Ex Parte SchnieppDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 16, 201612602377 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 16, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/602,377 11130/2009 7055 7590 02/18/2016 GREENBLUM & BERNSTEIN, PLC 1950 ROLAND CLARKE PLACE RESTON, VA 20191 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Jochen Schniepp 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. P37418 4467 EXAMINER JORDAN, ANDREW ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2883 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/18/2016 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): gbpatent@gbpatent.com greenblum.bernsteinplc@gmail.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JOCHEN SCHNIEPP Appeal2014-003398 Application 12/602,377 Technology Center 2800 Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, and SHARON PENICK, Administrative Patent Judges. LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant 1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner's final rejection of claims 8-27. Claims 1-7 have been canceled. App. Br. 4. We have jurisdiction over the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We AFFIRM. 1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Kaindl Flooring GmbH. App. Br. 2. Appeal2014-003398 Application 12/602,377 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant's Invention Appellant's invention generally relates to printing a cladding panel for cladding a substrate such as, for example, a floor. Spec. i-f 2. The cladding panel includes a contact surface designated for installation on the substrate and a visible surface facing away from the contact surface. Id. The cladding panel also includes two pairs of side edges lying opposite one another. Id. At least one of the pairs of side edges is provided with a coupling element for connecting the cladding panel to another cladding panel. Id. A first pattern is printed on the visible surface of the cladding panel and a second pattern is printed on a visible section of the coupling elements in a contactless manner in a common printing operation. Id. i-fi-12, 6. Claim 8, which is representative, reads as follows: 8. A method for printing a cladding panel having a contact surface designated for installation on a substrate and a visible surface facing a\~1ay from a contact surface, t\~10 pairs of side edges lying opposite one another and at least one of the two pairs is provided with coupling elements for connecting two panels formed identically with regard to the coupling elements, in which each coupling element includes at least one visible section of a surface having a face oriented such that a surface normal of the face includes a component oriented in a same direction as a surface normal of the visible surface, and, relative to a vertical direction of the panel, the at least one visible section is arranged between the visible surface and the contact surface, the method compnsmg: guiding the cladding panel under a printing unit to print a first predetermined pattern on the visible surface in a contactless manner; and printing a second predetermined pattern on at least a part of the visible section of at least one of the coupling elements, 2 Appeal2014-003398 Application 12/602,377 wherein the first predetermined pattern and the second predetermined pattern are printed onto the cladding panel in a contactless manner in a common printing operation, and wherein a different spacing of the printing unit to the visible surface and to the at least one part of the visible section of the at least one coupling element is taken into consideration by an adjustment of the control signals fed to the printing unit. Rejections Claims 8-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Nollet (US 2006/0130421 Al; published June 22, 2006), Chen (US 2007 /0283648 Al; published Dec. 13, 2007) and Fujii (JP 10058668; published March 3, 1998). Final Act. 2-8. Claims 22-27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Nollet, Chen, Fujii, and Jung (US 2006/0238565 Al; published Oct. 26, 2006). Final Act. 8-11. ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellant's arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellant's conclusions. We adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Final Office Action from which this appeal is taken and the reasons set forth in the Examiner's Answer in response to Appellant's Appeal Brief. Final Act. 2-13; Ans. 4--8. We highlight and address specific findings and arguments for emphasis as follows. Claims 8-21 Appellant contends the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Nollet, Chen, and Fujii teaches or suggests the limitations recited in claim 8. 3 Appeal2014-003398 Application 12/602,377 App. Br. 11-15. In particular, Appellant contends the applied references fail to teach or suggest "guiding the cladding panel under a printing unit to print a first predetermined pattern on the visible surface in a contactless manner; and printing a second predetermined pattern on at least a part of the visible section of at least one of the coupling elements" and "wherein the first predetermined pattern and the second predetermined pattern are printed onto the cladding panel in a contactless manner in a common printing operation," as recited in claim 8. App. Br. 11-15; Reply Br. 2-8. Regarding the teachings of Nollet, Appellant contends that, with respect to printing on the visible surface, Nollet only teaches printing a chamfer 35 formed on an edge of the floor panel. App. Br. 11-12 (citing Nollet Fig. 13; i-f 126); Reply Br. 3-5 (citing Nollet Figs. 3, 4, 12; i-fi-198, 99, 101, 126). Appellant contends Nollet fails to teach or suggest "printing any portions of coupling elements 6 and/or 7, and certainly not for printing on at least a part of the visible section of at least one of the coupling parts," as required by claim 8. App. Br. 12. Regarding the teachings of Chen, Appellant acknowledges that Chen teaches non-transfer printing, such as digital printing, on surfaces of a tongue and groove (e.g., a coupling element), but contends Chen fails to teach or suggest the disputed limitations because "CHEN fails to provide any express or implied teaching that the bevel is printed with a first predetermined pattern and that the tongue and groove surfaces are printed with a second predetermined pattern, such that the first and second predetermined patterns are printed onto the panel in a common printing operation," as required by claim 8. App. Br. 13 (citing Chen i-f 39); see also Reply Br. 5-7. 4 Appeal2014-003398 Application 12/602,377 Appellant's contentions are not persuasive because they are tantamount to an individual attack against Nollet and Chen. One cannot show non-obviousness by attacking the references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). See also In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 ( CCP A 1981 ). Here, the Examiner finds, and we agree, Nollet teaches that the decor or pattern on the visible surface of the floor panel may be realized "by printing it directly onto an underlying substrate, whether or not by the intermediary of primers, sealing layers or the like" and that the printing may be accomplished "by means of a printer, for example, a digital printer." Ans. 5 (citing Nollet i-fi-144, 45). As such, Nollet teaches or suggests "guiding the cladding panel under a printing unit to print a first predetermined pattern on the visible surface in a contactless manner," as recited in claim 8. The Examiner finds, and we agree, Chen teaches a method of non- transfer printing, such as digital printing, to print a pattern on a surface of a tongue and groove (e.g., a coupling element). Final Act. 3 (citing Chen i139). As such, Chen teaches or suggests "printing a second predetermined pattern on at least a part of the visible section of at least one of the coupling elements," as recited in claim 8. Based on these findings, the Examiner finds the combined teachings of Nollet and Chen teach or suggest the disputed limitations. Appellant's contentions fail to address the Examiner's findings regarding the combined teachings of the references and, therefore, are unpersuasive of error. We find Appellant's contention regarding Chen's bevel surfaces as failing to teach or suggest the claimed "coupling elements" (App. Br. 12 5 Appeal2014-003398 Application 12/602,377 (citing Chen il 41 )) unpersuasive because as found by the Examiner (Final Act. 3), and acknowledged by Appellant (App. Br. 13), Chen teaches that the described method is applicable to "non-transfer printing, such as digital printing, on the bevel surfaces and/ or one or more other surfaces, such as surfaces of tongue and groove" (Chen i-f 39 (emphasis added)). Appellant further contends the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 because the combination of Nollet, Chen, and Fujii is improper. App. Br. 17; Reply Br. 8-9. According to Appellant, "FUJII is specially designed for printing on curved printing swfaces" and "those ordinarily skilled in the art would have found no express or implied suggestion for printing the bevel/chamfer of NOLLET or CHEN with the printer head of FUJII." Id. We do not find Appellant's contention persuasive. As discussed supra, the Examiner finds Nollet's teaching of printing the decor or pattern on the visible surface of the floor panel and Chen's teaching of printing on the surfaces of tongue and groove to teach or suggest the claimed printing of the first and second predetermined patterns. Appellant's contention fails to address the express findings of the Examiner and, therefore, is unpersuasive of error. Accordingly, we are unpersuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 8. Regarding the rejection of claims 9-21, because Appellant has either not presented separate patentability arguments or relies on the arguments previously discussed with respect to claim 8 (App. Br. 19-22), claims 9-21 fall therewith. See 37 C.F.R. § 1.37(c)(l)(iv). 6 Appeal2014-003398 Application 12/602,377 Claims 22-27 Regarding the rejection of claims 22-27, Appellant contends the teachings of Jung do not cure the deficiencies in the teachings of Nollet, Chen, and Fujii discussed supra with respect to claim 8. App. Br. 22-27. Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 22-27 for the reasons discussed above with respect to claim 8. DECISION We affirm the Examiner's rejections of claims 8-27 under 35 U.S.C. § 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)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation