15221478 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 3, 2020)

Hewlett-Packard Industrial Printing LTD

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardAug 3, 2020

15221478 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 3, 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. 15/221,478 07/27/2016 Alex Veis 84504757 5735 22879 7590 08/03/2020 HP Inc. 3390 E. Harmony Road Mail Stop 35 Fort Collins, CO 80528-9544 EXAMINER ZIMMERMAN, JOSHUA D ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2853 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/03/2020 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 ALEX VEIS Appeal 2019-006288 Application 15/221,478 Technology Center 2800 ____________ Before JEFFREY T. SMITH, MICHAEL G. MCMANUS, and MERRELL C. CASHION, JR., Administrative Patent Judges. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–5 and 16–22.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as HP Scitex Ltd., an indirectly and wholly owned subsidiary of HP Inc. (Appeal Br. 2.) 2 Claims 6–15 are withdrawn from consideration. (Appeal Br. 4.) Appeal 2019-006288 Application 15/221,478 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Claim 1 illustrates the subject matter on appeal and is reproduced below: 1. A printer ink dryer unit comprising at least one ultraviolet light emitting diode (LED) as a light source to dry a printer ink layer by causing evaporation of a solvent fluid therefrom. Appeal Br. 24, Claims Appendix. The following rejections are presented for our review: I. Claims 1, 2, 4, 17, 21, and 22 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Amao et al. (US 2014/0132685 A1, published May 15, 2014). II. Claims 1–5, and 16–22 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Pitz (US 2004/0200370 A1, published Oct. 14, 2004) in view of Amao. OPINION After review of the respective positions Appellant and the Examiner provide, we REVERSE the Examiner’s prior art rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) and 103. Appeal 2019-006288 Application 15/221,478 3 Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) 3, 4 Claims 1, 2, 4, 17, 21, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Amao. The Examiner finds Amao anticipates the claimed invention by teaching a printer ink dryer unit comprising at least one non-laser ultraviolet light emitting diode (LED) as a light source to dry a printer ink layer by causing evaporation of a solvent fluid therefrom. (Final Act. 2; Amao 197– 198.) The Examiner asserts the claim limitation “to dry a printer ink layer by causing evaporation of a solvent fluid therefrom” describes an intended use of the dryer unit. (Final Act. 2.) The dispositive issue for this rejection is: Did the Examiner err in determining that Amao describes a printer ink dryer unit comprising at least one ultraviolet light emitting diode (LED) as a light source to dry a printer ink layer by causing evaporation of a solvent fluid as required by independent claim 1? We answer this question in the affirmative. Appellant argues Amao does not disclose a printer ink dryer unit comprising at least one ultraviolet LED that causes evaporation of a solvent fluid as required by independent claim 1. (Appeal Br. 8–9.) Appellant argues that the ultraviolet ray irradiation zone (16) in Amao’s system configuration is located downstream from the drying zone (15) and, therefore, the ultraviolet ray irradiation zone (16) does not dry the ink or evaporate the solvent as required by the claimed invention. (Appeal Br. 9.) 3 We limit our discussion to independent claim 1. 4 The complete statement of this rejection on appeal appears in the Final Office Action. (Final Act. 2–4.) Appeal 2019-006288 Application 15/221,478 4 The Examiner has not established that Amao system anticipates the claimed printer ink drying unit. Amao Figure 2 is reproduced below: Amao Figure 2 describes an ink jet device comprising a processing liquid adding unit 12, a processing liquid drying zone 13, an ink ejection unit 14, an ink drying zone 15, and an ultraviolet ray irradiation zone 16 provided with an ultraviolet ray irradiation lamp. (Amao, ¶ 278.) Amao discloses the ink drying step may be performed after the ink adding step and may be before or after the active energy ray irradiating step. (Amao, ¶ 202.) However, Amao discloses the function of the ink drying step is to remove by drying the solvent in the ink composition added onto the recording medium. (Amao, ¶ 201.) Amao discloses the irradiation with an active energy ray causes the polymerizable compound in the ink composition to cure. (Amao, ¶ 194.) The Examiner has not identified teachings in Amao that disclose the ultraviolet ray irradiation zone is inherently capable of operating under Appeal 2019-006288 Application 15/221,478 5 conditions to cause evaporation of a solvent fluid as required by independent claim 1. An inherent characteristic must be inevitable, and not merely a possibility or probability. In re Oelrich, 666 F.2d 578, 581 (CCPA 1981). Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 17, 21, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1). Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 1035, 6 Claims 1–5, and 16–22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Pitz in view of Amao. The Examiner finds Pitz discloses a printer ink dryer unit comprising at least one light source to dry a printer ink layer by causing evaporation of a solvent fluid therefrom. (Final Act. 4; Pitz ¶ 13.) The Examiner finds Pitz fails to disclose that the light source is at least one ultraviolet light emitting diode (LED), but instead discloses that the source is a laser diode (LD). (Final Act. 4; Pitz ¶ 21.) The Examiner finds Amao discloses UV-LEDs and UV-LDs are equivalent light sources for providing UV active rays when a UV light source is required. (Final Act. 4–5; Amao ¶ 198.) The Examiner determines it would have been obvious to use an LED instead of the LD in Pitz’s method because they have been shown to be equivalents for the purpose of providing UV active rays. (Final Act. 5.) Appellant argues neither Pitz nor Amao teach or suggest the idea of irradiating the printing substance with a non-laser LED to cause evaporation of solvent fluid therefrom. (Appeal Br. 16; Reply Br. 13.) Appellant argues 5 We limit our discussion to independent claim 1. 6 The complete statement of this rejection on appeal appears in the Final Office Action. (Final Act. 4–7.) Appeal 2019-006288 Application 15/221,478 6 Pitz and Amao are not using UV light for the same purpose. (Appeal Br. 16.) We agree with Appellant that there is reversible error in the Examiner’s determination of obviousness. Pitz’s invention is directed to printing presses having the advantages of a laser light source. (Pitz ¶ 2.) Pitz is directed to a method for drying printing ink in a printing press using light from a narrow-band radiant energy source. (Pitz ¶ 11.) Pitz discloses the light source is preferably a laser light source, preferably a semiconductor laser diode (LD). (Pitz ¶ 21.) Pitz discloses advantages of the laser light source include tuneability of the laser output wavelength and regulation of the energy input at various positions of the printing substrate. (Pitz ¶¶ 21, 23.) Pitz does not disclose an ultraviolet light emitting diode (LED) is a suitable light source. Amao’s ultraviolet ray irradiation zone cures the polymerizable compound in the ink composition and does not dry ink or evaporate solvent. (Amao, ¶ 194). The Examiner has not identified teachings in Amao that disclose ultraviolet light emitting diode (LED) is capable of operating under conditions to achieve the advantages of a laser light source as required by Pitz. Thus, the Examiner has not provided an adequate technical explanation with the requisite rational underpinning of why or how one skilled in the art, absent impermissible hindsight, would have arrived at the claimed printer ink dryer unit comprising at least one ultraviolet light emitting diode (LED) as a light source to dry a printer ink layer, as required by independent claim 1, from the teachings of the cited art. Appeal 2019-006288 Application 15/221,478 7 For these reasons, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of 1–5, and 16–22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Pitz and Amao. CONCLUSION In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 2, 4, 17, 21, 22 102(a)(1) Amao 1, 2, 4, 17, 21, 22 1–5, and 16– 22 103 Pitz, Amao 1–5, 16– 22 Overall Outcome 1–5 and 16–22 REVERSED