Ex Parte Hickey et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 8, 2012

11264830 (B.P.A.I. May. 8, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFREENCES
____________________

Ex parte KENNETH HICKEY, MICHELLE GERRITY,
KAREN NOLAN, and STAFFORD JOHNSON
____________________

Appeal 2010-003619
Application 11/264,830
Technology Center 2800
_____________________

Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, DENISE M. POTHIER, and
BRIAN J. McNAMARA, Administrative Patent Judges.

McNAMARA, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-003619
Application 11/264,830

2 

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The invention concerns a printhead orifice plate having a core orifice,
and a palladium-nickel alloy plated on the core office plate. As specifically
recited in claim 14, the nickel palladium alloy increases wear and corrosion
resistance of the core orifice plate.
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s final
decision rejecting claims 1-18. The Examiner rejects:
Claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 10, 11, 14, 17, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as being unpatentable over Adavikolanu (US 6,799,832 B1;
Oct. 5, 2004) in view of DeBoer (US 6,345,880 B1; Feb. 12, 2002)
and Trunk (US 2003/0043233 A1; Mar. 6, 2003); and
Claims 2, 3, 6, 8, 9, 12, 13, 15, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Adavikolanu in view of DeBoer and Trunk
and further in view of Etheridge (US 6,155,676; Dec. 5, 2000) and
Nobel (US 4,628,165; Dec. 9, 1986).
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM

ISSUE
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claim 1 by finding that Adavikolanu,
DeBoer, and Trunk collectively teach or suggest a palladium-nickel alloy
plated on substantially all surfaces of the core orifice plate?

ANALYSIS
The Obviousness Rejection of Claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 10, 11, 14, 17, and 18
Claim 1 is representative of the independent claims 1, 7, and 14.
Appeal 2010-003619
Application 11/264,830

3 

1. A printhead orifice plate comprising:
a core orifice plate having an orifice formed therein; and
a palladium-nickel alloy plated on substantially all surfaces of said
core orifice plate.

The Examiner relies on Adavikolanu to teach an ink jet printhead with
a nickel orifice plate 10 entirely coated with a precious metal (e.g.,
palladium) alloy 24. The Examiner and Appellants agree that this reference
does not explicitly disclose the coating alloy being a palladium-nickel alloy.
(Ans. 3-4)
The Examiner relies on DeBoer to disclose a non-corrosive outer
metal or metal alloy layer on a core orifice plate in an ink jet printhead.
(Ans. 4).
Citing DeBoer, column 4, lines 23-31, Appellants argue that DeBoer
teaches a laminate metal layer 5 on one side of an outer substrate 7. (App.
Br. 10). However, as noted above, Adavikolanu provides the teaching that
the core orifice plate is plated on substantially all surfaces, as claimed.
Citing column 4, lines 15-20, Appellants note that DeBoer discloses
the outer metal layer 5 being formed from a non-corrosive metal or metal
alloy including , inter alia, nickel and platinum, but does not specify the
claimed palladium-nickel alloy. Appellants further argue that DeBoer at
column 4, lines 28-30, discloses that the outer layer of metal 5 is made
preferably from gold or silver. From this, Appellants conclude that DeBoer
teaches away from the claimed printhead comprising a palladium nickel
alloy. (App. Br. 10-11).
Appellants do not mention the remaining disclosure in column 4, lines
14-30. Appellants’ position is contradicted by the disclosure in DeBoer that:
Appeal 2010-003619
Application 11/264,830

4 

The outer layer of metal 5 is preferably formed from a non-
corrosive metal or metal alloy such as (but not limited to) gold,
silver, nickel, platinum, cadmium, palladium, cobalt, iridium . .
. . In the preferred embodiment, the outer layer of metal 5 is
formed completely from one of the aforementioned metals or an
alloy; however, outer layer 5 may be formed from a laminate . .
. . The important aspect here[] is that at least the outer surface
40 of the outer layer of metal 5 be formed from one of the
aforementioned metals or an alloy thereof, and preferably from
gold or silver.
(Col. 4, ll. 16-30 (emphasis added)).
Although DeBoer does not specifically mention any particular alloy,
its disclosure of forming the metal layer 5 of an alloy of the mentioned
metals (including nickel and palladium), even while expressing a preference
for gold or silver, does not teach away from a core orifice plating comprising
a palladium-nickel alloy. Thus, there is no error in the Examiner’s reliance
on DeBoer.
Turning to Trunk, a significant issue in this case appears to be the
meaning of the disclosure in paragraphs 0019 and 0020 of Trunk. The
Examiner contends that Trunk teaches a printhead orifice plate comprising a
core orifice plate having an orifice therein and a palladium-nickel alloy
plated on opposite surfaces of the orifice plate. (Ans. 4). Appellants
contend that, when read properly, Trunk teaches that “a core orifice plate
might be made by plating a nickel-palladium alloy on a support substrate
and then coated in gold or another precious metal.” (Reply Br. 7).
The language of claims 1 and 7 (and the means plus function language
of claim 14) broadly recites that the printhead orifice plate comprises a core
orifice plate and a palladium nickel alloy plated on substantially all surfaces
of the orifice plate. As a result of the “comprising” language, additional
Appeal 2010-003619
Application 11/264,830

5 

layers, such as a layer of gold, are not excluded. Regardless of whether
Trunk’s disclosure at paragraphs 0019 and 0020 is confusing as to what
constitutes the support substrate, the fact remains that paragraph 0020
discloses that the core plate material (identified as nickel in paragraph 0019,
but not shown in the Figures) is plated with Ni-Pd, at least in an embodiment
where a gold plating material is also applied.
Paragraph 0019 in Trunk states: “In the embodiment illustrated, the
sheet of plates has a core plate material (not shown). In this embodiment,
the core plate material is nickel.”
In describing the second embodiment at the end of paragraph 0020,
Trunk states: “ . . . where the plating material is gold, or another precious
metal, the core plate material would be plated with Ni-Rh, Ni-Pd, or Ni-Au.”
Thus, in paragraph 0019 Trunk discloses that the core plate material in
the embodiment illustrated is nickel. In paragraph 0020 Trunk further
discloses the core orifice plate (in this case, nickel) plated with a
palladium-nickel alloy. The claims do not recite the composition of the core
orifice plate. Claims 1, 7, and 14 simply recite a core plate and a palladium
nickel alloy plated on substantially all of its surfaces. Given their broadest
reasonable interpretation, the claims are sufficiently broad to cover a core
plate (in Trunk’s case nickel) plated with Ni-Pd, regardless of the presence
of additional gold plating.
Therefore, we see no error in the Examiner’s application of Trunk in
combination with Adavikolanu and DeBoer as the basis of rejecting the
broadly-recited claims 1, 7, and 14.

Appeal 2010-003619
Application 11/264,830

6 

The Obviousness Rejection of Claims 2, 3, 6, 8, 9, 12, 13, 15, and 16
In rejecting dependent claims 2, 3, 8, 9, 15, and 16 over Adavikolanu,
DeBoer, and Trunk as applied above, the Examiner relies on Etheridge from
the same endeavor of orifice plate making to teach the claimed palladium-
nickel alloy comprising a 50-80% palladium mixture (claims 2, 8, and 15)
and the claimed palladium nickel alloy that comprises about 70 parts
palladium and 30 parts nickel (claims 3, 9, and 16). In rejecting dependent
claims 6, 12, and 13, the Examiner relies on Nobel to teach the claimed
palladium-nickel alloy of approximately 0.5 µm (claims 6 and 12) and a
brightener (claim 13). (Ans. 7-8).
The Examiner’s reliance on Etheridge is misplaced. As Appellants
point out (App. Br. 16), in column 17, lines 55-62, Etheridge discloses that
palladium nickel alloys may be employed to produce internal support
member 200. Etheridge does not teach a coating over a core orifice plate.
We turn now to the teachings in Noble. Appellants argue that because
Nobel teaches palladium and palladium alloys used to form contact surfaces
for electrical contacts or connectors, Nobel is non-analogous art in the
context of a printhead orifice plate. (App. Br. 17). However, Appellants
quote from a portion of the Specification (Reply Br. 8 (citing to Spec. ¶
[0031])), which states “[t]he incorporation of a palladium-nickel alloy . . .
results in a plating material . . . that can be made thinner than traditional gold
and palladium coatings, while providing equivalent corrosion resistance and
improved wear resistance.” The Specification of the present application also
discusses corrosion resistance and porosity at paragraphs 0040 and
0041. Thus, the problem the inventor is involved with is developing a
coating which “has equivalent corrosion resistance in our reference inks”
Appeal 2010-003619
Application 11/264,830

7 

and “is less porous and has better ware [sic] resistance compared to
traditional gold and palladium coatings.” (Spec. ¶ [0043]).
The Examiner’s Answer notes that one skilled in the art of making an
orifice plate using alloys, including alloys of palladium and nickel, would be
motivated to use conventional concentrations of palladium and nickel in
forming the alloy. The Examiner then notes that Nobel teaches the claimed
ranges and concentrations to provide ductility, porosity, and resistance to
corrosion. (Ans. 16). As noted above, providing corrosion resistance and
improved wear resistance is the problem the inventor identifies as addressed
by the claimed palladium nickel plating. See, e.g., claim 14. In the absence
of any other basis for concluding that the art is not analogous, the Examiner
did not err in concluding that, whether or not Nobel is in the same field of
endeavor, it is still reasonably pertinent to the problem with which the
inventor is involved. See In re Klein, 647 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
As noted in the Examiner’s Answer at page 16, Nobel discloses a
palladium/nickel alloy having 20-95% by weight of palladium, which
overlaps the range in claims 2, 8, and 15, and further discloses a preferable
range of 60-80%, which approximates the range in these claims, to improve
ductility and reduce porosity. Turning to claims 3, 9, and 16, Nobel also
discloses improving porosity and cracking of a copper strip by first plating it
with 5 microinches of 70% palladium, 30% nickel alloy. (Col. 5, ll. 9-30).
Turning to claims 6 and 12, as the Examiner notes at pages 17 through 18 of
the Examiner’s Answer, Nobel particularly teaches a palladium-nickel alloy
comprising a thickness of 0.5µm at column 2, lines 55-56.
Appeal 2010-003619
Application 11/264,830

8 

Turning to claim 13, the Examiner’s Answer at pages 18 through 19
notes that Nobel discloses a brightener at column 2, line 67, to column 3,
line 15.
None of the Examiner’s assertions concerning the ranges in these
claims or Nobel’s disclosure of a brightener appear to be challenged by
Appellants.
Although Etheridge fails to teach the recited limitations in disputed
claims, Nobel, which is analogous art, is also relied on by the Examiner to
teach the disputed limitations. Thus, we find no error in the Examiner’s
rejection of the claims over the combination of Adavikolanu, DeBoer, and
Trunk and further in view of Nobel and Etheridge.

CONCLUSION
Under § 103 we find no error in the Examiner’s rejections of claims
1-18.

ORDER
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-18 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)(iv).

AFFIRMED

babc