Ex Parte Reichelsheimer et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 16, 2015

12107930 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 16, 2015)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte JAY REICHELSHEIMER, and
BERNARD A. RICHARD
____________

Appeal 2013-004616
Application 12/107,930
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, CHUNG K. PAK, and BEVERLY A.
FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judges.

GARRIS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134, Appellants appeal from the Examiner’s
rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 11, 13, and 14 as unpatentable
over Martin (US 2004/0109054 A1, published Jun. 10, 2004) in view of
Ruhe (US 2001/0001560 A1, published May 24, 2001) and Fish et al., (US
6,457,801 B1, issued Oct. 1, 2002) (Final Action 2–5) and of claim 15 as
unpatentable over these references in combination with Bolcom (US

Appeal 2013-004616
Application 12/107,930

2
2,250,352, issued July 22, 1941) (id. at 5). We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6.
We affirm.

Appellants claim a system for drying printed ink on a face of an
envelope comprising a conveyor system including a conveyor deck, a dryer
disposed over the conveyor deck to dry the printed ink, a sensing device
which includes a source of light energy, an intensity sensor, and a timing
device, and a processor operative to adapt the dryer to a desired dryer
configuration (sole independent claim 11).

A copy of representative claim 11, taken from the Claims Appendix of
the Appeal Brief, appears below.
11. A system for drying printed ink on a face of an envelope,
comprising:
a conveyor system including a conveyor deck and a
motor for driving the conveyor deck, the conveyor deck
operative to receive and convey the envelope;
a dryer disposed over the conveyor deck and operative to
dry the printed ink on the envelope, the dryer having at least
one variable output element for producing a plurality of dryer
configurations;
a sensing device operative to measure a penetration time
indicative of a time elapsed to dry the printed ink from a liquid
state, the sensing device including:
a source of light energy for illuminating a surface of the
printed ink while in a liquid state;

Appeal 2013-004616
Application 12/107,930

3
an intensity sensor operative to measure an intensity of
light energy reflected from the surface of the printed ink, and
a timing device for measuring the penetration time, and
a processor operative to adapt the dryer to a desired dryer
configuration based upon the penetration time.

Appellants’ arguments are directed to limitations in claims 11 and 15
only (Br. 7–15). Remaining claims 13 and 14 will stand or fall with their
parent claim 11.

We sustain the above rejections based on the findings of fact,
conclusions of law, and rebuttals to arguments expressed in the Final Action
and in the Answer. The comments below are added for emphasis.

Concerning the rejection of claim 11, Appellants argue “there is
clearly no motivation to combine the references inasmuch as the Fish et al.
reference indicates that systems which blow air across such as the Martin et
al. reference have little value and should be supplanted by the teachings of
the Fish et al. reference” (Br. 10). As for the rejection of claim 15,
Appellants argue “the Examiner has failed to show how one skilled in the art
of ink drying would reasonably seek out and combine the teachings found in
a reference [i.e., Bolcom] directed to the art of conditioning ambient air” (id.
at 11).

Appeal 2013-004616
Application 12/107,930

4
These arguments were previously advanced during prosecution and
rebutted by the Examiner in the Final Action (Final Action 5–6). In their
Brief, Appellants merely reiterate the arguments without addressing, much
less identifying error in, the Examiner’s rebuttals. Similarly, the
corresponding rebuttals presented in the Answer (Ans. 2–5) are not
addressed by Appellants (i.e., no Reply Brief has been filed). These
circumstances highlight Appellants’ failure to show any error in the
rejections on appeal.

The decision of the Examiner 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.

AFFIRMED

lp