11526449 (B.P.A.I. May. 15, 2012)

Ex Parte Hieronymus et al

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesMay 15, 2012

11526449 (B.P.A.I. May. 15, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE 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. 11/526,449 09/25/2006 Jens Hieronymus A-4401 3854 24131 7590 05/16/2012 LERNER GREENBERG STEMER LLP P O BOX 2480 HOLLYWOOD, FL 33022-2480 EXAMINER CULLER, JILL E ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2854 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/16/2012 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________________ Ex parte JENS HIERONYMUS, JURGEN MICHELS, DIETER SCHAFFRATH, WOLFGANG SCHONBERGER, BERNHARD SCHWAAB, and MICHAEL THIELEMANN ____________________ Appeal 2010-003603 Application 11/526,449 Technology Center 2800 ____________________ Before BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, ERIC B. CHEN, and BRIAN J. McNAMARA, Administrative Patent Judges. McNAMARA, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-003603 Application 11/526,449 2 SUMMARY This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1-3 and 5. Claims 4 and 9-6 have been cancelled. Claims 1-3 and 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Fischer (DE 19736339) in view of Desaulniers (US 6,505,557). We affirm. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants’ invention pertains to methods of controlling temperatures in a press and to a press having a temperature control device in which a plurality of screen rollers have their temperatures individually and variably controlled by separate circuits, while a plurality of application rollers are controlled to the same temperature using a single control circuit. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method for controlling a temperature of a press having an applicator roller, a screen roller, a further applicator roller, and a further screen roller, which comprises the step of: controlling a temperature of the screen roller at different temperatures; controlling the temperature of the screen roller at a different temperature than a temperature of the further screen roller; controlling the temperature of the screen roller and the further screen roller with separate temperature control medium circuits; controlling a temperature of the applicator roller at a constant temperature; and controlling the temperature of the applicator roller and the further applicator rollers with a common temperature control medium circuit. Appeal 2010-003603 Application 11/526,449 3 CONTENTIONS The Examiner relies on Fischer’s disclosure of a press with an ink application roller 4 and screen roller 3, as well as Fischer’s disclosure (see page5, line 9 through page 6, line 12), which teaches, for example, the ability to adjust the temperature gradient such that the temperature T1 of the screen roller 3 is lower than the temperature T2 of the ink application roller 4. The Examiner notes that the teachings in Fischer would encompass the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language, since they would cover setting the temperatures for each different print job (see, present claim 2) and the set values of the screen roller temperature and the application roller temperature can be changed or maintained after being set (see present claim 3). (Ans. 3-5). The Examiner agrees that Fischer does not teach more than one application roller and one screen roller, i.e., the “further applicator roller” and “further screen roller” recited in the claims. The Examiner relies on Desaulniers to disclose a press with a plurality of press units 10, each with inking rollers 14. The Examiner notes that Desaulniers discloses process temperature control including an overall control system and individual temperature control circuits for the inking units, such that the temperature of the inking rollers are controlled to be the same or different for each press unit. The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to modify the teaching of Fischer to include further inking units as taught by Desaulniers. Appellants contend that Desaulniers’ press does not have screen rollers and therefore does not disclose any temperature controlled screen rollers. (App. Br. 6-7). In the absence of any temperature controlled screen rollers, Appellants argue that Desaulniers cannot be relied upon to disclose Appeal 2010-003603 Application 11/526,449 4 separate temperature control medium circuits for the screen rollers. (App. Br. 8). Appellants also contend that the application rollers in Desaulniers are unlabeled rollers resting on plate cylinder 16 and 16a and are not temperature controlled. (App. Br. 8). ISSUE Have Appellants demonstrated the Examiner erred in concluding that Desaulniers teaches process temperature control including an overall control system and individual temperature control circuits for the inking units, such that the temperature of the inking rollers are controlled to be the same or different for each press unit? ANALYSIS Appellants indicate that they “completely understand the German language Fischer reference.” (App. Br. 6). There appears to be no dispute concerning the Examiner’s application of the Fischer reference. Appellants argue, however, that Desaulniers does not disclose screen rollers, temperature controlled screen rollers or screen rollers with separate temperature control medium circuits (App. Br. 7-8) or controlling the application rollers with a common temperature control medium circuit. (App. Br. 8). We turn first to the Appellants’ contentions concerning the application rollers. In the Final Rejection, the Examiner refers to Desaulniers controlling the temperature of inking rollers 14. Appellants contend Desaulniers discloses vibration rollers 14 that are not application rollers. Appellants also contend that the application rollers are unlabeled Appeal 2010-003603 Application 11/526,449 5 rollers shown in Figure 1 and Figure 4 which make contact with plate 16, which Appellants say are not temperature controlled. Appellants do not describe the purpose or use for the vibration rollers 14 referenced in the rejection. The disclosure in Desaulniers supports the Examiner’s reference to the vibration rollers 14 as inking rollers which are temperature controlled. Desaulniers refers to the rollers in question as roller assembly 14 or ink roller train 14 from which ink in reservoir 12 is applied to the printing plate cylinder 16. (Col. 16, ll. 9-12). In the context of water based lithography, Desaulniers teaches that a water based dampening solution roller train 18 applies dampening solution to the plate cylinder 16. The ink film from roller assembly 14 is applied immediately on top of the dampening solution film on the printing plate of plate cylinder 16. (Col. 16, ll. 9-12). The Examiner cites col. 17, ll. 7-55 where Desaulniers refers to “ink vibrator rollers 14.” Here, Desaulniers teaches that using temperature controller 46, coolant flow is delivered to the ink vibration roller train 14 to a plurality of press units 10 allowing the press operator to control the ink process temperature for each unit of the press. Thus, contrary to Appellants’ contention, we agree with the Examiner that Desaulniers does disclose controlling the temperature of multiple rollers which apply ink to a printing plate with a common temperature control circuit. Turning to the combination of the references, the Examiner agrees that Desaulniers does not disclose temperature controlled screen rollers but instead relies on Desaulniers to disclose controlling the temperature of multiple press inking units. According to the Examiner, the teaching of Fischer is sufficient to teach the separate control of additional screen and Appeal 2010-003603 Application 11/526,449 6 application rollers, if Fischer were modified to have additional press units, since Desaulniers teaches an overall temperature controller that facilitates controlling individual press units to the same or different temperatures. (Ans. 5-6). Since we agree with the Examiner that Desaulniers discloses controlling the temperature of multiple application rollers with a common temperature control circuit, and since Appellants have offered no other arguments for why the references cannot be combined, we find no error in the Examiner’s rejection of the claims 1-3 and 5 over Fischer in view of Desaulniers. DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-3 and 5 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 rwk