Ex Parte Burress et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 27, 2017

13439515 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 27, 2017)

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.
1776-0481 9403
EXAMINER
RICHMOND, SCOTT A.
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2853
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
13/439,515 04/04/2012
76360 7590 03/28/2017
MAGINOT, MOORE & BECK LLP
One Indiana Square, Suite 2200
INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46204
Edward F. Burress
03/28/2017 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte EDWARD F. BURRESS and BRENT R. JONES
Appeal 2016-002866
Application 13/439,5151
Technology Center 2800
Before ROMULO H. DELMENDO, BRIAN D. RANGE, and
DEBRA L. DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
RANGE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
SUMMARY
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’
decision rejecting claims 10, 12—15, 17, and 18. We have jurisdiction.
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 According to the Appellants, the real party in interest is Xerox
Corporation. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2016-002866
Application 13/439,515
STATEMENT OF THE CASE2
Appellants describe the invention as directed to an apparatus for
identifying a condition of an inkjet in a printhead. Appeal Br. 5. Claim 10,
reproduced below with spacing added for readability and emphases added to
certain key recitations, is the only independent claim on appeal and is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
10. An apparatus for identifying a condition of an inkjet in a
printhead comprising:
a printhead having a plurality of inkjets, each inkjet having
a piezoelectric actuator configured to eject an ink drop from a
nozzle and pull ink from a manifold in the printhead; and
a controller configured to
deliver to a first inkjet in the printhead a first signal
configured to operate the piezoelectric actuator in
the first inkjet,
the first signal being configured to eject an
ink drop from the first inkjet that corresponds
to a pixel of a digital image stored in a
memory operatively connected to the
controller
and to deliver to at least one other inkjet in the
printhead a second signal configured to operate the
piezoelectric actuator in the at least one other inkjet,
the second signal being different than the
first signal, does not correspond to any pixel
of the digital image stored in the memory,
and is further configured to operate the
piezoelectric actuator to extend a
diaphragm further into an ink chamber of
2 In this decision, we refer to the Final Office Action mailed September 16,
2014 (“Final Act.”), the Appeal Brief filed March 9, 2015 (“Appeal Br.”),
the Examiner’s Answer mailed December 16, 2015 (“Ans.”), and the Reply
Brief filed January 19, 2016 (“Reply Br.”).
2
Appeal 2016-002866
Application 13/439,515
the at least one other inkjet than the
diaphragm extends in response to a signal
configured for ink image printing
and to identify the at least one other inkjet as an
inoperable inkjet prior to delivery of the second signal,
the second signal being an electrical signal
configured to eject an ink drop from the at
least one other inkjet that has at least twenty
percent as much mass as the ink drop ejected
from the first inkjet.
Appeal Br. 15 (Claims App’x).
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies upon the prior art below in rejecting the claims
on appeal:
Lund et al.,
(hereinafter “Lund”)
Folkins et al.,
(hereinafter “Folkins”)
Tanaka et al.,
(hereinafter “Tanaka”)
Ramakrishnan et al.,
(hereinafter “Ramakrishnan”)
US 5,659,342 Aug. 19, 1997
US 2009/0231375 Al Sept 17, 2009
US 2009/0289998 Al Nov. 26, 2009
US 2010/0245454 Al Sept 30, 2010
REJECTIONS
Claims 1—9, 11, and 16 have been withdrawn or cancelled. The
Examiner maintains the following rejections on appeal:
Rejection 1. Claims 10, 12—15, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Folkins in view of Tanaka and further in view of Lund.
Final Act. 3.
Rejection 2. Claims 17 as unpatentable over Folkins in view of
Tanaka and further in view of Lund and Ramakrishnan. Id. at 8.
3
Appeal 2016-002866
Application 13/439,515
ANALYSIS
The Examiner rejects claim 10 as obvious over Folkins in view of
Tanaka and Lund. Final Act. 3. Appellants argue that the cited references,
even if combined, do not teach signals used to eject purging droplets that are
different from signals used to produce image pixels. Appeal Br. 8. In
particular, Appellants argue that the combined references do not teach
sending a signal to an inkjet (the recited “at least one other inkjet”)
“configured to operate the piezoelectric actuator to extend a diaphragm
further into an ink chamber than the diaphragm extends in response to a
signal configured for ink image printing” after the inkjet has been identified
as inoperable. Reply Br. 2—6. Appellants argue “[njothing in the present
record shows that, at the time of the invention, any practitioner in the art
understood that operating a defective inkjet with such a signal would
remediate the defective inkjet.” Reply Br. 6. As explained below, we agree
with Appellants on this point based on the present record.
The Examiner finds that Folkins teaches variable voltages (Final Act.
3—4) and finds that Tanaka teaches that increased voltage level will extend
the recited diaphragm further (id. at 4—5; Ans. 3—4) but also finds that
Folkins does not explicitly disclose increasing the voltage level of the
detected inoperable inkjet (Final Act. 6). Consistent with the Examiner’s
finding regarding the limited teachings of Folkins, the preponderance of
evidence supports Appellants’ explanation that Folkins instead teaches
adjusting voltage of operable inkjets to compensate for an inoperable inkjet.
Appeal Br. 8; Reply Br. 5 (citing Folkins 125); see also Folkins 123.
Recognizing this difference between claim 10 and Folkins, the
Examiner finds that Lund teaches using a different signal for the inoperable
inkjet upon discovering it is inoperable. Final Act. 6 (citing Lund 1:60—2:3);
4
Appeal 2016-002866
Application 13/439,515
Ans. 7 (citing Lund 2:25—33). The Examiner identifies no evidence,
however, establishing that any of the prior art references teach that a signal
to the inoperable inkjet (i.e., claim 10’s “one other inkjet”) will have a
higher voltage or operate an actuator to extend the diaphragm further than a
first signal. Rather, Lund focuses its signal difference “based on whether a
purge drop or an image drop is desired” (Ans. 7) on where purge drops are
located (i.e., on the page, in a spittoon, or both) rather than what voltage or
actuator extension is utilized (see, e.g., Lund Abstract). The Examiner also
does not provide a reasoned explanation as to why this aspect of claim 10
would have been obvious in view of the prior art references. See Ans. 7
(explaining why Lund provides a different signal to an inoperable inkjet but
not providing a basis for why that signal would be configured to operate an
actuator to extend a diaphragm further than a first signal); final Act. 6
(stating that if purging cannot rehabilitate a nozzle, a person of skill would
have increased the voltage level “of neighboring inkjets in compensation”).
We therefore do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 10. The
Examiner’s findings regarding Ramakrishnan do not address the error
identified above. Final Act. 9. We thus also do not sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 12—15, 17, or 18 because those claims depend from
claim 10.
DECISION
For the above reasons, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims
10, 12-15, 17, and 18.
REVERSED
5