12992522 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 12, 2017)

Ex Parte Perrier

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 12, 2017

12992522 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 12, 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. 12/992,522 11/12/2010 Jacques Perrier 1322.1153101 7944 28075 7590 04/14/2017 SEAGER, TUFTE & WICKHEM, LLP 100 SOUTH 5TH STREET SUITE 600 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402 EXAMINER PAIK, SANG YEOP ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3742 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/14/2017 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): GEN .USPTO@stwiplaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JACQUES PERRIER Appeal 2015-0072471 Application 12/992,5222 Technology Center 3700 Before CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, BRUCE T. WIEDER, TARA L. HUTCHINGS, Administrative Patent Judges. HUTCHINGS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1—6, 8—19, and 21—24. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 Our decision references Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,” filed Feb. 4, 2015) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed July 30, 2015), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed June 4, 2015) and Final Office Action (“Final Act.,” mailed May 28, 2014). 2 Appellant identifies KBA-Notasys S.A. as the real party in interest. App. Br. 3. Appeal 2015-007247 Application 12/992,522 CLAIMED INVENTION Appellant’s claimed invention “generally relates to the field of intaglio printing as applied for the production of security papers, including banknotes, duty stamps, banderols or labels, identification or travel documents, etc.” Spec. 11. Claims 1 and 13 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1, reproduced below with added paragraphing, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method for manufacturing intaglio printing plates for the production of security papers, wherein a laser beam produced by a laser engraving unit is used to engrave intaglio printing patterns directly into a surface of a laser-engravable printing plate medium, wherein laser engraving of the printing plate medium is carried out layer by layer in several individual engraving steps performed one after the other in register so that the intaglio printing patterns are gradually engraved into the surface of the printing plate medium up to desired engraving depths, the surface of the engraved printing plate medium being cleaned from residues of the laser engraving process following and between each individual engraving step while the laser engraving unit is inoperative, wherein the laser beam produced by the laser engraving unit is directed towards the surface of the printing plate medium, the laser engraving unit being moved during each individual engraving step from a start position to an end position over the surface of the printing plate medium, and wherein cleaning of the surface of the engraved printing plate medium is performed while the laser engraving unit, which is inoperative, is moved back from the end position to the start position. 2 Appeal 2015-007247 Application 12/992,522 REJECTION Claims 1—6, 8—19, and 21—24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Daly (US 3,636,251, iss. Jan. 18, 1972) or Giori (US 2004/0232108 Al, pub. Nov. 25, 2004); Juffmger (US 6,857,365 B2, iss. Feb. 22, 2005) or Fleming (US 6,285,001 Bl, iss. Sept. 4, 2001); and Handke (US 5,006,694, iss. Apr. 9, 1991). ANALYSIS We are persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because the combination of Daly or Giori; Juffmger or Fleming; and Handke does not disclose or suggest the surface of the engraved printing plate medium being cleaned from residues of the laser engraving process following and between each individual engraving step while the laser engraving unit is inoperative, . . . [and] wherein cleaning of the surface of the engraved printing plate medium is performed while the laser engraving unit, which is inoperative, is moved back from the end position to the start position[,] as recited in claim 1, and similarly recited in claim 13. App. Br. 7—9; see also Reply Br. 1—2. In rejecting claims 1 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), the Examiner relies on Daly or Giori for disclosing a laser beam to engrave intaglio printing patterns. Final Act. 2. The Examiner acknowledges that neither Daly nor Giori describes that: (1) the laser engraving is carried out layer by layer, and (2) the engraved printing plate medium is cleaned from residues between individual steps. Id. at 3. The Examiner relies on Juffmger or 3 Appeal 2015-007247 Application 12/992,522 Fleming as disclosing laser engraving layer by layer. And the Examiner relies on Handke as disclosing that “it is known to provide a laser unit with a cleaning unit which includes a rotating brush.” Id. (citing Handke, col. 2,11. 23-37). The Examiner finds that Handke “discloses for the laser operation that is a closed or open loop manner [that] the work piece is subject to further treatment subsequent to the laser operations.” Final Act. 4. And the Examiner determines that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art “to provide the laser unit positioned in any positions including the start and the end positions,” because “Juffmger also teaches ... a single or successive/repeated beams performed one after the other.” Id. Handke describes a tool carrier that carries a laser head, a thermal unit, a mechanical cleaning unit, and a gas flow unit of other tool units. Handke, col. 3,11. 45—50. The thermal unit applies a laser head to soften a coating of the workpiece to facilitate its removal by a brush of the mechanical cleaning unit. Id. at col. 3,11. 57—59, col. 4,11. 1—2. The mechanical cleaning unit removes a coating or other contaminations from the surface of the work piece. Id. at col. 4,11. 5—8. The gas flow blows or sucks any particles remaining on the surface of the workpiece after the operation of the thermal unit and cleaning unit. Id. at col. 4,11. 30-40. We fail to see how, and the Examiner does not adequately explain how, Handke’s description of cleaning a work piece surface before and after completion of a laser operation (e.g., welding or cutting), and Juffmger’s disclosure of engraving layer by layer discloses or suggests the argued limitation of cleaning the surface of the engraved printing plate medium from residues of the laser engraving process following and between each 4 Appeal 2015-007247 Application 12/992,522 individual engraving step while the laser engraving unit is inoperative, wherein cleaning of the surface of the engraved printing plate medium is performed while the laser engraving unit, which is inoperative, is moved back from the end position to the start position, as required by claims 1 and 13. For example, Juffmger describes creating an engraving pattern by successive laser beams, but is silent on cleaning. Handke describes cleaning using a rotating brush, but does not relate to cleaning during an engraving process, applies heat before cleaning, cleans either before or after the laser operation (e.g., welding or cutting) is complete, but does not describe tying the start and end positions for cleaning to those used by a laser engraving unit or other laser unit. In view of the foregoing, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1 and 13, and dependent claims 2—6, 8—12, 14—19, 21-24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—6, 8—19, and 21—24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed. REVERSED 5