Ex Parte Keefe et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 28, 2017

13819902 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 28, 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.
13/819,902 02/28/2013 Brian J. Keefe 83200340 6268
22879
HP Tnr
7590 03/30/2017 EXAMINER
3390 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 35
HUFFMAN, JULIAN D
FORT COLLINS, CO 80528-9544 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2853
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/30/2017 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):
ipa.mail@hp.com
barbl@hp.com
y vonne.bailey @ hp. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BRIAN J. KEEFE, JOSEPH E. SCHEFFELIN,
JAMES W. RING, and MARK A. DEVRIES
Appeal 2016-002047
Application 13/819,902
Technology Center 2800
Before CHRISTOPHER C. KENNEDY, JULIA HEANEY, and
JENNIFER R. GUPTA, Administrative Patent Judges.
GUPTA, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL1
Appellants2 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision finally rejecting claims 1, 2, 4—8, 14—16, and 18—20. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 In this decision, we refer to the Final Office Action mailed December 18,
2014 (“Final Act.”), the Appeal Brief filed April 16, 2015 (“App. Br.”), the
Examiner’s Answer mailed October 5, 2015 (“Ans.”), and the Reply Brief
filed December 3, 2015 (“Reply Br.”).
2 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Hewlett-Packard
Development Company, LP, a wholly owned affiliate of Hewlett-Packard
Company. App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2016-002047
Application 13/819,902
Claims 1 and 14, reproduced below with emphasis on the key disputed
limitations, are illustrative of the claims on appeal.
1. A print module comprising:
a print head die;
an input regulator to regulate input fluid pressure to the die; and
an output regulator to regulate output fluid pressure from the die;
wherein both the input and output regulators comprise a
mechanical system responsive to pressure so as to actuate a
valve.
14. A printing system comprising:
a print module having a printhead die and an input regulator and
output regulator to control ink pressure to and from the die; and
a pressure delivery mechanism to deliver ink to the print module;
wherein the output regulator comprises a normally-open valve
configured to close when pressure falls below a set point
pressure to maintain a backpressure in the print module.
App. Br. 16—17.
DISCUSSION
The Examiner maintains the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of
claims 1, 2, 4—8, 14—16, and 18—20 as unpatentable over Cowger et al.
(US 5,565,900, issued October 15, 1996) in view of Akahane
(US 2007/0182792 Al, published August 9, 2007) and Waller et al.
(US 6,428,156 Bl, issued August 6, 2002). Final Act. 2—6.
We focus on independent claims 1 and 14, which include the argued
limitations, in deciding the issues on appeal.
Appellants argue that the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 should be
reversed because “[tjhere is no description in any of the references of an
2
Appeal 2016-002047
Application 13/819,902
‘output regulator’ that comprises ‘a mechanical system responsive to
pressure so as to actuate a valve.” App. Br. 12.
Appellants’ argument is persuasive of reversible error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. The Examiner relies on Waller for teaching
“an output regulator to regulate output fluid pressure from the die” wherein
the output regulator comprises “a mechanical system responsive to pressure
so as to actuate a valve.” Final Act. 4. The Examiner finds that Waller
discloses “a recirculating printhead with both input (107—109) and output
pressure (111—113) regulation.” Id. Waller discloses pressure sensors 108,
112 positioned upstream and downstream, respectively, of a printhead that
provide signals regarding entrance and exit pressures to a controller 101.
Waller 4:33—36. The controller 101 may comprise any of a microcontroller,
microprocessor, digital signal processor or the like, or any combination
thereof, that executes stored software instructions. Id. at 3:19—22. The
controller 101 controls various valves, such as supply valve 105, entrance
valve 107, exit valve 113, pump 117, and return valve 118 (e.g.,
opening/closing these valves), based on this input to regulate backpressures
of the printhead. Id. at 2:11—18, 3:18—26, 4:21—23, and 4:32—35; see also id.
at 3:63 -4:6 (teaching that the supply valve 105 regulates backpressure by
controlling ink flow to the printhead 110 and is cycled on/off by the
controller 101 based on pressure sensor input received by the controller 110
from entrance pressure sensor 108) and 5:31—75 (teaching that the pump 117
and/or the return valve 118 regulates the pressure downstream of the
printhead 110 and is controlled by the controller 101 based on input from
exit pressure sensor 112).
3
Appeal 2016-002047
Application 13/819,902
Although Waller clearly teaches regulating output fluid pressure from
the die, the Examiner has not established that Waller teaches or suggests an
output regulator comprising “a mechanical system responsive to pressure so
as to actuate a valve.” That is, as Appellants point out, Waller describes a
controller 101 that electrically actuates input and output valves (107, 113).
App. Br. 11. In addition, on this record, the Examiner has not sufficiently
explained why it would have been obvious to take Akahane’s input regulator
that regulates input fluid pressure to the die, and which Appellants do not
dispute is a mechanical system responsive to pressure to actuate a valve (see
App. Br. 9-13 ; see Reply Br. 6), and duplicate it as an output regulator to
regulate output fluid pressure from the die. Accordingly, we do not sustain
the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1 or dependent claims 2, 4—8,
and 18—20, which depend from claim 1.
Appellants argue that the Examiner’s rejection of claim 14 should be
reversed because “none of the cited references teach or suggest the claimed
printing system in which ‘the output regulator comprises a normally-open
valve configured to close when pressure falls below a set point pressure to
maintain a backpressure in the print module.’” App. Br. 13.
Appellants’ argument is persuasive of reversible error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 14. In the Final Action, the Examiner merely
rejects claim 14 “for similar reasons as claim 1.” Final Act. 4. However, in
response to Appellants’ argument, the Examiner cites paragraphs 127
through 129 of Akahane and finds this disclosure teaches “[a] normally open
output pressure regulator valve allows the fluid to freely flow out of the
printhead.” Ans. 5. Akahane does not teach or suggest any output pressure
regulator, which the Examiner acknowledges (Final Act. 4), let alone a
4
Appeal 2016-002047
Application 13/819,902
normally-open output regulator. Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of independent claim 14 or dependent claims 15 and 16, which
depend from claim 14.
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 4—8,
14—16, and 18—20 is reversed.
REVERSED
5