Ex Parte Zhou et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 17, 2018

14406340 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 17, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/406,340 12/08/2014
22879 7590 12/19/2018
HP Inc.
3390 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 35
FORT COLLINS, CO 80528-9544
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Xiaoqi Zhou
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.
84107310 8794
EXAMINER
SHEW AREGED, BETELHEM
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1785
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/19/2018 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):
ipa.mail@hp.com
barbl@hp.com
yvonne.bailey@hp.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte XIAOQI ZHOU, CHRISTINE E. STEICHEN, and
LUIS GARCIA GARCIA
Appeal2018-002096
Application 14/406,340
Technology Center 1700
Before ROMULO H. DELMENDO, DEBRA L. DENNETT, and
MERRELL C. CASHION, JR., Administrative Patent Judges.
DELMENDO, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
The Applicants ("Appellants") 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from
the Primary Examiner's final decision to reject claims 1-20. 2 We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 The Appellants identify the real party in interest as Hewlett-Packard
Development Company, LP ("HPDC") (Appeal Brief filed August 22, 2017
("Appeal Br.") 3). The Appellants further state that HPDC is a wholly-
owned affiliate of Hewlett-Packard Company and that HD PC's general or
managing partner is HPQ Holdings, LLC (id.).
2 Appeal Br. 9-28; Reply Brief filed December 14, 2017 ("Reply Br.") 3-12;
Final Office Action entered June 12, 2017 ("Final Act.") 2-10; Examiner's
Answer entered November 2, 2017 ("Ans.") 3-14.
Appeal2018-002096
Application 14/406,340
I. BACKGROUND
The subject matter on appeal relates to coated fabric substrates for
printing and associated methods (Specification filed December 8, 2014
("Spec.") 2, 11. 8-9). Representative claim 1 is reproduced from the Claims
Appendix to the Appeal Brief as follows:
1. A fabric print medium, comprising:
a fabric substrate;
a primer layer applied to the fabric substrate, the primer
layer including a first film-forming polymer and a fabric
softening agent;
an ink-fixing layer applied to the primer layer, the ink-
fixing layer comprising a second film-forming polymer and a
cationic compound; and
an ink-receiving layer applied to the ink-fixing layer, the
ink-receiving layer comprising a third film-forming polymer and
non-deformable particles,
wherein one or more of the primer layer, the ink-fixing
layer, and the ink-receiving layer further comprise a flame
inhibitor.
(Appeal Br. 29.)
II. REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
On appeal, the Examiner maintains several rejections under pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as follows:
A. Claims 1-8, 11, and 13-15 as unpatentable over Takahashi et
al. 3 ("Takahashi"), Kashiwazaki et al. 4 ("Kashiwazaki"), and
Kohsaka et al. 5 ("Kohsaka");
B. Claims 9 and 10 as unpatentable over Takahashi, Kashiwazaki,
3 US 2009/0136692 Al, published May 28, 2009.
4 US 2002/0041317 A 1, published Apr. 11, 2002.
5 US 2002/0164462 Al, published Nov. 7, 2002.
2
Appeal2018-002096
Application 14/406,340
Kohsaka, and Nakano et al. 6 ("Nakano");
C. Claim 12 as unpatentable over Takahashi, Kashiwazaki,
Kohsaka, and Anderson et al. 7 ("Anderson");
D. Claims 16-19 as unpatentable over Takahashi, Kashiwazaki,
Kohsaka, and Missell et al. 8 ("Missell"); and
E. Claim 20 as unpatentable over Takahashi, Kashiwazaki,
Kohsaka, and De Vries et al. 9 ("De Vries").
(Ans. 3-14; Final Act. 2-10.)
III. DISCUSSION
With respect to claim 1, the Examiner finds that Takahashi describes
an inkjet recording material including a support, an ink-receiving underlayer
( corresponding to the Appellants' "ink-fixing layer") comprising a binder
and a cationic compound to fix a dye, and an ink-receiving top layer
(corresponding to the Appellants' "ink-receiving layer") (Ans. 3) (citing,
e.g., Takashi Abstract and ,r,r 58, 62). The Examiner also finds that
Takahashi teaches an undercoat layer between the ink-receiving underlayer
and the support, the undercoat layer also comprising a cationic compound as
an auxiliary agent (id. at 3--4) (citing Takahashi ,r,r 103, 107) but not an
imidazolium as the cationic compound (id. at 3). The Examiner finds further
that Kashiwazaki teaches applying an imidazolium as a cationic compound
on a nonwoven fabric (id. at 4). According to the Examiner, "[t]he
6 US 2003/0186003 Al, published Oct. 2, 2003.
7 US 6,096,469, issued Aug. 1, 2000.
8 US 2006/0204685 Al, published Sept. 14, 2006.
9 US 2005/0030363 Al, published Feb. 10, 2005.
3
Appeal2018-002096
Application 14/406,340
imidazolimn meets the claimed fabric softening agent" (id.) (referring to
claim 8 on appeal). 10 Based on these findings, the Examiner concludes that
it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to
combine Kashiwazaki's imidazolium with Takahashi's inkjet recording
material (i.e., use Kashiwazaki's imidazolium betaine as the cationic
compound in Takahashi's undercoat layer) "to improve the surface property
of the fabric" (id. at 4, 11 ).
The Appellants contend, inter alia, that a person having ordinary skill
in the art would not have used Kashiwazaki's imidazolium betaine as the
cationic compound disclosed in Takahashi's undercoat layer (i.e., ink
receiving underlayer) because imidazolium betaines are neutral
compounds-not cationic compounds as disclosed in Takahashi (Appeal. Br.
20). The Appellants also point out that none of the cationic compounds
disclosed as suitable in Takahashi bear any resemblance to Kashiwazaki's
imidazolium betaine amphoteric surfactant (Reply Br. 7; see also Appeal Br.
26-27) (citing Takahashi ,r 39). The Appellants argue that, therefore, a
person having ordinary skill in the art would not have had a sufficient
rationale to combine the references in the manner as proposed by the
Examiner (Reply Br. 7).
We agree with the Appellants. Takahashi teaches including a
"formulated" cationic compound in the ink-receiving underlayer or the
undercoat layer to fix a dye (Takahashi ,r,r 62, 107). As the Appellants point
out, the cationic compounds disclosed as suitable for this purpose are
10 The Examiner also cites to Urfer et al. ("Urfer"; US 5,744,441, issued
Apr. 28, 1998) to show that imidazolium betaines are amphoteric surfactants
that may be used as fabric softeners (Ans. 12).
4
Appeal2018-002096
Application 14/406,340
polymeric cationic compounds (id. ,r 39). By contrast, Kashiwazaki teaches
amphoteric surfactants having a cationic portion, such as an imidazolium
betaine (Kashiwazaki ,r 131 ). Although Kashiwazaki refers to the
imidazolium betaine as "a cationic compound" (id.), the Examiner does not
direct us to any evidence or technical reasoning ( e.g., structural similarity)
that such a imidazolium betaine surfactant compound would be suitable as a
cationic compound suitable for fixing a dye as disclosed in Takahashi.
Therefore, the Examiner's articulated reason for combining Takahashi and
Kashiwazaki in the manner claimed by the Appellants lacks sufficient
rational underpinning to support the obviousness conclusion as to claim 1.
Claim 13, which is the only other independent claim on appeal, also
recites a "fabric softening agent" (Appeal Br. 31-32). Therefore, the
Examiner's rejection of that claim is deficient for the same reasons given for
the rejection of claim 1.
IV. SUMMARY
For the foregoing reasons, Rejections A through E are not sustained.
Therefore, the Examiner's final decision to reject claims 1-20 is reversed.
REVERSED
5