12431446 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 30, 2016)

Ex Parte Cunnington et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 30, 2016

12431446 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 30, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/431,446 04/28/2009 76360 7590 09/30/2016 MAGINOT, MOORE & BECK LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 2200 INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46204 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR James Matthew Cunnington 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. 1776-0311 5172 EXAMINER VALENCIA, ALEJANDRO ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2853 MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE 09/30/2016 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 JAMES MATTHEW CUNNINGTON, 1 Trevor James Snyder, Edward F. Burress, and Heidi Noce Appeal2015-001803 Application 12/431,446 Technology Center 2800 Before MARK NAGUMO, GEORGE C. BEST and DEBRA L. DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges. NAGUMO, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL James Matthew Cunnington, Trevor James Snyder, Edward F. Burress, and Heidi N oce ("Cunnington") timely appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Final Rejection2 of claims 1, 18, and 21- 23, which are all of the pending claims. We have jurisdiction. 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6. We reverse. 1 The real party in interest is identified as Xerox Corporation. (Appeal Brief, filed 13 June 2014 ("Br."), 3.) 2 Office action mailed 13 January 2014 ("Final Rejection"; cited as "FR"). Appeal 2015-001803 Application 12/431,446 A. Introduction 3 OPfNION The subject matter on appeal relates to a method of clearing blocked ink jets in ink jet printer heads. The '446 Specification reveals that "partially or completely blocked ink jets may be caused by contamination from dust or paper fibers, dried ink, etc." (Spec. 3 [0004].) Prior art methods of performing maintenance on inkjet printheads involve purging ink through the ink pathways and nozzles of the print heat assembly and wiping the nozzle plate. (Id. at 5 [0005].) According to the Specification, these prior art methods purge each inkjet in the print head, resulting in inefficient use of the ink. (Id.) The inventors seek patent protection for a method in which a first pressure is applied to ink in the printhead in response to detection of at least one contaminated inkjet. The first pressure is said to prevent ink from entering a plurality of apertures in the aperture plate of the print head and to prevent ink from drooling from those apertures. (Id. at 5 [0008].) A wiper blade is then moved into contact with the contaminated jet to cause ink to drool from the first portion of apertures containing the contaminated jet in the aperture plate. (Id.) 3 Application 12/431,446, Selective Purging of Ink Jets to Limit Purge Mass, filed 28 April 2009. We refer to the "'446 Specification," which we cite as "Spec." 2 Appeal 2015-001803 Application 12/431,446 Claim 1 is representative of the dispositive issues and reads: A method of performing maintenance on a printhead of an imaging device, the method comprising: detecting at least one contaminated ink jet in a printhead; applying a first pressure to ink in the printhead in response to the detection of the at least one contaminated ink jet, the first pressure being greater than atmospheric pressure to prevent ink from entering a plurality of apertures arranged in a plurality of rows in an aperture plate of the printhead while the first pressure alone forms and maintains a meniscus of ink at the apertures in the aperture plate, each aperture in the plurality of apertures being in fluid communication with an ink jet in the printhead, and to prevent ink from being emitted from the plurality of apertures unless the apertures are physically contacted; and movmg while the first pressure alone is applied to the ink in the printhead a wiper blade to a first position on the aperture plate to physically contact the meniscus of ink formed and maintained by the first pressure alone at the apertures in a row of apertures in which an aperture corresponding to the at least one contaminated ink jet is located, the wiper blade being configured to move from a position where the wiper blade is disengaged from the aperture plate to any one aperture row in the plurality of rows arranged in the aperture plate[.] (Claims App., Br. 12; some indentation, paragraphing, and emphasis added.) 3 Appeal 2015-001803 Application 12/431,446 The Examiner maintains the following grounds of rejection4 : A. Claims 1, 18, 21, and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) in view of the combined teachings of Inoue'554, 5 Inoue '066, 6 and Miyazawa. 7 Al. Claim 23 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) in view of the combined teachings of Inoue '554, Inoue '066, Miyazawa, and Yamada. 8 B. Discussion Findings of fact throughout this Opinion are supported by a preponderance of the evidence of record. Cunnington urges that the term "applying a first pressure to ink" cannot be read on applying a back pressure greater than atmospheric pressure and the pressure produced by a piezoelectric element, as disclosed by Inoue '554 (Br. 7, 11. 1-17) or by Inoue '066 (id. at 11. 18, to 8, 1. 7). Cunnington does not, however, direct our attention to any disclosure in the '446 Specification that defines the "first pressure" in so limited a manner. We shall not read limitations into the claims from preferred 4 Examiner's Answer mailed 11 September 2014 ("Ans."). 5 Hiroshi Inoue, Liquid ejection apparatus and liquid ejection surface maintenance method, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2008/0218554 Al (11 September 2008), based on an application filed 6 March 2008). 6 Hiroshi Inoue, Liquid ejection apparatus and liquid ejection surface cleaning method, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2008/0049066 Al (28 February 2008). 7 Hisashi Miyazawa, Maintenance device for liquid ejection head, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2008/0012897 Al (17 January 2008). 8 Kaneji Yamada and Tetsuya Edamura, Waste ink absorber, pre-ejected ink receiving device and ink-jet recording apparatus, U.S. Patent No. 6,565, 189 B2 (2003). 4 Appeal 2015-001803 Application 12/431,446 embodiments in the Specification. On the present record, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term "first pressure," in light of the disclosure, is a pressure adequate to maintain a meniscus of ink at the apertures of the print plate, i.e., a pressure above atmospheric pressure. Nor does Cunnington dispute that Inoue '066 illustrates a process in Figure 13, reproduced right, in which the back pressure is set positive, i.e., higher than atmospheric pressure, at step S8. 9 In addition to vibrating the meniscus (e.g., via a piezoelectric vibrator), the back pressure may be changed in step Sll before the sliding of a wiper in step S12; and at S15, through the wiping step S22. As indicated by step S24, "set back pressure to negative pressure," the pressure applied to the ink is greater than atmospheric through wiping step S22. WETTING ( START ) C::::._ .. m.~J!EL I MlNARYJPREPARAfi(iifammÂ·-- Pl.JRG I NG CLOSE LI au ID SUPPL y VAL VE ................................................................................. SEl~ Pl.m~l-0- OOSllWE:eRESOORE ..._.SS START SLIGHT V I BRAT I ON OF MENISCUS "-Â·' S 1 0 START SLIDING r-.~S12 ~~}NG START ~ION? â€¢ No WAIT S14 ~ ENO SLIGHT V !BRAT I ON OF MEN! SCUS Yes SET BACK PRESSURE TO N~GJ\TIVE PRCSSURE 820 OPEN LIQUID SUPPLY VALVE ~'Â·826 ======~~-Â·-_m;_~Â·R~l-;Â·~_G ____ ___.l''v$28 ( ENO ) {Inoue '066 Fig. 13 shows a flow chart of a cleaning process of a printhead (shading added} 9 Throughout this Opinion, for clarity, labels to elements are presented in bold font, regardless of their presentation in the original document. 5 Appeal 2015-001803 Application 12/431,446 We are not persuaded of harmful error in this aspect of the appealed rejection. Cunnington urges further that Miyazawa fails to teach "the wiper blade being configured to move ... to any one aperture row in the plurality of rows arranged in the aperture plate" as recited in claim 1. (Br. 8.) More specifically, Cunnington argues that "[t]he article 'the' means a single wiper blade and not a plurality of wiper blades." (Id. at 11. 16-17.) Miyazawa, Cunnington urges, has a different structure because Miyazawa provides a plurality of wipers for each print head. (Id. at 11. 19--20, citing Miyazawa [0132].) Out of this plurality of wipers, a wiper 25 is selected to wipe the corresponding single row 13 of nozzles associated with the selected wiper. Cunnington concludes that "no wiper in Miyazawa is configured to move to any one row in a plurality of rows on an aperture plate." (Br. 8, 11. 22-23.) Rather, each wiper moves to wipe only the one row of nozzles on the aperture plate that corresponds to the wiper. (Br. 8; 11. 22-24.) Review ofMiyazawa supports Cunnginton's argument. Each double row 13 of nozzles ejects one of the four standard color inks, cyan (C), magenta (M), yellow (Y), and black (K). (Miyazawa 4 [0110].) Indeed, Miyazawa touts as an advantage that "the nozzle rows 13 defined in parallel on the nozzle forming surface 12a of the recording head 12 are wiped by the different wipers 25 corresponding to the different color inks. Mixing of the color inks is thus easily avoided." (Miyazawa 31 [0301].) The Examiner responds that only paragraph [0302] of Miyazawa is relied on as evidence of the obviousness of the wiper for the nozzles based on the selective wiping. (Ans. 5, 11. 5---6.) The Examiner reasons that "while 6 Appeal 2015-001803 Application 12/431,446 Miyazawa may teach multiple wipers for multiple heads, it also necessarily teaches a single wiper that selectively wipes a single head at a single nozzle row that has a defective nozzle. In other words, a single is taught where there is a plurality." (Id. at 4, 1. 19, to 5, 1. 1.) The difficulty with the Examiner's reasoning is that it does not correspond to the requirement, recited in claim 1, that a wiper be "configured [i.e., be capable] to move [from the disengaged position] to any one aperture row in the plurality of rows arranged in the aperture plate." The Examiner does not make any other findings regarding limitations recited in the dependent claims, or any findings regarding remaining reference Yamada, that cure this defect. C. Order It is ORDERED that the rejection of claims 1, 18, and 21-23 is 1 reversea. REVERSED 7