Ex Parte Luckhardt et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 19, 2016

12824348 (P.T.A.B. May. 19, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/824,348 06/28/2010
24131 7590 05/23/2016
LERNER GREENBERG STEMER LLP
PO BOX 2480
HOLLYWOOD, FL 33022-2480
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Ulrich Luckhardt
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.
A-4916 9765
EXAMINER
BANH, DAVID H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2854
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/23/2016 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):
boxoa@patentusa.com
docket@patentusa.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE
THE PA TENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ULRICH LUCKHARDT, 1
Oliver Nowarra, and Willi Stutz
Appeal2014-007399
Application 12/824,348
Technology Center 2800
Before MARK NAGUMO, MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, and
N. WHITNEY WILSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
NAGUMO, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Ulrich Luckhardt, Oliver Nowarra, and Willi Stutz ("Luckhardt")
timely appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection2 of
claims 1-10, which are all of the pending claims. We have jurisdiction.
35 U.S.C. § 6. We affirm.
1 The real party in interest is listed as Heidelberger Druckmaschinen
Aktiengesellschaft. (Appeal Brief, filed 27 September 2013 ("Br."), 2.)
2 Office action mailed 11April2013 ("Final Rejection"; cited as "FR").
Appeal2014-007399
Application 12/824,348
A. Introduction3
OPINION
The subject matter on appeal relates to lithographic offset printing, in
particular, to a method of maintaining the ink profile when the printing
operation must be interrupted, e.g., to remove jammed sheets.
The '348 Specification explains that the ink profile is "the layer of ink
applied to the rollers and cylinders in the printing unit of a lithographic
offset printing press." (Spec. 1 [0003].) The Specification explains that the
ink profile is "flattened or at least changes" when application of the ink to
the plate cylinder is interrupted, so the ink profile required for continuous
printing operations must be re-established when printing resumes.
(Id. at 2 [0003].) Moreover, if the inking unit is stopped entirely, stripes are
said to be formed on the first printed sheets when printing is resumed.
(Id. at 3 [0006].) The claimed invention is said to avoid these problems by
reducing, but not stopping, the operating speed of the inking unit in relation
to the operating speed of the cylinders for transporting printing material or
for applying ink to the printing material. The changes to the ink profile are
said to be minimized. (Id. at 4-5 [0009].)
According to the Specification, lithographic offset printing presses are
comprised of a number of substantially identical printing units that in tum
comprise inking units and dampening units that provide the ink emulsion
necessary for the printing process. The inking units provide a hydrophobic
3 Application 12/824,348, Method of controlling an ink profile in an inking
unit during interruptions of a printing operation, filed 28 June 2010,
claiming the benefit of an application filed in Germany on 26 June 2009.
We refer to the '"348 Specification," which we cite as "Spec."
2
Appeal2014-007399
Application 12/824,348
ink that sticks to the areas that are to be imaged, while the dampening units
provide an aqueous film that prevents ink from sticking to the areas that are
to remain unprinted. In the printing unit, the ink emulsion is transferred to a
printing plate on the plate cylinder. The image is then transferred to a
blanket cylinder [the "offset" step], which in tum transfers the image to the
printing material in a nip formed between the blanket cylinder and an
opposed impression cylinder. Transport cylinders between the printing units
transport the printing material from one printing unit to the next. According
to the Specification, "[t]he present invention may be applied to sheet-fed
rotary lithographic offset printing presses and to web-fed rotary lithographic
offset printing presses." (Id. at [0009], 1st sentence.)
The claims on appeal are limited to sheet-fed processes of lithographic
offset printing, and are represented by Claim 1, which reads:
A method of controlling an ink profile in an inking unit of a
sheet-fed lithographic offset printing press, the method
comprising the following steps:
providing a printing unit with the inking unit and with
cylinders for transporting sheet printing material or for
applying printing ink to the sheet printing material,
one of the cylinders being a plate cylinder;
reducing an operating speed of the inking unit in relation to
an operating speed of the cylinders for
transporting sheet printing material or
for applying printing ink to the sheet printing material
when the sheet-fed lithographic offset printing press is running
and transport of the sheet printing material is switched off;
continuing to operate the inking unit at a reduced speed; and
disengaging the inking unit from the plate cylinder during
operation at a reduced speed.
(Claims App., Br. 11; some indentation, paragraphing, and emphasis added.)
3
Appeal2014-007399
Application 12/824,348
The limitation to sheet-fed processes was introduced in the
amendment filed 1 April 2013.
The Examiner maintains the following grounds of rejection4 :
A. Claims 1-3 and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) in
view of W eschenfelder5 .
Al. Claims 4, 5, and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in
view of the combined teachings of W eschenfelder and
Kuhlmeyer6 .
A2. Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of
the combined teachings of W eschenfelder and Eltner 7.
A3. Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of
the combined teachings of W eschenfelder and Endisch8.
A4. Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of
the combined teachings of W eschenfelder and J entzsch9 .
4 Examiner's Answer mailed 21 April 2014 ("Ans.").
5 Kurt Johannes Weschenfelder, Printing Unit, U.S. Patent Application
Publication 2004/003509 Al (2004).
6 Lothar Kuhlmeyer et al., Method for controlling a processing machine for
sheet material, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2009/0071360 Al
(19 March 2009).
7 Bruno Eltner and Bernd Muller, Method of operating a printing machine
... , U.S. Patent No. 6,546,869 Bl (2003).
8 Martin Endisch et al., Process for attaining a production-run state in a
web-fed rotary printing machine, U.S. Patent No. 6,055,907 (2000).
9 Arndt Jentsch and Uwe Becker, Method and apparatus for the retention of
inkprofileforprinting, U.S. Patent No. 6,758,141 Bl (2004).
4
Appeal2014-007399
Application 12/824,348
B. Discussion
Findings of fact throughout this Opinion are supported by a
preponderance of the evidence of record.
Luckhardt present arguments for the patentability of claim 1 only,
arguing that the Examiner erred in finding that W eschenfelder anticipates
the subject matter of claim 1. The remaining claims thus stand or fall with
claim 1.
Claimed subject matter is anticipated if a prior art reference describes,
either expressly or inherently, each and every claim limitation, arranged or
combined as required by the claim, and enables one of skill in the art to
practice an embodiment of the claimed invention without undue
experimentation. See In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
Luckhardt (Br. 4-5) urges first that W eschenfelder does not describe
sheet fed processes in paragraphs [0030], [0036], and [0051 ], cited by the
Examiner (FR 2, 11. 14-15; 7, 11. 8-10). Rather, in Luckhardt's view, "[a]ll
three paragraphs only give a mere example of the running speed of a sheet-
fed press compared to the running speed of a web-fed press. The entire
Specification and all of the figures only show configurations of a web-fed
printing press." (Br. 5, 11. 9-13.)
We do not find this argument persuasive of harmful error in the
Examiner's findings. Weschenfelder is "directed to providing a printing
unit" (Weschenfelder, title and 1 [0003]) in which "[t]he satellite, transfer
and forme cylinders are each capable of running at speeds which are
independent of each other and which are varied in response to operating
requirements" (id. at [004 ], last sentence). In this context, Luckhardt' s
5
Appeal2014-007399
Application 12/824,348
characterization of the references to the rotational speeds of the fonne
cylinder (and in paragraph [0030], the rotational speed of the transfer
cylinder) as gratuitous comparisons is not well-taken. Rather, it seems clear
that the person having ordinary skill in the art would have taken these
remarks as a short-hand description of the use of the disclosed print units in
sheet-fed lithographic processes.
Luckhardt urges further that the Examiner erred in finding that
W eschenfelder teaches switching off sheet printing material transport.
(Br. 6-7.) Luckhardt argues that "switching off the counter-pressure
cylinder 24 does not switch off the printing material transport in
W eschenfelder at all, since for that purpose the web transported through the
printing press must be cut off and the rest of the remaining web has to be
transported out of the printing press." (Id. at 6, 11. 13-16.) "Since it is a
very difficult process to feed-in a new web into a web fed printing press,"
Luckhardt continues, "cutting the web is always avoided if possible.
Therefore, the transport of the web is not switched off, but rather only the
speed of the web transported through the printing press is stopped and the
web always remains in the printing press." (Id. at 11. 16-20.)
These arguments are not persuasive for several reasons. First,
Luckhardt does not cite any evidence of record in support of these
arguments regarding the state of the art. In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405
(CCPA 1974) ("Attorney's argument in a brief cannot take the place of
evidence."). Second, Weschenfelder describes, in paragraph [0064] 10, an
example in which the forme cylinder rotates at a speed appropriate for
changing the printing forme, while the transfer cylinder rotates at a speed
10 Cited by the Examiner at FR 2, 1. 18.
6
Appeal2014-007399
Application 12/824,348
appropriate for washing. The forme cylinder and the transfer cylinder are
moved away from each other, while the inking roller is moved away from
the form cylinder and may rotate at several speeds, including a speed for
continued running "to prevent it from drying out."
(Weschenfelder 4 [0064].) Because it would be wasteful to continue to run
paper through the printing press when no printing is being done, whether in
a sheet-printing process or in a web-printing process, it appears that this is a
complete description of an embodiment of the claimed process.
C. Order
It is ORDERED that the rejection of claims 1-10 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § l.136(a).
AFFIRMED
7