Ex Parte Salacz et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 23, 2010

10970419 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 23, 2010)

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.
10/970,419 10/21/2004 Philipp Oskar Imre Salacz 9807Q 5021
27752 7590 09/23/2010
THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY
Global Legal Department - IP
Sycamore Building - 4th Floor
299 East Sixth Street
CINCINNATI, OH 45202
EXAMINER
FIDLER, SHELBY LEE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2861
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/23/2010 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte PHILIPP OSKAR IMRE SALACZ and
PAUL THOMAS WEISMAN
_____________

Appeal 2009-014342
Application 10/970,419
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before KENNETH W. HAIRSTON, MARC S. HOFF, and
CARL W. WHITEHEAD, JR., Administrative Patent Judges.

HAIRSTON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE”
(paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery
mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.
Appeal 2009-014342
Application 10/970,419

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1 to 12. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appellants’ invention is concerned with a method of inkjet printing
used in the production of hygienic articles (e.g., baby diapers, feminine
hygiene articles, adult incontinence articles) (Abs.; Spec. 1:1-15; claim 1;
Figs. 1, 8a). Appellants disclose and claim a method of inkjet printing on a
product in web form (Spec. 6:19-21), the production line having at least two
inkjet print stations which each have at least two inkjet print heads, the
method including switching from a first inkjet print head of a first print
station to a second inkjet print head of the first print station while the
substrate continues moving (see claim 1, step c; Fig. 8a).
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on
appeal:
1. A method of inkjet printing in a high efficiency production of hygienic
articles, having a print image, on a converting line including at least two
inkjet print stations, wherein each of the inkjet print stations comprises at
least two inkjet print heads, the method comprising the steps of:
(a) providing a substrate moving in a web direction at a first velocity;
(b) printing on the substrate a first plurality of images by a first inkjet
print head of the first print station and a first inkjet print head of the second
print station, both print stations being disposed in proximity to the substrate,
the first plurality of images being separated from each other in the web
direction at a pitch interval;
(c) switching from the first inkjet print head of the first print station to
a second inkjet print head of the first print station while the substrate
continues its movement; and
(d) printing on the substrate a second plurality of images by the
second inkjet print head of the first print station and the first inkjet print
Appeal 2009-014342
Application 10/970,419

3
head of the second print station, both print stations being disposed in
proximity to the substrate, the second plurality of images being separated
from each other in the web direction at the pitch interval,
wherein the first plurality of images is separated from the second
plurality of images by an unprinted region in the web direction, wherein the
unprinted region is no greater than 50 times the pitch interval; and
wherein said second inkjet print head of the first print station is
positioned to print in an identical location on said substrate as said first
inkjet print head of the first print station.
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of
unpatentability:
Rodi US 5,806,430 Sep. 15, 1998
Sharma US 6,957,884 B2 Oct. 25, 2005
(filed Dec. 27, 2002)
Steinfield US 7,086,716 B2 Aug. 8, 2006
(filed Oct. 25, 2003)
The following obviousness rejections are before us for review:
(i) Claims 1 to 5, 8, 9, 11, and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as unpatentable over Rodi and Steinfield.
(ii) Claims 6, 7, and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Rodi and Steinfield, and further in view of Sharma.
With regard to both of the obviousness rejections listed supra, the
Examiner relies upon Rodi and Steinfield as describing the recited features
of independent claim 1, step c (see claim 1; Ans. 3-5). The Examiner
determines (Ans. 3-4) that Rodi discloses a method of inkjet printing using
inkjet print heads at two print stations and printing on a web rolled product
(see col. 5, ll. 4-7; Fig. 1), but does not disclose using two inkjet print heads
at each print station such that (i) images printed by the different print
stations are separated from each other at a pitch interval, and (ii) the
substrate continues moving while the production line switches from the first
Appeal 2009-014342
Application 10/970,419

4
inkjet print head of the first print station to the second inkjet print head of
the first print station. The Examiner relies upon Steinfield (Figs. 1, 4; col. 2,
ll. 57-63; col. 3, ll. 1-38) as disclosing the recited switching feature of step c
of claim 1 (Ans. 4-5). The Examiner concludes that it would have been
obvious to combine the teachings of Rodi and Steinfield by using
Steinfield’s multiple print head inkjet print stations with Rodi’s inkjet
printing method in order “to avoid interruptions and delays in completing
print jobs in an industrial setting” (Ans. 5) as taught by Steinfield (Ans. 5
(citing Steinfield, col. 1, ll. 5-25)).
With regard to the obviousness rejection of claims 6, 7, and 10, the
Examiner relies on Sharma (col. 2, ll. 37-38; col. 9, l. 58–col. 10, l. 11; col.
12, ll. 25-36, 61-67) as teaching a velocity of a rolled substrate being at least
2 meters/second, and that a print head can print at a rate of 600
images/minute.

ISSUES
With regard to independent claim 1 and claims 2 to 5, 8, 9, 11, and 12
which depend therefrom, Appellants contend inter alia (Br. 5-11) that
Steinfield fails to disclose the step c of claim 1 of switching from the first
inkjet print head of the first print station to the second inkjet print head of
the first print station while the substrate continues moving because Steinfield
teaches that print arrays 102 and 104 print at the same time (Br. 7-9).
Appellants assert that Steinfield (specifically col. 4, ll. 28-31, 39-41) does
not switch from one print array to the other because fluid ejection from one
array does not start after fluid ejection from the other array is terminated
(Br. 8). Appellants also argue (Br. 9-10) that modifying Rodi with Steinfield
Appeal 2009-014342
Application 10/970,419

5
would change the principle of operation of Rodi such that the device needs
or uses one printing unit to produce an image instead of four units as recited
in claim 1.
With regard to dependent claims 6, 7, and 10, Appellants argue (Br.
11-12) that Sharma’s column 12, lines 25 to 36, fails to disclose or suggest a
velocity of a rolled substrate being at least 2 meters/second, or that a print
head can print at a rate of 600 images/minute.
Based on Appellants’ arguments, the issues are:
Do Rodi and Steinfield taken in combination disclose or suggest the
recited invention including step c as set forth in claim 1?
Does Sharma disclose or suggest the printing velocities recited in
claims 6 and 7?

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Steinfield describes an inkjet printing method (Fig. 4) including
steps of (i) ejecting fluid from a first print array 102 of a print
station 100 onto a substrate 112 (step 404), and (ii) terminating
fluid ejection from a first array 102 and initiating fluid ejection
from a second print array 104 of the print station 100 onto
substrate 112 such that fluid ejection continues uninterrupted (step
412). See col. 3, ll. 1-38; col. 4, ll. 18-46. Steinfield also shows
(Fig. 1) a plurality of images separated from each other at a pitch
interval, and that an unprinted region is no greater than 50 times
the pitch interval (col. 3, ll. 3-18).
2. Sharma describes moving a web substrate (e.g., a personal care
product, flexible packaging product, etc.) (see col. 7, ll. 44-54) at a
Appeal 2009-014342
Application 10/970,419

6
velocity of 1000 feet per minute (col. 2, ll. 37-38), and “delivering
acceptable graphics for disposable products may be realized at an
affordable delivery cost (e.g., capital/equipment, ink and
manufacturing costs)” (col. 12, ll. 61-67). Sharma also describes
printing with a print head at a rate of 40,000 drops per nozzle per
second (col. 12, ll. 25-36), and adjusting the number of
drops/linear inch used to form an image based on imaging needs
(col. 10, ll. 1-10).

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, it is incumbent upon the
Examiner to establish a factual basis to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 1988). The
Examiner’s articulated reasoning in the rejection must possess a rational
underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness. In re Kahn,
441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Appellants must, on appeal to the
Board, demonstrate reversible error in the Examiner’s position or rejection.
See id. at 985-86.

ANALYSIS
The Examiner has established a factual basis, as well as provided
articulated reasoning that possesses a rational underpinning, to support the
legal conclusion of obviousness (Ans. 3-13). Kahn, 441 F.3d at 988; Fine,
837 F.2d at 1073. We agree with the Examiner’s findings of fact and
conclusions of obviousness and adopt them as our own (see FF 1, 2).
Because Appellants have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s
Appeal 2009-014342
Application 10/970,419

7
rejections, and for the reasons that follow, we will sustain both of the
obviousness rejections before us on appeal. See Kahn, 441 F.3d at 985-86.
Appellants have not persuasively rebutted the Examiner’s conclusion
that it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Rodi and
Steinfield by using Steinfield’s multiple print head inkjet print stations with
Rodi’s inkjet printing method in order “to avoid interruptions and delays in
completing print jobs in an industrial setting” (Ans. 5) as taught by
Steinfield (see col. 1, ll. 5-25).
As indicated supra, Appellants’ main line of argument is that
Steinfield, as applied in both of the obviousness rejections on appeal, does
not disclose or suggest step c found in claim 1 (Br. 7-8). We note that claim
1 fails to recite that printing using the first inkjet print head of the first print
station is terminated first, and that then, afterwards, printing using the
second inkjet print head of the first print station takes place. Appellants’
arguments related to the timing of printing, and that one print head must
terminate before the other begins printing, are not commensurate in scope
with the language of claim 1 (step c) (see Ans. 11).
Steinfield describes an inkjet printing method (Fig. 4) including (i)
ejecting fluid from a first print array 102 of a print station 100 onto a
substrate 112 (step 404), and (ii) terminating fluid ejection from a first array
102 and initiating fluid ejection from a second print array 104 of the print
station 100 onto substrate 112 such that fluid ejection continues
uninterrupted (step 412) (FF 1). Steinfield also discloses printing using both
print arrays in order to continue printing without having to stop the substrate
112 in order to allow for servicing of one of the print arrays while the other
one continues printing (FF 1; col. 3, ll. 1-38). The sequence of steps shown
Appeal 2009-014342
Application 10/970,419

8
in Figure 4 of Steinfield would also strongly suggest to the ordinarily skilled
artisan that a second print array 104 prints after termination of printing at a
print array 102, i.e., printing is switched from one print array to another.
In light of our findings with respect to Steinfield (FF 1), we are not
persuaded by Appellants’ contention (Br. 7-9) that Steinfield fails to disclose
the step c of claim 1 of switching from the first inkjet print head of the first
print station to the second inkjet print head of the first print station while the
substrate continues moving. This line of argument is not convincing since
the language of step c of claim 1 on appeal encompasses what Steinfield
describes (compare FF 1 with claim 1). Thus, the combined teachings of
Rodi and Steinfield disclose or suggest a method of inkjet printing using
inkjet print heads at two print stations and printing on a web rolled product
using two inkjet print heads at each print station such that (i) images printed
by the different print stations are separated from each other at a pitch
interval, and (ii) the substrate continues moving while the production line
switches from the first inkjet print head of the first print station to the second
inkjet print head of the first print station. Accordingly, step c of claim 1 is
encompassed by Steinfield’s continued movement of substrate 112 along
with the termination of fluid ejection from one print array followed by fluid
ejection from another print array (FF 1), and thus the combined teachings of
Rodi and Steinfield disclose or suggest the recited invention as set forth in
claim 1. Accordingly we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1,
and claims 2 to 5, 8, 9, 11, and 12 which depend therefrom.
As to claims 6, 7, and 10 (rejection (ii) listed supra applying Sharma),
Appellants assert (Br. 11-12) that the references fail to disclose (i) a velocity
of a rolled substrate being at least 2 meters/second, or (ii) a print head that
Appeal 2009-014342
Application 10/970,419

9
can print at a rate of 600 images/minute. The Examiner has made a prima
facie showing that Sharma teaches these features (see Ans. 8-9, 12-13). We
agree with the Examiner that the claims on appeal do not recite a particular
image dimension or resolution (Ans. 12), and we find no flaw in the
Examiner’s reasoning that it would have been obvious to supply Rodi’s
method and apparatus “with print data sufficient to perform the step of
producing 12,000 images per minute (print data for one inch images)” using
Steinfield’s print engine with a resolution of 100 dots per linear inch (see
Ans. 13).
The Examiner has provided articulated reasoning for using Sharma’s
print head (with its corresponding printing velocity/rate) with the device of
Rodi as modified by Steinfield: to deliver acceptable graphics at an
affordable cost while producing personal care products (Ans. 8-9; see FF 2).
Appellants have not rebutted this rationale, and only argue that the art
applied fails to disclose the recited velocity by pointing to portions of
Sharma (col. 12, ll. 25-36) that consist of less than all of the portions of
Sharma actually relied upon by the Examiner in establishing a prima facie
case (see col. 2, ll. 37-38; col. 9, l. 58–col. 10, l. 11; col. 12, ll. 25-36, 61-
67). Accordingly, Appellants’ arguments (Br. 11-12) that Sharma’s column
12, lines 25 to 36, fails to disclose or suggest a velocity of a rolled substrate
being at least 2 meters/second, or that a print head can print at a rate of 600
images/minute are unconvincing. Likewise, Appellants’ contention (Br. 12)
that the references, when combined, do not provide each and every element
of claim 7 is also unconvincing. Lastly, Appellants do not dispute that
Sharma teaches the feature recited in claim 10 of printing on hygienic
articles such as feminine hygiene articles, baby diapers, and/or adult
Appeal 2009-014342
Application 10/970,419

10
incontinence articles (see FF 2 (finding that Sharma describes printing on
personal care products)).
In view of the foregoing, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejections of
independent claim 1, and dependent claims 2 to 12 which fall with
independent claim 1.

CONCLUSION OF LAW
Rodi and Steinfield taken in combination disclose or suggest the
recited invention including step c as set forth in claim 1. Appellants have
not shown that Sharma fails to disclose or suggest (i) the printing velocities
recited in claims 6 and 7, and (ii) printing on the types of hygienic articles
recited in claim 10.
For the foregoing reasons, we find that the Examiner did not err in
rejecting (i) claims 1 to 5, 8, 9, 11, and 12 under § 103(a) as being obvious
in view of the teachings of Rodi and Steinfield, and (ii) claims 6, 7, and 10
under § 103(a) as being obvious in view of the combined teachings of Rodi
and Steinfield further modified with the teachings of Sharma.

ORDER
We affirm the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 1 to 12
under § 103(a).
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(v).

AFFIRMED
Appeal 2009-014342
Application 10/970,419

11

babc

THE PROCTOR & GAMBLE COMPANY
GLOBAL LEGAL DEPARTMENT – IP
SYCAMORE BUILDING – 4TH FLOOR
299 EAST SIXTH STREET
CINCINNATI, OH 45202