera,
a contact pressure based on a number of pixels, calculating, by the image
processing means, the difference between the printed pressure measured by
the image processing means and a desired pressure value." Appellants argue
"Rider does [not] disclose calculating a difference between a measured
contact pressure and a desired pressure value, nor does the Office explain
how this would be achieved with Rider." App. Br. 10.
Appellants' argument is unpersuasive. The Examiner relies on Lewis
Jr. and Tokiwa as teaching calculating the difference between measured and
desired printing parameters and correcting for any discrepancies between the
two. Final Act. 5 (citing Lewis Jr. i-fi-166, 171, 355-359; Tokiwa i146). With
respect to contact pressure specifically, the Examiner relies on Nishiyama,
which teaches adjusting a measured contact pressure to a desired contact
pressure for correcting misalignment. Final Act. 5 (citing Nishiyama i1 8,
20, 35, 88). Appellants' argument attacks Rider individually, and fails to
take into account the Examiner's findings regarding these other references.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 15 and of
claims 21 and 22, which were argued together with claim 15.
6
Appeal2017-009618
Application 13/985,610
Claims 10-14, 16, and 18-20
Appellants do not present arguments for separate patentability for any
of the remaining pending claims; therefore, we sustain the Examiner's
rejections of these claims.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections of claims 9-22 are 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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(±).
AFFIRMED
7