Ex Parte Rizika et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 16, 2017

13775704 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 16, 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.
13/775,704 02/25/2013 Daniel J. Rizika 103659-25 1695
21125 7590 10/18/2017
NUTTER MCCLENNEN & FISH LLP
SEAPORT WEST
155 SEAPORT BOULEVARD
BOSTON, MA 02210-2604
EXAMINER
FERGUSON SAMRETH, MARISSA LIANA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2854
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/18/2017 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):
docket @ nutter.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DANIEL J. RIZIKA, GARY LITMAN, and JOSEPH LLANES
Appeal 2016-007901
Application 13/775,704
Technology Center 2800
Before: CHUNG K. PAK, CHRISTOPHER L. OGDEN, and
JANE E. INGLESE, Administrative Patent Judges.
INGLESE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant requests our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of a final
rejection of claims 48—62.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant claims a method of transporting a freshly printed sheet in a
printing press from a first printing station that applies a first color to the
sheet, to a second printing station that applies a second color to the sheet,
using one or more transfer cylinders that transport the sheet between the
printing stations. App. Br. 1—2. Claim 48 illustrates the subject matter on
1 Appellants identify PrintGuard, Inc. as the real party in interest Appeal
Brief filed December 28, 2015 (“App Br”), 1.
Appeal 2016-007901
Application 13/775,704
appeal and is reproduced below:
48. (Previously Presented) A method of transporting a
freshly printed sheet in a printing press from a first printing
station applying a first color to the sheet to a second printing
station applying a second color to the sheet using one or more
transfer cylinders for transporting the sheet between the printing
stations, comprising:
applying one or more transfer cylinders to receive the freshly
printed sheet from the first printing station, at least one of the one or
more transfer cylinders including a sheet supporting covering, the
sheet supporting covering having:
an inner layer having a flexible material that is resilient to
compressive forces;
and an outer layer having a flexible film substrate layer
and a textured surface comprising elements partially embedded
in a flexible adhesive supported by and protruding from a first
side of the flexible film substrate layer;
wherein the flexible film substrate layer is fixed, on a
side opposite its first side, to the flexible material so that there
is no relative movement between the inner and outer layers and
the textured surface faces, in a direction away from the flexible
material;
wherein the sheet supporting covering is disposed on the
transfer cylinder so that the flexible material faces in a direction
towards the transfer cylinder and the textured surface faces
away from the transfer cylinder so that the textured surface
directly contacts the freshly printed sheet;
further applying the one or more transfer cylinders to
deliver the freshly printed sheet to the second printing station.
App. Br. Claims Appendix.
2
Appeal 2016-007901
Application 13/775,704
The Examiner sets forth the following rejections in the Final Office
Action entered November 26, 2014 (“Final Act.”), and maintains the
rejections in the Answer entered June 17, 2016 (“Ans.”):
I. Claims 48, 52, 53, 55 and 61 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Buckley (US 5,829,354, issued November 3, 1998) in
view of Cross (US 2,555,319, issued June 5, 1951);
II. Claims 49—51 and 60 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Buckley in view of Cross and Freeley (US 4,574,697, issued March 11,
1986);
III. Claims 54, 56—58, and 62 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Buckley in view of Cross and DeMoore et al. (US
6,192,800 Bl, issued February 27, 2001, hereinafter “DeMoore”); and
IV. Claim 59 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Buckley in view of Cross and Gecic (6,640,520 B2, issued November 4,
2003).
DISCUSSION
Upon consideration of the evidence relied-upon in this appeal and the
respective positions of the Examiner and Appellant, we do not sustain the
Examiner’s rejections of claims 48—62 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for the
reasons set forth in the Appeal Brief and below.
Rejection I
We decide the appeal as to Rejection I based on independent claim 48
because the remaining claims subject to this ground of rejection (52, 53, 55,
and 61) depend directly or indirectly from claim 48, and thus include all the
limitations of claim 48.
3
Appeal 2016-007901
Application 13/775,704
The Examiner finds that Buckley discloses a method of transporting a
freshly printed sheet in a printing press from a first printing station that
applies a first color to the sheet, to a second printing station that applies a
second color to the sheet, using one or more transfer cylinders. Final Act 2;
Buckley col. 2,11. 42—50, Fig. 1. The Examiner finds that Buckley discloses
using (applying) one or more transfer cylinders (18a, 18b) to receive the
freshly printed sheet (12) from the first printing station and using (applying)
one or more transfer cylinders (18a, 18b, 50) to deliver the freshly printed
sheet (12) to the second printing station. Final Act 2—3; Buckley col. 2,11.
42—50, Fig. 1. The Examiner finds that Buckley discloses that at least one of
the transfer cylinders includes a sheet support covering. Final Act. 2—3;
Buckley col. 1,11. 39-40, Figs. 4, 5.
The Examiner finds that Buckley does not disclose that the sheet
support covering has the features of the sheet support covering recited in
claim 48, and the Examiner relies on Cross to remedy this deficiency of
Buckley. Final Act. 3^4. Cross discloses covering the exterior surface of an
impression roll in a printing press with a composite sheet. Cross col. 7,11.
34-41, Fig. 2. Consistent with the Examiner’s findings, Cross discloses that
the composite sheet includes a backing material formed of cloth layer 39
(inner layer) bonded by layer 40 of glue or other adhesive to paper layer lib
(flexible film substrate layer). Final Act. 3 (citing Cross col. 9,11. 31—43,
Fig. 8). Cross discloses that the composite sheet further includes a plurality
of substantially spherical particles or globular bodies 10 (textured surface)
securely bonded by adhesive material 12 (flexible adhesive) to paper layer
lib (flexible film substrate layer). Cross col. 1,11. 1—10, col. 9,11. 31—43,
Fig. 8. The Examiner finds that Cross discloses that the backing material
4
Appeal 2016-007901
Application 13/775,704
provides sufficient flexibility to permit the composite sheet to conform to
machine elements, and is sufficiently compressible to compensate for
inequalities in the type face level or slight variations in the cylinder face.
Ans. 2—3 (citing Cross col 4,11. 57—63, col. 5,11. 1—10).
The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of Appellant’s invention to replace the
sheet support covering disclosed in Buckley with the composite sheet
disclosed in Cross to provide sufficient compressibility to compensate for
ordinary inequalities in type face level or slight variations in the transfer
cylinder face, to provide sufficient flexibility to permit the composite sheet
to conform to Buckley’s transfer cylinder, and to minimize transfer of a wet
coating. Final Act. 4; Ans. 5.
However, as Appellant points out, Cross discloses that the composite
sheet described in the reference is used to cover the exterior surface of an
impression roll, rather than a transfer cylinder as disclosed in Buckley. App.
Br. 10-11; Cross col. 7,11. 34-41, Fig. 2. As explained in Appellant’s
Specification and illustrated in Figure 2 of Cross, an impression roll (or
impression cylinder) in a printing press applies pressure to a sheet being
printed by pressing the sheet against a second cylinder, referred to as an “ink
roll” or “blanket cylinder.” Spec. 15,1. 28—16,1. 1; Cross Fig. 2. The
surface of the ink roll includes a type face covered with ink, and the pressure
applied by the impression roll causes ink present on the type face to be
transferred to a sheet being fed between the two rolls. Id. Cross explains
that a compressible covering on an impression roll functions to compensate
for inequalities or unevenness in the type face level, or slight variations in
the face of the impression roll, and in so doing, enables the impression roll
5
Appeal 2016-007901
Application 13/775,704
to evenly apply pressure to the type face, resulting in uniform application of
ink to paper being printed. Cross col. 5,11. 4—11. In contrast to the
impression roll disclosed in Cross, Buckley discloses a transfer cylinder used
in a printing press to transfer a freshly printed sheet from one printing station
to the next printing station. Buckley col. 1,11. 43—57; Fig. 1. Buckley’s
transfer cylinder, therefore, does not apply pressure to a sheet being printed
to enable even application of ink to the sheet. Buckley discloses a covering
for the outer surface of the transfer cylinder (referred to as a “surface
coating” or “attachable film”) that has a life expectancy greatly exceeding
that of conventional transfer cylinder coverings, and introduces little or no
ink markings on freshly printed sheets. Buckley col. 1,11. 6—8, 39-42, 53—
54; col. 3,11. 29-30.
The Examiner does not adequately explain why one of ordinary skill
in the art reasonably would have expected that a flexible, compressible
composite sheet as disclosed in Cross would be useful as a covering or
surface coating on Buckley’s transfer roll. In contrast to an impression roll
as disclosed in Cross that requires an even surface to enable uniform
application of pressure to a sheet being printed so that ink on the type face of
an opposing ink roll will be uniformly transferred to the sheet, Buckley’s
transfer cylinder does not apply pressure to a sheet being printed, and does
not oppose an ink roll with a typeface. Rather, the transfer cylinder
disclosed in Buckley merely move a sheet being printed between successive
printing stations and is designed to introduce little or no ink markings on
freshly printed sheets, as indicated supra. On this record, the Examiner does
not identify any disclosure in Buckley, or provide any other evidence,
demonstrating that a flexible, compressible composite sheet as disclosed in
6
Appeal 2016-007901
Application 13/775,704
Cross would be useful as a covering for Buckley’s transfer cylinder.
The Examiner asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art would have
been led to replace Buckley’s transfer cylinder surface coating with Cross’s
composite sheet to provide sufficient compressibility to compensate for
ordinary inequalities in the type face level or slight variations in the transfer
cylinder. Ans. 5. However, the Examiner does not explain why
compressibility in a covering for Buckley’s transfer cylinder that
compensates for inequalities in type face level or slight variations in the
transfer cylinder would be useful when Buckley’s transfer cylinder does not
oppose an ink cylinder with a typeface and does not apply pressure to a sheet
contacting the type face, but instead merely transfers printed sheets from one
printing station to the next without introducing unwanted markings on the
sheets.
The Examiner further asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art would
have been led to replace Buckley’s transfer cylinder surface coating with
Cross’s composite sheet to provide sufficient flexibility to permit the
composite sheet to conform to Buckley’s transfer cylinder. Final Act. 4.
However, although Cross discloses that such flexibility permits the backing
material of Cross’ composite sheet to conform to machine elements, Cross
further discloses that such flexibility allows the backing material to
withstand the local flexing incident to its use. The Examiner does not
adequately explain why such flexibility would be useful in a covering for
Buckley’s transfer cylinder that does not apply significant pressure to a sheet
being printed, and thus is not subject to “local flexing incident to its use”.
Although the Examiner also asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art
would have been led to replace Buckley’s transfer cylinder surface coating
7
Appeal 2016-007901
Application 13/775,704
with Cross’s composite sheet to “minimize transfer of a wet coating” (Final
Act. 4), Cross discloses that when the composite sheet is used in the printing
industry, the composite sheet prevents offset and improves the quality of
printing. Cross col. 1,11. 17—22. The Examiner does not identity any
disclosure in Cross, or provide any other evidence, establishing that use of
Cross’s composite sheet in a printing press to cover a transfer cylinder as
disclosed in Buckley would minimize unwanted markings on printed sheets.
Therefore, on this record, the Examiner does not provide sufficient
evidence and reasoning to establish that one of ordinary skill in the art would
have been led to replace the transfer cylinder surface coating disclosed in
Buckley with the composite sheet impression roll covering disclosed in
Cross. In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (Requiring “some
articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal
conclusion of obviousness.”) (cited with approval in KSR Int 7 Co. v.
Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007)); In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445
(Fed. Cir. 1992) (“[T]he examiner bears the initial burden, on review of the
prior art or on any other ground, of presenting a prima facie case of
unpatentability.”).
It follows that the Examiner does not establish a prima facie case of
obviousness of the subject matter recited in claims 48, 52, 53, 55 and 61
within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). We therefore do not sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of these claims.
Rejections II—IV
We do not sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 59-51, 54, 56—
60, and 62 (Rejections II—IV) under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Buckley in view of Cross and additional applied prior art, because these
8
Appeal 2016-007901
Application 13/775,704
rejections suffer from at least the same reversible error as the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 48 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), discussed above. Final Act.
Ar-1.
DECISION
In view of the reasons set forth above and in the Appeal Brief, we
reverse the Examiner’s rejections of claims 48—62 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
REVERSED
9