Ex Parte Vrotacoe et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Apr 27, 2010

11376013 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 27, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte JAMES BRIAN VROTACOE, RICHARD KARL WEILER, and
JAMES RICHARD BELANGER
____________

Appeal 2010-000113
Application 11/376,013
Technology Center 2800
____________

Decided: April 27, 2010
____________

Before EDWARD C. KIMLIN, CHARLES F. WARREN, and
TERRY J. OWENS, Administrative Patent Judges.

KIMLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

Appeal 2010-000113
Application 11/376,013

DECISION ON APPEAL

This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1-8. Claims 9 and
10 have been allowed by the Examiner, and claims 11-15 stand withdrawn
from consideration. Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A printing blanket comprising:
a carrier sleeve layer having uniform thickness and being rigid to
maintain a tubular shape and flexible to permit placement on the blanket
cylinder if the blanket cylinder has an outer axially convex surface or shim,
the carrier sleeve layer configured to form at least one axially convex
surface when the blanket is disposed on the blanket cylinder without
pressure: and
a print layer disposed over the carrier sleeve layer.

The Examiner relies upon the following references in the rejection of
the appealed claims:
Vrotacoe 6,105,498 Aug. 22, 2000
Fromson 6,062,138 May 16, 2000

Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to a printing blanket
comprising a carrier sleeve and a print layer disposed over the carrier sleeve.
The carrier sleeve is rigid to maintain a tubular shape and flexible to permit
placement on a blanket cylinder if the cylinder has an outer axially convex
surface.
Appealed claims 1-6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Vrotacoe. Claims 7 and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as being unpatentable over Vrotacoe in view of Fromson.
We have thoroughly reviewed each of Appellants’ arguments for
patentability. However, we are in complete agreement with the Examiner
2
Appeal 2010-000113
Application 11/376,013

that the claimed subject matter is unpatentable over the cited prior art.
Accordingly, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejections for the reasons set
forth in the Answer, which we incorporate herein, and we add the following
for emphasis only.
We consider first the Examiner’s § 102 rejection of claims 1-6 over
Vrotacoe. Vrotacoe, like Appellants, describes a printing blanket
comprising a carrier sleeve layer and a print layer disposed over the carrier
sleeve layer wherein the carrier sleeve layer is sufficiently rigid to maintain
a tubular shape and sufficiently flexible to assume the shape or profile of the
blanket cylinder on which it is placed.
A principal argument advanced by Appellants is that Vrotacoe has no
disclosure “that suggest the blanket could be disposed over a blanket
cylinder that ‘has an outer axially convex surface or shim’” (App. Br. 5,
last para.). However, Vrotacoe expressly discloses that “FIG. 8 illustrates
that rather than alter the profile of the blanket, one can instead modify the
profile of the underlying blankets cylinder 18′” (col. 5, ll. 27-29). It can be
seen from FIG. 8 that the blanket conforms to the concavity of the cylinder.
Hence, it follows that the reference blanket is sufficiently flexible to also
conform to a convex surface of a cylinder. While Appellants argue that
neither FIG. 7 nor FIG. 8 of Vrotacoe discloses a blanket cylinder having an
outer axially convex surface as recited in claim 1, the Examiner properly
points out that claim 1 defines a printing blanket alone, not a printing
blanket in combination with a blanket cylinder. The claim recitation
referring to a blanket cylinder is essentially a description of a property of the
printing blanket, namely, flexibility to allow it to conform to the convex
surface of a blanket cylinder. As discussed above, we fully concur with the
3
Appeal 2010-000113
Application 11/376,013

Examiner that Vrotacoe fairly describes a printing blanket having such a
flexible property.
Regarding separately argued claim 2 which calls for a print layer
having a uniform thickness, Appellants have not refuted the Examiner’s
rationale that Vrotacoe fairly describes a print layer having a uniform
thickness (see Ans. 7-8). In addition, we note that Vrotacoe discloses that
FIG. 6 depicts a blanket whose profile does not vary in thickness (col. 5, ll.
9-10).
Regarding separately argued claim 4 which recites that the blanket
provides uniform axial print or nip pressure across the width of the blanket,
Appellants have not rebutted the Examiner’s position set forth at pages 8-9
of the Answer. Also, one of the objectives of Vrotacoe is to provide uniform
printing. Appellants have presented no argument, let alone the requisite
objective evidence, that printing blankets within the scope of the appealed
claims produce superior uniformity in printing compared to that achieved by
the printing blanket of Vrotacoe.
Concerning the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claims 7 and 8, we
agree with the Examiner that Fromson evidences the obviousness of
providing the blanket of Vrotacoe with at least 2 axial image areas to allow
for simultaneous printing of multiple images on the web. It is not necessary
for a finding of obviousness that, as urged by Appellants, the particular
blanket disclosed in Fromson be combined with the blanket of Vrotacoe.
Appellants have presented no argument for why it would have been
nonobvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the printing blanket
of Vrotacoe with at least 2 or 3 axial image areas.
4
Appeal 2010-000113
Application 11/376,013

As a final point, we note that Appellants base no argument upon
objective evidence of nonobviousness, such as unexpected results.
In conclusion, based on the foregoing and the reasons well stated by
the Examiner, the Examiner’s decision rejecting the appealed claims 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(a).

AFFIRMED
tc

Davidson, Davidson & Kappel, LLC
485 7th Avenue
14th Floor
New York, NY 10018

5