Ex Parte Peleg et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 18, 2018

14407015 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 18, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/407,015 12/10/2014
22879 7590 09/20/2018
HP Inc.
3390 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 35
FORT COLLINS, CO 80528-9544
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Eyal Peleg
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.
84117462 1050
EXAMINER
OLAMIT, JUSTINN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2854
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/20/2018 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
yvonne.bailey@hp.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte EY AL PELEG, SHARAR STEIN, W AEL SALALHA, and
DORON A VRAMOV
Appeal2018-001943
Application 14/407,015
Technology Center 2800
Before GEORGE C. BEST, N. WHITNEY WILSON, and
JEFFREY R. SNAY, Administrative Patent Judges.
SNAY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL 1
Appellants2 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision rejecting claims 1, 5-10, 14, 16, 19, and 21-25. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 We refer to the Specification ("Spec.") filed December 10, 2014, amended
January 28, 2016; Final Office Action ("Final Act.") dated February 24,
2017; Appellants' Appeal Brief ("App. Br.") filed August 29, 2017;
Examiner's Answer ("Ans.") dated October 26, 2017; and Appellants' Reply
Brief ("Reply Br.") dated December 14, 2017.
2 Appellants identify HP Indigo B.V. as the real party in interest. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2018-001943
Application 14/407,015
BACKGROUND
The subject matter of the application on appeal relates to printing.
Spec. ,r 1. According to the Specification, an image is transferred to media
by forming the image on an image forming blanket, and contacting the
blanket with a back-surface supported media. Id. ,r 14. By providing the
supporting structure with a perimeter that is smaller than that of the
supported media, unsupported edges of the media bend and provide a curved
shape for the image forming blanket, thereby reducing edge marks and/or
degradation of the blanket. Id. ,r,r 15-16. Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. An image forming apparatus, comprising:
a raised support image disposed on an impression media,
the raised support image having a flat central portion to receive
a piece of print media thereon, wherein the raised support
image has a support perimeter smaller than a perimeter of the
print media;
a determination unit to determine a type of the raised
support image including a size, shape and thickness of the
raised support image, parameters of the raised support image
being determined by the determination unit corresponding to a
type of the print media:
a print unit to at least one of print a print image to be
transferred by an image forming blanket to the print media and
print the raised support image determined by the determination
unit on the impression media; and
the image forming blanket to transfer the print image to a
front surface of the print media from the image forming blanket
by contacting the print media above the flat central portion of
the raised support image, peripheral portions of the image
forming blanket bending an edge portion of the print media
about the support perimeter of the raised support image.
App. Br. 23 (Claims Appendix). Claim 5 is directed to a method of using
the apparatus recited in claim 1. Independent claim 16 recites essentially an
apparatus as recited in claim 1, but omits the recitation that parameters of the
2
Appeal2018-001943
Application 14/407,015
raised support are determined with reference to the type of print media.
Each remaining claim on appeal depends directly or indirectly from claim 1,
5,or16.
REJECTIONS 3
I. Claims 16 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I02(e) as
anticipated by Sandler. 4
II. Claims 1, 5-10, 14, and 21-25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as unpatentable over Sandler and Hong. 5
OPINION
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellants and in light of the arguments and evidence
produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 107 5 (BP AI 2010)
(precedential), cited with approval in In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed.
Cir. 2011) ("[I]t has long been the Board's practice to require an applicant to
identify the alleged error in the examiner's rejections .... "). After
considering the evidence presented in this Appeal and each of Appellants'
arguments, we are not persuaded that Appellants identify reversible error.
Thus, we affirm the Examiner's rejections for the reasons expressed in the
Final Office Action and Answer. We add the following primarily for
emphasis.
3 Rejections applied against claims 18 and 20 in the Final Office Action
stand withdrawn. See Ans. 3.
4 US 2014/0083315 Al, published March 27, 2014 ("Sandler").
5 US 2011/0149333 Al, published June 23, 2011 ("Hong").
3
Appeal2018-001943
Application 14/407,015
Rejection I
The Examiner finds that Sandler describes an image forming
apparatus, as depicted in Sandler's Figures 1 and 2B, which includes: a
printed raised structures 210, 215; an image forming blanket 122 for
transferring an image to print media; and a print unit 105 which is operable
to print the image onto the blanket 122 and to print the raised structures 210,
215 onto an impression medium 132. Final Act. 3--4. The Examiner finds
that Sandler describes a determination unit based on Sandler' s description of
using digital data to determining a desired relief pattern to be printed onto
the impression medium and subsequently embossed to the print media. Id.
at 3 ( citing Sandler ,r 32).
With regard to Rejection I, Appellants solely argue claim 16.
Appellants argue that Sandler's image forming blanket and printed relief
structures are provided on opposing cylinders, such that the blanket contacts
the relief structures only at a nip between the cylinders. App. Br. 13.
Appellants contend that Sandler' s cylinder arrangement precludes the
Examiner's finding that Sandler's apparatus provides ''peripheral portions of
the image forming blanket bending an edge portion of the print media
around the raised support image." Id. Appellants further argue that the
Examiner's finding that Sandler's apparatus would have been capable of
bending a print medium edge portion as claimed is "speculative." Id. at 14.
We disagree. As Appellants disclose in the Specification, the claimed
engagement between the image forming blanket and raised support image
can be achieved by providing the blanket and support image on opposing
cylinders, such that, in use, print media is delivered to a nip between the
cylinders. Spec. ,r,r 26-27; Fig. 5. Moreover, Sandler's Figure 2C depicts
4
Appeal2018-001943
Application 14/407,015
peripheral portions of blanket 122 bending edge portions of print media 230
around the raised support image features 210, 215. Appellants' argument
does not identify any claimed structural feature that is not described in
Sandler.
Finding Appellants' arguments unpersuasive of reversible error, we
sustain Rejection I. 6
Rejection II
Claim 1 includes the elements of claim 16, and adds that parameters
of the printed raised pattern are determined "corresponding to a type of the
print media." The Examiner finds that Hong teaches choosing a scaling ratio
to fit a printed image to an available paper size. Final Act. 8. The Examiner
finds that one skilled in the art would have had a reason to apply Hong's
teaching to Sandler's apparatus, so that the desired printed raised pattern
could be scaled to fit available print media. Id.
Appellants present the same arguments concerning claim 1 as are
discussed above in connection with claim 16. App. Br. 16. We find these
arguments unpersuasive for the stated reasons.
Appellants additionally argue that the Examiner erred in relying on
Hong because Hong relates to an image to be printed, not a printed raised
structure. App. Br. 17. Appellants' argument does not address the ground
6 Appellants newly argue in the Reply Brief that Sandler's system does not
transfer an image from the blanket to the print media by contacting the print
media above the flat central portion of the raised support. Reply Br. 4--5.
Appellants have not shown good cause explaining why these arguments
were not raised in the Appeal Brief. Therefore, these arguments have not
been considered. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b )(2).
5
Appeal2018-001943
Application 14/407,015
of rejection, which is premised on the combined teachings of Sandler and
Hong. The Examiner finds, and Appellants do not dispute, that Sandler
describes a determination unit for identifying parameters of the printed
raised pattern. The Examiner relies on Hong for its teaching of using
available paper size as a factor in determining print parameters (i.e., scaling).
The fact that Hong discloses the use of paper-dependent scaling for printing
an image does not negate the applicability of Hong's teaching of scaling to
Sandler's printing of a raised pattern for embossment to an available print
medium.
Appellants separately argue claim 5, but present only the same
argument made with regard to claims 1 and 16 based on Sandler' s provision
of the blanket and printed relief pattern on opposing cylinders. This
argument is unpersuasive for the reasons stated above.
Appellants separately argue claim 6, contending that Sandler
determines the size and shape of printed relief structures to correspond to the
desired pattern to be embossed, not based on the type of print media. App.
Br. 19. As discussed above, Hong provides a reason to include available
print media type as a consideration in determining scaling parameters for the
printed relief structures.
Appellants also separately argue claim 24, contending that it would
have not been obvious to provide Sandler's printed relief pattern with a
slanted edge because "a slant cannot be embossed into a sheet." App. Br.
19--20. However, Appellants do not present evidence or credible technical
reasoning to substantiate the contention that a slanted edge cannot be
embossed. According, the argument is not persuasive.
6
Appeal2018-001943
Application 14/407,015
For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded of error in the
Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 5, 6, and 24. No other claim subject to this
ground of rejection is separately argued. Accordingly, we sustain Rejection
II as applied to each rejected claim.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 5-10, 14, 16, 19, and 21-
25 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).
AFFIRMED
7