HEWLETT PACKARD INDIGO BV

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 27, 2020

14905074 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jul. 27, 2020)

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.
14/905,074 01/14/2016 Mark SANDLER 84437085 1095
22879 7590 07/27/2020
HP Inc.
3390 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 35
Fort Collins, CO 80528-9544
EXAMINER
MORELLO, JEAN F
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2861
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/27/2020 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
jessica.pazdan@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 MARK SANDLER, PETER NEDELIN,
and YARON PERI

Appeal 2019-005198
Application 14/905,074
Technology Center 2800
Before: JEFFREY B. ROBERTSON, JEFFREY R. SNAY, and
LILAN REN, Administrative Patent Judges.
ROBERTSON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL1
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 5–10, and 13–25.2 See Appeal Br.
10. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM IN PART.

1 This Decision includes citations to the following documents: the Original
Specification filed January 14, 2016 (“Spec.”); the Final Office Action
mailed September 20, 2018 (“Final Act.”); the Appeal Brief filed February
26, 2019 (“Appeal Br.”); the Examiner’s Answer mailed May 6, 2019
(“Ans.”); and the Reply Brief filed June 26, 2019 (“Reply Br.”).
2 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). Appellant identifies HP Indigo B.V. as the real party in interest.
Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-005198
Application 14/905,074

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant states the invention relates to determining the quantity of
liquid in a chamber, for example, the quantity of printing liquid in a printing
apparatus. Spec. 1, ll. 1–11. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of
the claimed subject matter (Appeal Br., Claims Appendix 27):
1. A method to determine a quantity of a liquid in a
chamber, the method comprising:

controlling a motor to rotate a mixer in the chamber at a first
speed;

receiving a measurement of electrical current drawn by the
motor at the first speed;

determining a quantity of liquid in the chamber by referring
to a look-up table, the look-up table comprising correlations
between the electrical current drawn by the motor, the speed of
the mixer, the density of the liquid in the chamber, and the
quantity of the liquid within the mixing chamber, wherein the
liquid in the chamber comprises a first liquid and a second
liquid, the motor causing the mixer to mix the first liquid and
the second liquid; and

supplying the mixed first liquid and second liquid to at least
one component for applying the mixed liquid to media.

Appeal 2019-005198
Application 14/905,074

3
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Kanzaki et al.
(hereinafter
“Kanzaki”)
US 2005/0087002 A1 April 28, 2005
Oda et al.
(hereinafter “Oda”)
US 2008/0112719 A1 May 15, 2008
Sakai et al.
(hereinafter
“Sakai”)
US 2011/0031922 A1 February 10, 2011
Downs, III et al.
(hereinafter
“Downs”)
US 2012/0132049 A1 December 13, 2012
REJECTIONS3
1. The Examiner rejected claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) or 35
U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph. Final Act. 3.
2. The Examiner rejected claims 1, 5–8, 18, and 25 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Oda and Kanzaki. Final Act. 5–8.
3. The Examiner rejected claims 9, 10, 13, 14, 16, 17, and 19–24
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Oda, Kanzaki, and
Downs. Final Act. 8–14.
4. The Examiner rejected claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Oda, Kanzaki, and Sakai. Final Act. 14–15.

3 The Examiner withdrew rejections of claims 1, 6–8, 18, 24, and 25 under
35 U.S.C. § 101 and claim 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. § 112
(pre-AIA), second paragraph in the Answer. Ans. 3.
Appeal 2019-005198
Application 14/905,074

4
OPINION
Rejection 1
Claim 5 depends from claim 1 and recites: “[t]he method of claim 1,
further comprising controlling supply of the liquid to the chamber when it is
determined that the chamber is not full.”
The Examiner rejected claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) or (pre-
AIA), second paragraph as providing insufficient antecedent basis for the
recitation of “the liquid” in line 2 of the claim, which the Examiner
determined “appears to be indicative of either first liquid or the second
liquid.” Final Act. 3. The Examiner determined also that “[i]t is unclear
from claim 5 whether the supply of the liquid is referring to the first liquid
only, the second liquid only, or both.” Ans. 4.
Appellant contends claim 1 provides antecedent basis by reciting “the
liquid in the chamber comprises a first liquid and a second liquid.” Appeal
Br. 11; see also Reply Br. 4. Appellant does not challenge, but rather agrees
with the Examiner that “the liquid” is indicative of either the first liquid or
the second liquid, such that there is no lack of clarity in claim 5.

Discussion
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. During
examination, “[a] claim is indefinite when it contains words or phrases
whose meaning is unclear.” In re Packard, 751 F.3d 1307, 1310, 1314 (Fed.
Cir. 2014 (per curiam) (citing Manual of Patent Examining Procedure
§ 2173.05)). In this case, the recitation in claim 1 of “the liquid” does not
sufficiently inform the skilled artisan of the metes and bounds of the
recitation “controlling supply of the liquid” in claim 5. That is, it is unclear
Appeal 2019-005198
Application 14/905,074

5
whether controlling the supply of the liquid includes controlling the supply
of the first liquid, second liquid, or both. “[T]he liquid” as referred to in
claim 1, is “a first liquid and a second liquid” already present in the
chamber, and does not refer to any liquid that may be supplied to the
chamber.
As a result, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 5.

Rejection 2
Appellant presents separate arguments with respect to claims 1, 6, and
18, subject to this ground of rejection. See Appeal Br. 6, 19, and 20. We
select claims 1, 6, and 18 as representative for disposition of this rejection,
with the patentability of the other claims standing or falling with these
claims. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).

Claim 1
The Examiner’s Rejection
In rejecting claim 1 as obvious over the combination of Oda and
Kanzaki, the Examiner found Oda discloses a method to determine a
quantity of a liquid in a chamber, where the chamber includes a volume
detector 272, where the method includes controlling a mixer 276 at a first
speed, receiving a measurement of electrical current in the form of a current
from first motor 276c acting on the liquid level detecting member 276b, and
determining a quantity of liquid acting on the liquid level detecting member
through a power calculating section. Final Act. 5–6. In this regard, the
Examiner found that because the liquid level detecting member 276b is
within two liquids and moves within the two liquids, it performs the function
Appeal 2019-005198
Application 14/905,074

6
of mixing the liquids and is thus a “mixer” as recited in claim 1. Ans. 5.
The Examiner found Oda fails to disclose a lookup table. Final Act. 6.
The Examiner found Kanzaki discloses relationships that are
predetermined under a plurality of conditions and stored in a database to
quickly calculate a viscosity. Id. The Examiner found relationships between
viscosity, speed, amount, current, temperature, and atmosphere are stored
such that subsequent measurements of some of the data to determine a last
piece of data may be part of a database look-up. Id.
The Examiner determined it would have been obvious to use either a
lookup table which pre-determines relationships or an equation which sets
forth a relationship because each method requires current/power
consumption and the viscosity of the fluid in order to determine the height of
the liquid. Id. at 6–7. The Examiner found predetermining the result rather
than generating the resultant relationship to be within the scope of one of
ordinary skill in the art. Id. at 7.

Appellant’s Contentions
Appellant argues Oda discloses agitating a single liquid, and does not
suggest mixing a first liquid with a second liquid as recited in claim 1.
Appeal Br. 17. Appellant argues Oda does not detect or consider the current
drawn by the agitator motor 276d used to rotate agitating member 276a,
rather, Oda has a separate liquid level detecting member 276b, and Oda
looks at the power consumption of the liquid level detecting member, which
is not a mixer. Id. at 17–18. Appellant argues Kanzaki does not remedy the
deficiencies of Oda, because Kanzaki does not address any relationship
Appeal 2019-005198
Application 14/905,074

7
between the current drawn by a mixer motor and quantity of liquid in a
chamber. Id. at 18.
Issue
Has Appellant demonstrated reversible error in the Examiner’s
position that the method to determine a quantity of a liquid in a chamber
recited in claim 1 would have been obvious over Oda and Kanzaki?

Discussion
We are unpersuaded by Appellant’s argument that Oda does not
disclose mixing a first and second liquid. As the Examiner points out, Oda
discloses combining various liquids, such as a carrier from a carrier tank,
toner from a toner tank, and residual developer. Oda ¶¶ 55, 57, 58, and Fig.
4; see also Ans. 5.
We are also not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that Oda does not
detect or consider current drawn by a motor that rotates a “mixer.” As
discussed above, the Examiner’s position is that Oda’s liquid detecting
member 276b, because it contacts liquid in the chamber, acts as a “mixer” as
it is rotated when in contact with the liquid. Ans. 5. We agree with this
position.
Oda discloses a liquid volume detector 276 for detecting the volume
of a liquid in a container. Oda, ¶¶ 2, 9, 59–66, and Figs. 5, 6. Although it is
true, as Appellant points out, that Oda discloses the liquid volume detector
276 includes an agitating member 276a, which “is a member for agitating
the liquid developer in the developer adjusting device 272” and is connected
with an output rotary shaft of the second motor 276d, Oda discloses a liquid
Appeal 2019-005198
Application 14/905,074

8
level detecting member 276b, a first motor 276c for rotating the liquid level
detecting member 276b. Id. ¶¶ 59, 60, 69, 70, and Fig. 5.
Oda discloses the motor controlling section 91 controls the rotational
driving of the first motor 276c and “actuates the first motor 276c for liquid
volume detection to rotate the liquid detecting member 276b.” Id. ¶ 77.
Oda discloses the power calculating section 92 calculates the power
consumed by the first motor 276c. Id. ¶ 78. Oda discloses that the load
current of the first motor 276c changes depending on the load acting on the
liquid level detecting member 276b such that if the liquid level increases
such that the annular member 276h touches the liquid, the load increases and
the load current increases. Id. Oda discloses the power calculating section
92 detects the change of the power consumption or load level and outputs a
detected content to the liquid level discriminating section 93. Id. The liquid
level discriminating section 93 discriminates the height of the liquid level
based on the output data of the power calculating section 92. Id. ¶¶ 79, 87–
89.
Thus, Oda discloses the liquid level detecting member 276b is rotating
when in contact with the liquid in the developer adjusting device 272.
Although the agitating member 276a may be the primary source of liquid
mixing, we are of the view the Examiner’s position that the liquid level
detecting member 276b would perform some degree of mixing when in
contact with the liquid is reasonably supported. In this regard, claim 1 does
not exclude the presence of more than one mixer in the chamber.
We are also not persuaded by Appellant’s position that because
Kanzaki does not address any relationship between current drawn by a mixer
motor and the quantity of liquid in a chamber, the Examiner’s position that
Appeal 2019-005198
Application 14/905,074

9
the idea of using current drawn by a mixer motor to determine a quantity of
liquid is based on hindsight. Kanzaki discloses correlating viscosity of a
reaction liquid and current, whereby standard solutions under the same
conditions including quantity, stirring speed, and viscosity, are used to
establish relationships based on current draw. Kanzaki ¶¶ 78–85; see also
Ans. 5–6. Thus, in contrast to Appellant’s argument, Kanzaki discloses
relationships including current draw as related to amounts.
As a result, we are of the view that the Examiner has provided
sufficient support for the position that incorporating Kanzaki’s method of
relating current draw to liquid parameters into the method of Oda would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Final Act. 6–7; see
also KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007) (“[I]f a
technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary
skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the
same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is
beyond his or her skill.”).
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, as well as
claims 5, 7, 8, and 25 dependent therefrom.

Claim 6
Claim 6 depends from claim 1 and recites “controlling the motor to
rotate the mixer in the chamber at a second speed” and “determining . . . the
quantity of liquid and a viscosity of the liquid in the chamber.”
The Examiner’s position is that Kanzaki discloses the relationship
between motor operation, amount, and viscosity of a fluid, and although
“Kanzaki fails to teach simultaneously solving for two variables, the concept
Appeal 2019-005198
Application 14/905,074

10
of solving for a plurality of unknowns using a series of equations is within
the scope of one of ordinary skill in the art.” Final Act. 7; see also Ans. 7.
Appellant argues the combination of two different speeds with the
same mixer motor to determine both quantity and viscosity is a concept
“beyond the scope and content of the cited references.” Appeal Br. 20.
We agree with Appellant in this regard. The Examiner’s general
reliance on solving equations based on the existence of multiple variables
does not provide sufficient rational underpinnings for why one of ordinary
skill in the art would have selected a second speed for the first motor 276c in
order to determine viscosity of the liquids based on general relationships
disclosed in Kanzaki. “[R]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be
sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some
articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal
conclusion of obviousness.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (quoting In re Kahn, 441
F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). As a result, we reverse the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 6.

Claim 18
Claim 18 depends from claim 1 and recites “wherein the look-up table
contains data that relates the viscosity of a liquid, the measured electrical
current and the mixer speed to a quantity of liquid in the chamber.”
The Examiner found Kanzaki discloses look-up tables which
predetermines relationships between amount, viscosity, current, and speed in
order to determine the viscosity from a database and a measured current and
speed. Final Act. 8; see also Ans. 7–8.
Appeal 2019-005198
Application 14/905,074

11
Appellant contends Kanzaki discloses only calculating viscosity of
reaction liquid using correlation of induced current or voltage with the
viscosity, and does not disclose a look-up table that relates both viscosity
and quantity of liquid as recited in claim 18. Appeal Br. 20.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. That is, claim 18
merely recites look-up tables containing data that relates viscosity of a
liquid, measured electrical current, and mixer speed to a quantity of liquid in
the chamber. Kanzaki, in using correlations of induced current or voltage to
viscosity of standard solutions, includes data of the standard solutions in the
tables including stirring speed, temperature, and amount. Kanzaki ¶ 82.
Thus, we are not persuaded that claim 18 is distinguishable from the
disclosure of Kanzaki. Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 18.

Rejection 3
We limit our discussion to independent claims 9 and 10, which is
sufficient to dispose of this rejection.
Claim 9 recites a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium,
which is encoded with instructions to determine a quantity of liquid in a
chamber in a similar manner as in claim 1, and additionally recites
“determining through the look-up table and the measured electrical current,
that the mixer is not coupled to the motor.”
Claim 10, which recites an apparatus, also recites “determine, through
the look-up table and the measured electrical current, whether the mixer is
coupled to the motor.”

Appeal 2019-005198
Application 14/905,074

12
The Examiner’s Rejection
In rejecting claim 9 as obvious over the combination of Oda, Kanzaki,
and Downs, the Examiner relied on Oda and Kanzaki for similar disclosures
as discussed above with respect to claim 1. Final Act. 9–10. The Examiner
found Oda and Kanzaki fail to disclose determining whether a mixer is
coupled to a motor. Id. at 10. The Examiner found Downs discloses
monitoring motors and mixers in order to indicate an error condition and to
generate an alarm on detecting an error condition. Id. The Examiner
determined it would have been obvious to control the motor of Oda in view
of Kanzaki “based on the applied load, including a zero-load . . . thereby
indicating malfunction and error in order to improve safety of the device, as
taught by Downs.” Id. In the Answer, the Examiner acknowledged Downs
does not explicitly teach determining whether the mixer is coupled to the
motor, but reasoned that if a mixer operates in a viscous liquid, it may
become detached, which would give rise to a “no-load condition,” which is a
measurable parameter and thus it would have been obvious to design into a
look-up table this anticipated states of operation for a motor/mixer. Ans. 9.
The Examiner relied on a similar rationale in order to reject claim 10. Final
Act. 10–12; see also Ans. 9–10.

Appellant’s Contentions
Appellant argues Downs does not disclose or suggest determining
whether a mixer is coupled to a motor, and the Examiner is engaging in
unsupported speculation and is using impermissible hindsight to arrive at the
claimed subject matter. Appeal Br. 22; see also Reply Br. 13–14.
Appeal 2019-005198
Application 14/905,074

13
Discussion
We are persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. Downs only generally
discloses the idea of monitoring current and voltage to calculate a variety of
power related parameters “including alarm and error detection.” Downs
¶ 194. The Examiner’s explanations with respect to how one of ordinary
skill in the art would have arrived at determining whether the motor is
coupled to the mixer are therefore not sufficiently supported by Downs, but
rather appear to be based on impermissible hindsight as argued by
Appellant.
Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 9 and 10,
as well as claims 13, 14, 16, 17, and 19–24 dependent therefrom.

Rejection 4
Claim 15, the subject of Rejection 4, depends from claim 10. Because
the Examiner’s additional citation to Sakai does not remedy the deficiency
discussed above with respect to the combination of Oda, Kanzaki, and
Downs, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 15 for similar reasons
as discussed above for Rejection 3 and claim 10.

Appeal 2019-005198
Application 14/905,074

14
CONCLUSION
In summary:

Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
5 112 Indefiniteness 5
1, 5–8, 18,
25
103 Oda, Kanzaki 1, 5, 7, 8,
18, 25
6
9, 10, 13,
14, 16, 17,
19–24
103 Oda, Kanzaki,
Downs
9, 10, 13,
14, 16, 17,
19–24
15 103 Oda, Kanzaki,
Sakai
15
Overall
Outcome
1, 5, 7, 8,
18, 25
6, 9, 10,
13, 14–17,
19–24

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED IN PART