Ex Parte Groetzner et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 14, 2017

14009578 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 14, 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.
GROETZNER ET AL - 1
PCT
8845
EXAMINER
GRABOWSKI, KYLE ROBERT
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3638
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
14/009,578 10/23/2013
25889 7590 09/14/2017
COLLARD & ROE, P.C.
1077 NORTHERN BOULEVARD
ROSLYN, NY 11576
Roland Groetzner
09/14/2017 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ROLAND GROETZNER and SEBASTIAN BAUR1
Appeal 2016-002891
Application 14/009,578
Technology Center 3700
Before JAMES P. CALVE, SCOTT C. MOORE, and
ARTHUR M. PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judges.
CALVE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Office
Action rejecting claims 11—17 and 19. Appeal Br. 12. Claims 1—10 and 18
are cancelled. Id. at 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Schreiner Group GmbH &
Co. KG. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2016-002891
Application 14/009,578
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellants disclose an optical security feature. See Spec. 1.
Claim 11, the sole independent claim, is reproduced below.
11. Method for the production of a printed product
having an optical security feature, which comprises the following
steps:
making available an imprinting material;
screen printing a first line structure composed of a
plurality of raised lines that run parallel to one another, wherein
the printing ink for printing of the first line structure contains ink
pigments having a color-shifting effect and comprising small,
multi-layer plates at which light is partly reflected and partly
transmitted; and
printing of a second line structure composed of a plurality
of raised lines that run parallel to one another.
REJECTION
Claims 11—17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Yokote (US 7,354,072 B2, iss. Apr. 8, 2008) and Muke
(US 2006/0151989 Al, pub. July 13, 2006).
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue claims 11—17 and 19 as a group. Appeal Br. 5—10.
We select claim 11 as representative, with claims 12—17 and 19 standing or
falling with claim 11. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
The Examiner found that Yokote teaches the method of claim 11, but
lacks small, multi-layer plate pigments that are color shifting, also known in
the art as thin film elements or interference pigments. Final Act. 3^4. The
Examiner found that Muke teaches a similar method that uses latent effect
pigments of Yokote, or it may use thin film element pigments that comprise
a stack of high refraction and dielectric materials, as claimed. Id. at 4.
2
Appeal 2016-002891
Application 14/009,578
The Examiner determined it would have been obvious to substitute
Muke’s thin film pigments for Yokote’s color-shifting pigments as preferred
pigments to provide a color shift. Id. The Examiner reasoned that Yokote is
only deficient in teaching the small, multi-layer plates in lieu of thin CLC
pigment plates, and Muke teaches the use of such pigments in the printing
art for the same effect of color-shifting with raised printed lines. Ans. 3^4.
Appellants argue that the Examiner lacks a rational underpinning for
substituting the thin film elements of Muke for the liquid crystal pigments of
Yokote, and the processes of Muke and Yokote are substantially different.
Appeal Br. 8—9. Appellants argue that Yokote uses screen-printing to create
printed lines as the ink is applied, whereas Muke uses intaglio printing to
emboss lines on a reflective ink layer after the ink layer has been deposited
on a substrate. Id. at 9. Appellants further argue that the intaglio printing
process of Muke is wholly incompatible with the screen-printing process of
Yokote because Muke’s intaglio printing process is complex with engraving,
a plate cylinder, an impression cylinder, and a compliant surface. Id. at 9.
Appellants argue that Muke provides no teaching, suggestion, or motivation
to substitute its multi-plate pigments for the CLC pigments of Yokote, and a
skilled artisan thus would have had no motivation to transfer anything from
Muke’s intaglio printing to Yokote’s screen printing process. Reply Br. 2—3.
The Examiner’s reason for substituting Muke’s thin film structure and
layers of metallic or high refractive materials such as metal oxides or metal
sulfides and dielectric materials to provide an optically variable pigment is
supported by a rational underpinning. Muke teaches that these pigments
provide an enhanced, optically variable effect and a desired color shift, like
Yokote’s pigments provide. Muke 198; Yokote, 8:24—32, 9:32—38.
3
Appeal 2016-002891
Application 14/009,578
Yokote teaches that a variety of optically variable pigments can be
used to create a unique visual effect that can appear even at a small angle,
and these pigments include metal powders, glass flakes and cholesteric
liquid crystals. Yokote, 9:32—38. Yokote teaches that the printing method
used is not limited so long as an ink layer thickness can be set. Id. at 10:5 5—
60. Yokote teaches that “[t]he printing method is not particularly limited”
but “an intaglio printing method or a screen printing method is preferable.”
Id. at 16:43—45. Thus, we are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments that a
skilled artisan would not consider inks from an intaglio printing process of
Muke in Yokote’s printing process, because Yokote teaches that a screen
printing process or an intaglio or other printing method may be used.
Like Yokote, Muke uses metallic or optically variable pigments and
inks to create an optically variable reflective layer. Muke 80-81. Muke
also teaches the use of other optically variable pigments instead of metallic
ink, and these pigments include optically variable thin film structures with
layers of metallic or high refractive materials such as metal oxides or metal
sulphides and dielectric materials that are ground into micro flakes. Id. 198.
Appellants do not dispute that Muke teaches the claimed multi-layer plates.
Rather, Appellants argue that a skilled artisan would not have used such
plates in the screen printing process of Yokote. However, Yokote teaches
that screen and intaglio printing processes may be used interchangeably, as
discussed above, and Muke teaches that the small, multi-layer plates may be
substituted for metallic and other highly refractive materials. Id. Thus, the
Examiner correctly determined that motivation existed to substitute Muke’s
multi-layer plates for Yokote’s reflective pigments, which include scaly or
metal pigments, glass flakes, and liquid crystal pigments. Yokote, 4:7—10.
4
Appeal 2016-002891
Application 14/009,578
The Examiner also reasoned correctly that Yokote and Muke create
optically variable images using raised lines and optically variable inks with
reflective pigments that enhance the latent image with known color-shifting
effects. Ans. 3^4. Appellants have not persuaded us that the color-shifting
ability of Muke’s optically variable inks would be unsuitable or would yield
unpredictable results in Yokote’s screen printing process, especially where
Yokote teaches that intaglio or screen printing processes produce the desired
optically variable images, and Muke teaches that ink coatings can be applied
via offset or gravure printing. Yokote, 16:43—45 (intaglio or screen printing
are preferred but printing is not so limited), 1:13—63 (discussing prior art’s
use of intaglio, gravure, and silk-screen printing to create latent images);
Muke 19. Muke also provides motivation for the combination by teaching
that the transitory image produced by metallic inks switches on and off with
the angle of viewing via contrasting levels of color brightness (Muke H 80,
81, 100, 102), but the optically variable pigments such as the claimed multi­
layer, metal plates improves this effect by producing pronounced color shifts
between two distinct colors {id. 118,98,118). Muke thus teaches that the
claimed pigments enhance the latent image effect over the optically variable
pigments of Yokote.
Thus, we sustain the rejection of claims 11—17 and 19.
DECISION
We affirm the rejection of claims 11—17 and 19.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
5