Ex Parte Czerner

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 25, 2016

14301730 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 25, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/301,730 06/11/2014 Richard L. Czerner
23368 7590 10/27/2016
DINSMORE & SHOHL LLP
FIFTH THIRD CENTER, ONE SOUTH MAIN STREET
SUITE 1300
DAYTON, OH 45402-2023
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.
DAY0853NA 7316
EXAMINER
BANH, DAVID H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2854
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/27/2016 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):
daytonipdocket@dinsmore.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RICHARD L. CZERNER
Appeal2015-004814
Application 14/301,730
Technology Center 2800
Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, LINDA M. GAUDETTE, and
JENNIFER R. GUPTA, Administrative Patent Judges.
GUPTA, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision2 twice rejecting claims 1-21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
The subject matter on appeal relates to a printing blanket including a
non-extensible backing layer and a relief area which may be mounted in a
1 Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Day International, Inc.
Appeal Brief filed November 5, 2014 ("App. Br."), 1.
2 Non-Final Office Action mailed August 14, 2014 ("Non-Final Act.").
Appeal2015-004814
Application 14/301,730
variety of printing presses using a number of different lockup mechanisms.
Spec. i-f 2. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claims on appeal.
1. A printing blanket mounted on a blanket cylinder, said
blanket cylinder including a gap and a lockup mechanism
within said gap;
said printing blanket comprising at least a printable surface
ply and a non-extensible backing layer comprising a
polymeric material or a reinforcing material which has been
impregnated with a polymeric material, said printing blanket
having first and second ends inserted into said gap;
wherein at least a portion of said blanket overlying said non-
extensible backing layer and spaced inwardly from at least
one end of said blanket has been removed or molded to form
at least one relief area which extends across substantially the
width of the blanket and which is defined by blanket walls on
each side;
wherein said at least one relief area is positioned in said gap
immediately above said lock-up mechanism; and
wherein said at least one relief area is adapted to permit the
blanket to be fitted into said lockup mechanism without a
reduction in gauge.
App. Br. (Claims Appendix) 14 (formatting added).
REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
1. Claims 1-12, 14, 15, and 19-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over Andrew et al. (US 6,530,321 B2, issued
March 11, 2003) in view of Takahashi3 (JP 2003-975,541,
published January 28, 2003) (hereinafter "Takahashi");
3 In our discussion of Takahashi, we refer to Takahashi's figures as well as
an English Abstract of this reference made of record in an Information
Disclosure Statement filed July 30, 2014.
2
Appeal2015-004814
Application 14/301,730
2. Claim 13 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Andrew in view of Takahashi and further in view of Batti et al.
(US 6,019,042, issued Feb. 1, 2000); and
3. Claims 16-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over Andrew and Takahashi and further in view of Flint et al.
(US 2005/0098051 Al, published May 12, 2005) (hereinafter
"Flint").
DISCUSSION
We focus our analysis on representative independent claim 1, which
contains the argued limitations common to each of the appealed claims, and
the rejection of claim 1 over Andrew in view of Takahashi.
The Examiner finds Andrew teaches all the elements of claim 1
except:
at least a portion of the blanket overlying the backing layer and
spaced inwardly from at least one end of the blanket has been
removed or molded to form at least one relief area which extends
across substantially the width of the blanket and which is defined
by blanket walls on each side, so that the relief area is positioned
in the gap above the lock-up mechanism and wherein the at least
one relief area is adapted to permit the blanket to be fitted into
the lockup mechanism without a reduction in gauge.
Non-Final Act. 2-3; see also Andrew 4:55-60, 6:24--7:7, 9:42-53; Figs. 2A,
3, 7. In particular, the Examiner principally relies on Figure 7, which is
reproduced below.
3
Appeal2015-004814
Application 14/301,730
FIG. 7
Figure 7 depicts an enlarged schematic side view of an exemplary lock up
mechanism for the image transfer blanket.
The Examiner finds Andrew's Figure 7 discloses printing blanket 15
mounted on blanket cylinder 12, blanket cylinder 12 including a gap (the
opening on the surface of blanket cylinder 12 where printing blanket 15
enters into the cylinder 12) and lock up mechanism 60, 62, where printing
blanket 15 has first and second ends inserted into the gap. Non-Final Act. 2;
see also Andrew 9:42-53. The Examiner finds that Andrew teaches that
printing blanket 15 includes at least printable ply 38 (Andrew 8:35--43) and
non-extensible backing layer 20, which comprises polymeric material (id. at
4:55--60). Non-Final Act. 2. The Examiner, however, finds that Andrew
does not teach a printing blanket having a relief area as described in claim 1.
Non-Final Act. 2-3.
The Examiner finds that Takahashi, which teaches a method for
folding a metal plate for terminal connectors used for electrical machinery,
teaches in Figures 2A and 2B, molding plate 1 to form relief area 8
extending substantially across the width of the blanket and defined by
4
Appeal2015-004814
Application 14/301,730
blanket walls on each side of the relief area. Non-Final Act. 3. Takahashi's
Figures 2A and 2B are reproduced below.
[fa'] 2 l
~ ~
i ~
~ ~
~ ~,~.,{ ..... ~ ... 6
L ____________ ~-1;::-~-----J
Figures 2A and 2B depicts a process of press forming a metal plate.
Appellant argues that Takahashi is non-analogous art, and thus, is not
applicable as prior art in support of the Examiner's obviousness rejection.
App. Br. 7-8. A reference is analogous prior art if: (1) it is from the same
field of endeavor, or (2) if it is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem
with which the inventor was involved. In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 658-59
(Fed. Cir. 1992). "A reference is reasonably pertinent if, even though it may
be in a different field from that of the inventor's endeavor, it is one which,
5
Appeal2015-004814
Application 14/301,730
because of the matter with which it deals, logically would have commended
itself to an inventor's attention in considering his problem." Id. at 659.
Appellant contends that Takahashi is non-analogous art because it is
concerned with bending a heat-resistant metal alloy part used in
an automotive harness to avoid cracking, while applicant is
concerned with being able to mount a printing blanket with a
non-extensible backing ply into a variety of printing cylinders
having different lockup mechanisms while avoiding a reduction
in gauge (i.e., thickness) of the blanket when it is tensioned in
the lockup mechanism of a blanket cylinder.
App. Br. 8. Thus, Appellant persuasively argues that Takahashi is neither
from the same field of endeavor nor reasonably pertinent to the problem
which the inventor is involved. Id. at 7.
Even assuming that Takahashi is prior art applicable to claims 1-12,
14, 15, and 19-21, Appellant also persuasively argues that the Examiner
reversibly erred in finding that Takahashi teaches or suggests a printing
blanket (e.g., the printable surface layer, the compressible layer, and the
reinforcing fiber (see, e.g., claim 5)) overlying the non-extensible backing
layer having a relief area (formed by removing or molding a portion of the
blanket).4 App. Br. 9; see also Reply Brief filed March 25, 2015 ("Reply
Br.") 4. As Appellants argue, Takahashi does not disclose a plate with
multiple layers. Reply Br. 4. Rather, Takahashi teaches forming a notch 4
on the surface of a metal plate 1 (such as Andrew's base layer 20, which
may comprise metal (Andrew 3 :20-22, 4:55---60)), where a projecting part 3
on the back surface of the metal plate is projected outwardly in an arc-shape
4 Contrary to the Examiner's implication in the Examiner's Answer (Ans. 3-
4), "removed or molded to form a relief area" describes the structure of the
blanket overlying the non-extensible backing layer, and should be given
patentable weight.
6
Appeal2015-004814
Application 14/301,730
corresponding to notch 4. Takahashi Abstract. As such, the evidence does
not support the Examiner's determination that a person skilled in the art
combining Andrew with Takahashi would have arrived at the invention as
recited in claim 1. Therefore, we do not sustain the § 103 rejections of claim
1 or claims 2-21 which depend directly or indirectly therefrom.
DECISION
For the above reasons, the rejections of claims 1-21 are reversed.
REVERSED
7