Ex Parte Geserich

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 10, 2016

12500704 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 10, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/500,704 07/10/2009
26574 7590 03/14/2016
SCHIFF HARDIN, LLP
PA TENT DEPARTMENT
233 S. Wacker Drive-Suite 6600
CHICAGO, IL 60606-6473
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Frank Geserich
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.
P09,0l 19 (26988-0186) 2874
EXAMINER
VALENCIA, ALEJANDRO
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2853
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/14/2016 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):
patents-CH@schiffhardin.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte FRANK GESERICH
Appeal2014-004066
Application 12/500,704
Technology Center 2800
Before ROMULO H. DELMENDO, GEORGE C. BEST, and
JULIA HEANEY, Administrative Patent Judges.
DELMENDO, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
The Appellant1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of a
decision of the Primary Examiner to reject claims 1-8. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM for the reasons given by the Examiner and add the
following for emphasis.
1 The Appellant states that "Francotyp-Postalia GmbH" is the real party in
interest (Appeal Brief filed October 21, 2013, hereinafter "App. Br.," 1).
Appeal2014-004066
Application 12/500,704
BACKGROUND
The subject matter on appeal relates to an ink dispensing device
including a device for cleaning an ink jet print head (Specification,
hereinafter "Spec.," 1, 11. 6-9). Representative claim 1 is reproduced from
page 16-17 of the Appeal Brief (Claims App.) (some indentations, bracketed
material, and underlining omitted) as follows:
1. An ink dispensing device comprising:
a chassis configured to allow transport of items to be
printed along an x-direction of a Cartesian coordinate system;
a print cartridge [sic, carriage] that carries an ink jet print
head for printing on said items in a succession of printing
procedures, said print carriage being movable to a print position
along a y-direction of said Cartesian coordinate system, said ink
jet print head having a surface on which ink accumulates during
printing;
a wiping lip mount stationarily situated on said chassis,
that carries a wiping lip that remove said accumulated ink from
said surface in between printing procedures in said succession,
thereby resulting in removed ink accumulating on said wiping
lip;
said print carriage having a stripper element integrally
formed as part of said print carriage at a projecting edge of said
print carriage at a location spaced and separate from said inkjet
print head, said stripper element cleaning said wiping lip by
doctoring said accumulated removed ink therefrom at said
location when said print carriage is moved from said print
position in said y-direction, thereby resulting in doctored ink
accumulating on said stripper element;
a cowling carriage that carries at least one cowling that
encloses said print head during cleaning thereof at said wiping
lip, said cowling carriage being mounted on said chassis for
movement in the y-direction and a z-direction of said Cartesian
coordinate system, said cowling carriage having an entraining
hook and lateral guide pins;
an ink absorber in a holder mounted at a distance in the
y-direction from a rear side of said cowling carriage, said
2
Appeal2014-004066
Application 12/500,704
stripper element of said print carriage being disposed opposite
said ink absorber during a maintenance interval following
doctoring of said wiping lip by said stripper element, in a
position reached when a segment of said stripper element of
said print carriage abuts said entraining hook of said cowling
carriage;
said cowling carriage being configured to move toward
and away from said print carriage in the z-direction of said
Cartesian coordinate system with said lateral guide pins being
guided in a slotted guide bar, while said print carriage is moved
further, with said movement in the z-direction, in combination
with said movement of the cowling carriage in the y-direction,
causing said cowling carriage to execute a zig-zag movement;
and
said ink absorber being configured to clean said stripper
element during said movement of said cowling carriage in said
direction by being pushed by said cowling carriage partially
over said stripper element to absorb said accumulated doctored
ink from said stripper element.
THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected the claims as follows:
I. Claims 1--4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Murcia et al. ("Murcia"), 2 Tanaka et al.
("Tanaka"),3 Anderson, Jr. et al. ("Anderson"),4 and
Kawarama et al. ("Kawarama");5
2 US Patent 6,520,619 Bl, issued February 18, 2003.
3 US 2005/0259126 Al, published November 24, 2005.
4 US Patent 7,188,927 B2, issued March 13, 2007.
5 US Patent 6,179,404 Bl, issued January 30, 2001.
3
Appeal2014-004066
Application 12/500,704
IL Claims 5 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Murcia, Tanaka, Anderson,
Kawarama, and Murayama;6
III. Claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Murcia, Tanaka, Anderson, Kawarama, Murayama,
and Tsujimoto et al. ("Tsujimoto");7 and
IV. Claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Murcia, Tanaka, Anderson, Kawarama, Maruyama
and Arakawa. 8
(Examiner's Answer, entered December 16, 2013, hereafter "Ans.," 2-3;
Final Office Action entered June 4, 2013, hereinafter "Final Act.," 2-11.)
DISCUSSION
I
In arguing for the reversal of Rejection I, the Appellant argues claims
1--4 together, focusing on independent claim 1 (App. Br. 3-14). Therefore,
consistent with 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv), we confine our discussion to
representative claim 1.
The Examiner found that Murcia describes, or would have suggested
to one of ordinary skill in the art, an ink dispensing device including every
limitation of claim 1 except for "an entraining hook and wherein the
absorber contacts the stripper when the entraining hook abuts the stripper,"
"a stripper element for doctoring said wiper lips," and "the absorber moves
6 US 2008/0012896 Al, published January 17, 2008.
7 US Patent 7,431,438 B2, issued October 7, 2008.
8 US Patent 6,679,578 B2, issued January 20, 2004.
4
Appeal2014-004066
Application 12/500,704
to contact the stripper element while the cowling carriage moves in the z
direction" in a manner as recited by the claim (Final Act. 2-7).
With respect to the "an entraining hook and wherein the absorber
contacts the stripper when the entraining hook abuts the stripper" issue, the
Examiner found that Tanaka discloses an entraining hook that meets the
claim requirements and concluded that "[i]t would have been obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to align the absorber with
the stripper, as taught by Murcia, when the entraining hook contacts the
stripper, as taught by Tanaka, because doing so would amount to the
substitution of one known element for another to yield predictable results"
(id. at 5).
With respect to "a stripper element for doctoring said wiper lips," the
Examiner found that Anderson discloses a "print carriage has a stripper
element integrally formed thereon ... that cleans said wiper lips by
doctoring said accumulated removed ink therefrom" and thus concluded that
"[i]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time
of invention to add a stripper element specifically and dedicatedly for the
purpose of doctoring a wiper blade ... because doing so would amount to
combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield
predictable results" (id.).
With respect to the requirement that "the absorber moves to contact
the stripper element while the cowling carriage moves in the z direction," the
Examiner found that Kawarama teaches an absorber is moved in the z-
direction to contact an ink soiled element that needs ink absorbed from it and
thus concluded that "[i]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art at the time of invention to move the absorber upwardly, as taught by
5
Appeal2014-004066
Application 12/500,704
Kawarama, instead of horizontally. [D]oing so would amount to the
simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable
results" (id. at 7).
The Appellant contends the Examiner has failed to establish a prima
facie case of obviousness because, inter alia, the Examiner's interpretation
of Murcia is improper (App. Br. 4). Specifically, the Appellant contends
that the Examiner's position that the leading edge of Murcia's print head
"functions as a stripper element" is "not a reasonable interpretation of the
function[]. .. ofth[e] leading edge" of Murcia (id.). The Appellant further
contends that the Examiner's interpretation "is contrary to the most likely
and reasonable manner that a person of ordinary skill in the relevant
technology would interpret this portion of the Murcia et al. structure" (id.
at 6).
We have considered fully the Appellant's analysis of the Murcia
reference and the Examiner's interpretation of the teachings; however, we
find that Appellant's analysis fails to reveal any reversible error in the
Examiner's factual findings, analysis, and conclusions of obviousness. The
test of obviousness is not whether an express suggestion of the claimed
invention is present in any or all references but rather what the references
taken collectively would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art
presumed to be familiar with them. In re Rossel et, 34 7 F .2d 84 7, 851
(CCPA 1965); In re Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038, 1041 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Additionally, a reference may be relied upon for all that it would have
reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art. Merck & Co. v.
Biocraft Labs., Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 807 (Fed. Cir. 1989) ("the mere absence
6
Appeal2014-004066
Application 12/500,704
from the prior art of a teaching or a limitation recited in the patent at issue is
insufficient for a conclusion of nonobviousness").
As found by the Examiner (Final Act. 12), Murcia discloses an ink
dispensing device that includes a "leading edge" that contacts the wiper
blades (col. 11, 11. 37-53; Fig. 7). Additionally, Murcia discloses the wiper
blades "wick or draw ink from the nozzles through capillary action" (col. 10,
11. 60-65). Taking these teaching, we hold that it would be reasonable to
conclude that the leading edge does contact the wiper blades, which are
taught to remove ink, and some degree of ink residue will be doctored or
stripped from the wiper blades.
Notwithstanding this position, the Examiner concedes (Ans. 3), and
the Appellant acknowledges (Reply Brief mailed December 16, 2003 at 2),
that Murcia does not explicitly teach a stripper element for doctoring said
wiper lips. To remedy this deficiency, the Examiner cited Anderson (Final
Act. 5-6), discussed supra. The Appellant has proffered no objective factual
evidence to rebut the Examiners factual findings, analysis, and conclusions
of obviousness with respect to Murcia in combination with Anderson. In
view of the insufficient factual evidence or arguments proffered with respect
to Murcia with Anderson, we agree with the Examiner's factual findings,
analysis, and conclusions of obviousness because one cannot show
nonobviousness by attacking references individually when the rejection is
based on a combination of reference. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425
(CCPA 1981).
The Appellant further contends that ink adherence to the leading edge
would be "considered a nuisance and an annoyance ... and, if it occurred, it
would most likely be countered not by trying to modify the Murcia et al.
7
Appeal2014-004066
Application 12/500,704
reference with some type of added structure, but merely by repeated wiping
the leading edge ... with a rag or a paper towel" (App. Br. 6). In addition,
the Appellant further argues that because the location of the leading edge of
Murcia is "already crowded with other components, a person of ordinary
skill in the printing technology would not even consider the Murcia et al.
reference as being a 'candidate' for modification" (id.). We find these
arguments unpersuasive because they are considered mere attorney
speculation not supported by factual objective evidence. See In re
Scarborough, 500 F.2d 560, 566 (CCPA 1974).
The Appellant argues Murcia is not concerned with cleaning but
rather is directed "to prevent[ing] excessive solvent and ink from
accumulating in the first place" because Murcia discloses "dispens[ing]
exactly the right amount of solvent onto the print head, so that excessive
solvent does not accumulate" (App. Br. 9). Thus the Appellant concludes
"[a] person of ordinary skill in the relevant technology reading that
disclosure would assume that the apparatus disclosed in the Murcia et al.
reference does, in fact, operate as intended, and therefore does, in fact, apply
just the 'right' amount of solvent to the print head, thereby avoiding the need
for any further cleaning means" (id. at 10). We find this unsubstantiated
inference unpersuasive because Appellant has not proffered any objective
evidence that Murcia indicates that one of ordinary skill in the art would not
be concerned with cleaning an ink jet print head. See DyStar Textilfabren
GmbH v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ("We will
not read into a reference a teaching away ... where no such language
exists."). Additionally, we are unpersuaded that Murcia's disclosure would
lead one of ordinary skill in the art to avoid further cleaning means because
8
Appeal2014-004066
Application 12/500,704
the test of obviousness is not express suggestion of the claimed invention in
any or all references but rather what the references taken collectively would
suggest to those of ordinary skill in the art presumed to be familiar with
them. Rosselet, 347 F.2d at 851; Hedges, 783 F.2d at 1041.
The Appellant argues against the plurality of secondary references
stating that each of the secondary references is concerned with "components
[that] have been intentionally designed in order to remove ink or other
residue from a surface" (App. Br. 8). In view of this recognition, the
Appellant maintains that because ink accumulation on the leading edge of
Murcia "would be completely uncontrolled and unpredictable[,]" it is
"speculation on the part of the Examiner that any of the structure disclosed
in Tanaka et al., Anderson, Jr. et al. and Kawarama et al. could be used, or
would be considered by a person ordinary skill in the art to be usable" (id. at
8). As found by the Examiner (Final Act. 5-6), Anderson discloses the print
carriage has a stripper element integrally formed thereon that cleans the
wiper lips by doctoring any accumulated removed ink therefrom when said
print carriage is moved thereby resulting in doctored ink accumulating on
said stripper element (Fig. 2-3; col. 5, 11. 38--47, 62-65). In view of this
disclosure, we fully agree with the Examiner's factual findings and
conclusion that adding the stripping element as taught by Anderson to
Murcia would have been obvious to prevent the spread of waste onto
undesired surfaces. See KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416-
417 (2007) ("The combination of familiar elements according to known
method is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable
results"). Again, as outlined supra, one cannot show nonobviousness by
9
Appeal2014-004066
Application 12/500,704
attacking references individually when the rejection is based on a
combination of reference. See Keller, 642 F.2d at 425.
In so holding, we note the Appellant has primarily focused their
analysis on Murcia alone, with no individual articulated arguments or
evidence to dispute the Examiner's factual findings, analysis and
conclusions of obviousness with respect to Tanaka, Anderson and
Kawarama or their combination with Murcia. We find the Examiner has
made extensive factual findings with respect to Tanaka, Anderson and
Kawarama (Final Act. 5-8), which we adopt as our own, and the Appellant
has proffered insufficient articulated arguments to the contrary to reveal
reversible error in the conclusion of obviousness. Additionally, in view of
the lack of articulated arguments, we do not further discuss the teachings of
Tanaka, Anderson and Kawarama or their combination with Murcia. Again,
the relevant inquiry is whether the claimed subject matter would have been
obvious to those ordinary skill in the art in light of the combined teachings
of those references. See Keller, 642 F.2d at 425.
The Appellant argues that Murcia does not disclose the "zig-zag
movement" as embodied by claim 1 (App. Br. 7). However, we reject this
position because the Examiner, giving the terms of the claims their broadest
reasonable interpretation, has determined Murcia discloses the "zig-zag
movement" is encompassed by the movement as taught by Murcia (Ans. 4)
and the Appellant has proffered insufficient objective evidence to rebut the
examiners interpretation. During patent examination, the pending claims
must be "given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
specification" by giving words their plain meaning unless the specification
provides a clear definition. See In re Prater 415 F.2d 1393, 1404 (CCPA
10
Appeal2014-004066
Application 12/500,704
1969); In re Zletz 893 F.2d 319, 321 (CCPA 1989). The Examiner has
found this limitation is disclosed or suggested in the prior art reference, and
the Appellant's mere assertions to the contrary are insufficient to identify a
reversible error. See Ex parte Belinne, No 2009-004693, 2009 WL 2477843
(BP AI 2009) (informative) ("[W]e find that the Examiner has made
extensive specific fact finding ... with respect to each of the argued claims.
Appellants' argument ... repeatedly restates elements of the claim language
and simply argues that the elements are missing from the reference.
However, Appellants do not present any arguments to explain why the
Examiner's explicit fact finding is in error"). See also 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(vii) (nothing that an argument that merely points out what a
claim recites is unpersuasive).
For the above reasons, we uphold the Examiner's rejection of claim
1--4.
II
In arguing for the reversal of Rejection II, the Appellant presents no
additional arguments and, therefore, we sustain this rejection for
substantially the same reasons as set forth above.
III
In arguing for the reversal of Rejection III, the Appellant presents no
additional arguments and, therefore, we sustain this rejection for
substantially the same reasons as set forth above.
11
Appeal2014-004066
Application 12/500,704
IV
In arguing for the reversal of Rejection III, the Appellant presents no
additional arguments and, therefore, we sustain this rejection for
substantially the same reasons as set forth above.
SUMMARY
For these reasons and those set forth in the answer, Rejections I, II,
III, and IV are affirmed. Therefore, the Examiner's final decision to reject
claims 1-8 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 3 7 C.F .R. § 1.13 6( a )(1 ).
AFFIRMED
12