Ex Parte Buskirk et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 22, 201714272622 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 22, 2017) Copy Citation 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. 14/272,622 05/08/2014 William A. Buskirk 1058-143767 4281 28289 7590 11/27/2017 THE WEBB LAW FIRM, P.C. ONE GATEWAY CENTER 420 FT. DUQUESNE BLVD, SUITE 1200 PITTSBURGH, PA 15222 EXAMINER VALENCIA, ALEJANDRO ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2853 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/27/2017 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): patents @ webblaw. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte WILLIAM A. BUSKIRK, STEVEN E. FLEGO, CHARLES C. HALUZAK, BRIAN DUNN, PAUL JENSEN, CHARLES GILSON, THOMAS E. KIMERLING, and GLENN J.T. LEIGHTON Appeal 2017-001061 Application 14/272,622 Technology Center 2800 Before JAMES C. HOUSEL, GRACE KARAFFA OBERMANN, and JULIA HEANEY, Administrative Patent Judges. HEANEY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL1 Appellant2 seeks our review pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of a decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1,3,4, 10, 11, 15—18, and 26 of Application 14/272,622. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). 1 This Decision includes citations to the following documents: Specification filed May 8, 2014 (“Spec.”); Final Office Action mailed Oct. 14, 2015 (“Final Act.”); Appeal Brief filed Mar. 14, 2016 (“Appeal Br.”); Examiner’s Answer mailed Aug. 17, 2016 (“Ans.”); and Reply Brief filed Oct. 11, 2016 (“Reply Br.”). 2 Matthews Resources, Inc., is identified as the applicant (hereinafter “Appellant”) and the real party in interest. App. Br. 2; Application Data Sheet filed May 8, 2014. Appeal 2017-001061 Application 14/272,622 We reverse. BACKGROUND The subject matter on appeal relates to a micro-valve system for use in an inkjet printer. App. Br. 2; Spec. 13. Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A micro-valve system comprising: an orifice plate including an orifice; and a cantilevered beam coupled in spaced relation to the orifice plate and moveable between positions where the orifice is closed and opened by the cantilevered beam, wherein: the cantilevered beam is comprised of one or more piezoelectric layers that facilitate bending of the cantilevered beam in response to the application of one or more electrical signals to the one or more piezoelectric layers; and in response to respective application and termination of the one or more electrical signals to the one or more piezoelectric layers, the cantilevered beam either: moves from a starting position spaced from the orifice plate toward the orifice plate and returns back to the starting position spaced from the orifice plate; or moves from a starting position adjacent the orifice plate away from the orifice plate and returns back to the starting position adjacent the orifice plate. App. Br. 12, Claims App’x. THE REJECTIONS 1. Claims 1, 3, and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as anticipated by Wong.3 Final Act. 2—3. 3 Wong et al., US 2005/0259131 Al, Nov. 24, 2005. (“Wong”). 2 Appeal 2017-001061 Application 14/272,622 2. Claims 10, 11, 15—18, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Wong and Kwon.4 Final Act. 4—7. DISCUSSION The Examiner finds that Wong discloses the micro-valve system comprising an orifice plate and cantilevered beam as recited in Appellant’s claim 1. Final Act. 2—3. The Examiner acknowledges that Wong does not specifically mention that its cantilevered beam comprises one or more piezoelectric layers. Final Act. 2. The Examiner finds, however, that at least one piezoelectric layer is inherent in Wong’s cantilevered beam because a piezoelectric technique for moving an actuator to push ink out of an orifice is one of “only two types of on-demand ink ejection” according to Wong 14 and other prior art. Ans. 3. The Examiner further reasons that because “Wong’s disclosure is directed to a cantilevered arrangement to which a voltage is applied so as to move the cantilevered arrangement to eject ink, there is no doubt whatsoever that Wong’s device is piezoelectric, and thus necessarily includes one or more piezoelectric layers.” Id. The Examiner relies on Wong Fig. 3 as showing movement of the cantilevered beam and reasons that “the only way to create the movement shown in Wong’s Fig. 3 is by piezoelectric actuation, and the only way to create piezoelectric actuation is through the use of one or more piezoelectric layers.” Id. Figures 3 A and 3B of Wong are reproduced below: 4 Kwon et al., US 2006/0092237 Al, May 4, 2006. (“Kwon”). 3 Appeal 2017-001061 Application 14/272,622 Figures 3 A and 3B depict a cross-sectional view of Wong’s fluid ejection device and method of operating it. We reverse the rejection because the Examiner has not satisfied the initial burden of showing that Wong meets all of the limitations of claim 1. The Examiner’s finding that Wong’s cantilevered beam necessarily includes one or more piezoelectric layers is based on speculation and unfounded assumptions. As Appellant argues, Wong describes in great detail in Figs. 4A-4G the fabrication of its fluid ejection device, including the composition of its cantilever beam, but does not disclose a piezoelectric 4 Appeal 2017-001061 Application 14/272,622 layer. App. Br. 6. Further, Wong Fig. 3 describes activation pad 3045 situated on the orifice plate 300 of its fluid ejection device, and that when a voltage is applied to the activation pad 304 (Wong 127): A voltage difference occurs between the activation pad 304 and the beam 302. As a result, the cantilever portion 310 of the beam 302 is pulled down from an initial position toward the orifice 306 for ejecting the fluid 314 out of the orifice 306. This description of the movement of Wong’s cantilever beam does not state or imply that the movement is a result of piezoelectric actuation of the cantilever beam; rather, Wong expressly states that the movement is a result of a voltage difference between the activation pad and the beam. Accordingly, for the reasons argued by Appellant, the Examiner has not shown that Wong’s cantilevered beam would inherently possess a piezoelectric layer. All other rejections at issue, under both § 102 and § 103, are based on the erroneous finding discussed above with respect to claim 1. Accordingly, we reverse the rejections of claims 3,4, 10, 11, 15—18, and 26 for the same reason. SUMMARY We reverse the rejections of claims 1,3,4, 10, 11, 15—18, and 26. REVERSED 5 Labels to elements are presented in bold font, regardless of their presentation in the original document. 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation