Ex Parte Daems et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 29, 2016

13055718 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/055,718 01125/2011
60405 7590 10/03/2016
AGFA
c/o KEATING & BENNETT, LLP
1800 Alexander Bell Drive
SUITE 200
Reston, VA 20191
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Eddie Daems
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.
55505.234 7577
EXAMINER
LAW, NGA LEUNG V
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1717
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/03/2016 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):
JKEATING@KBIPLA W.COM
uspto@kbiplaw.com
sfunk@kbiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte EDDIE DAEMS and LUC V ANMAELE 1
Appeal2015-000055
Application 13/055,718
Technology Center 1700
Before CHUNG K. PAK, GEORGE C. BEST, and BRIAND. RANGE,
Administrative Patent Judges.
PAK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's decision2 finally rejecting claims 16-34 and 40. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
1 The real party in interest is said to be Agfa Graphics NV. Appeal Brief
filed April 3, 2014 ("App. Br.") at 2.
2 Final Action entered October 11, 2013 ("Final Act.") at 2-6 and the
Examiner's Answer entered July 31, 2014 ("Ans.") at 2-6.
Appeal2015-000055
Application 13/055,718
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The subject matter on appeal is directed to "a method for making a
flexographic printing master by laser engraving .... " Spec. ,-i 1. The
method includes "applying image wise with a first resolution a layer of a
radiation curable liquid partially covering the printing side of [a flexographic
printing] support;" "flood exposing the applied radiation curable layer to
fully cure the layer;" and "image wise laser engraving the cured layer with a
second resolution which is higher than the first resolution[.]" Id. ,-i 16. The
layer of a radiation curable liquid can be applied by spraying or inkjet
printing. Id. ,-i 18. This method is said to take the advantage of known
benefits of the known inkjet printing and laser engraving techniques for
preparing a flexographic printing master. Id. ,-i 10. According to paragraphs
7-8 of the Specification:
Advantages of such a [known inkjet printing] method of
preparing a flexographic printing master are the absence of any
processing steps and the consumption of no more material as
necessary to form a suitable relief image (i.e.[,] removal of
non[ -]printing areas is no longer required).
However, the access time for obtaining a flexographic
printing master is increased by using the inkjet printing method,
especially when high resolution flexographic print quality is
required.
The laser engraving, on the other hand, is known to have "several
advantages over the conventional production of flexographic printing
masters" in that it can individually design the sidewall shape of the
individual relief elements and does not require the time-consuming process
steps associated with conventional methods for producing flexographic
printing masters. Id. ,-i 5. However, "[t]he laser engraving of polymer
2
Appeal2015-000055
Application 13/055,718
materials generates a waste air stream containing toxic substances which
must be eliminated from the waste air stream." Id. iJ 6.
Details of the appealed subject matter are recited in representative
claims 16 and 40,3 which are reproduced below from the Claims Appendix
of the Appeal Brief:
Claim 16: A method for making a flexographic printing
master comprising:
a first step of providing a flexographic printing support;
a second step of applying image-wise, at a first
resolution, a layer of a radiation curable liquid partially
covering a printing side of the flexographic printing support;
a third step of flood exposing the layer of radiation
curable liquid to fully cure the layer of the radiation curable
liquid; and
a fourth step of image-wise laser engraving the cured
layer of the radiation curable liquid at a second resolution
which is higher than the first resolution.
Claim 40: A method of enhancing a resolution of a
flexographic printing master comprising the steps of:
image-wise inkjet printing a radiation curable liquid on a
flexographic printing support to produce a flexographic printing
master; and
image-wise laser engraving the radiation curable liquid.
App. Br. 9 and 12, Claims Appendix.
3 Appellants only argue claims 16 and 40. App. Br. 3-8. Therefore, for
purposes of this appeal, we limit our discussion to claims 16 and 40.
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2013).
3
Appeal2015-000055
Application 13/055,718
The Examiner maintains the following grounds of rejection:
1. Claims 16-22, 31, 32, and 40 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combined teachings of Daems et al. (US
2006/0055761 Al, published March 16, 2006) ("Daems") and Cushner et al.
(US 5,804,353, issued September 8, 1998) ("Cushner"); and
2. Claims 23-30, 33, and 34 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combined teachings of Daems, Cushner, and V erhoest
et al. (US 2004/0131778 A 1, published July 8, 2004) ("Verhoest"). Final
Act. 2-6 and Ans. 2-6.
DISCUSSION
Upon consideration of the evidence on this appeal record in light of
the respective positions advanced by the Examiner and Appellants, we
determine that a preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner's
determination that the applied prior art references would have rendered the
subject matter recited in claims 16-34 and 40 obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Accordingly, we
sustain the Examiner's§ 103(a) rejections of the above claims for the
reasons set forth in the Final Action and the Answer. We add the following
primarily for emphasis and completeness.
In assessing the obviousness of the subject matter recited in the claims
on appeal, "[ o ]ften, it will be necessary for ... [us] to look to interrelated
teachings of [the] multiple [prior art references relied upon by the Examiner]
... to determine whether there was an apparent reason to combine the
known elements in the fashion claimed .... " KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). These prior art references must be read in
4
Appeal2015-000055
Application 13/055,718
context, taking into account "demands known to the design community,"
"the background knowledge possessed by a person having ordinary skill in
the art," and "the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill
in the art would employ." Id. at 418; see also In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475,
1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994) ("[A] prior art reference must be 'considered together
with the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art."' (quoting In
re Samour, 571F.2d559, 562 (CCPA 1978))). The background knowledge
attributable to one of ordinary skill in the art includes what was admittedly
known in the art at the time of the invention. Constant v. Advanced Micro-
Devices, Inc., 848 F.2d 1560, 1570 (Fed. Cir. 1988) ("A statement in a
patent that something is in the prior art is binding on the applicant and
patentee for determinations of anticipation and obviousness."); In re
Nomiya, 509 F.2d 566, 570-71(CCPA1975) (using the admitted prior art in
applicant's Specification to determine the patentability of a claimed
invention.); In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 301(CCPA1982) ("[i]t is not unfair
or contrary to the policy of the patent system that appellants' invention be
judged on obviousness against their actual contribution to the art" (footnote
omitted)).
Here, the Examiner finds, and Appellants do not dispute, that Daems
teaches a method of manufacturing a flexographic printing master, which
comprises providing an ink receiver surface on a flexographic printing
support, applying image-wise, at a first resolution, a layer of a radiation
curable liquid that partially covers a printing side of the flexographic
printing support, and back exposing or flood exposing the layer of the
radiation curable liquid to fully cure the layer of the radiation curable liquid.
Compare Final Act. 2-3 (citing Daems iii! 2-6, 15, 17, 113, 127, 132, and
5
Appeal2015-000055
Application 13/055,718
136-140) with App. Br. 3-8. Although Daems does not teach subjecting its
fully cured radiation curable liquid to laser engraving to form an additional
image having a resolution higher than the first resolution, the Examiner
finds, and Appellants do not dispute, that Cushner discloses that laser
engraving is useful for forming at least one preselected pattern on the fully
cured radiation curable liquid of the type taught by Daems on a flexographic
printing support to make a flexographic printing master. Compare Final
Act. 3 (citing Cushner, col. 1, 11. 6-9, col. 2, 11. 6-25, col. 4, 11. 13-17, col.
10, 11. 39--43, and col. 18, 11. 48-52) with App. Br. 3-8. Nor do Appellants
dispute the Examiner's finding that Cushner teaches that its laser engraving
is useful for forming small and very intricate features with a high image
resolution. 4 Compare Final Act. 3 (citing Cushner col. 3, 11. 56-57, col. 4, 11.
13-17, and col. 13, 11. 42--43) with App. Br. 3-8.
Thus, notwithstanding Appellants' arguments to the contrary, we find
no reversible error in the Examiner's determination that one of ordinary skill
in the art would have had an apparent reason to image-wise laser engrave, as
taught by Cushner, the fully cured layer of the radiation curable liquid taught
4 Consistent with a duty of candor under 37 C.F.R. § 1.56, Appellants also
acknowledge that the laser engraving was known to be useful for
individually designing the sidewall shape of the individual relief elements,
without the time-consuming process steps associated with conventional
methods for producing flexographic printing masters as indicated supra.
Even if we were to determine that this information regarding the utility of
the image-wise laser engraving was not part of the prior art, such
information would be known to one of ordinary skill in the art from simply
observing the laser engraving conducted by Cushner. Cf In re Ludwig, 353
F.2d 241, 244 (CCPA 1965) (explaining that the discovery of a problem
readily noticeable by one of ordinary skill in the art through simple
observation does not impart patentability).
6
Appeal2015-000055
Application 13/055,718
by Daems to provide or individually design small and very intricate features
having a high image resolution (e.g., an additional small and very intricate
image having a higher image resolution than an existing larger, less complex
image5), with a reasonable expectation of successfully forming both small
and complex and simple and large images on the fully cured layer of the
radiation curable liquid though known techniques. KSR, 550 U.S. at 417
("[W]hen a patent 'simply arranges old elements with each performing the
same function it had been known to perform' and yields no more than one
would expect from such an arrangement, the combination is obvious."
(quoting Sakraida v. Ag Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 282 (1976))).
The suggestion for such combination is further supported by
Appellants' admission regarding the knowledge possessed by a person
having ordinary skill in the art who employs "the inferences and creative
steps" in understanding and implementing the collective teachings of Daems
and Cushner. KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. As indicated supra, Appellants
acknowledge that the inkjet printing method taught by Daems was known to
be inefficient in producing high resolution flexographic print quality. See
also Spec. ,-i 8. Such inefficiency of the inkjet printing would also be readily
apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art from simply observing the inkjet
printing taught by Daems. Ludwig, 353 F.2d at 244 (explaining that the
discovery of a problem readily noticeable by one of ordinary skill in the art
does not impart patentability); see also Cushner 4: 15-17, 13:42--43
5 To clearly view or observe the small and very intricate images, one of
ordinary skill in the art would have been reasonably expected to provide a
higher image resolution for small and very intricate features relative to larger
and less complex images that can be viewed without a high image
resolution.
7
Appeal2015-000055
Application 13/055,718
(explaining that resolution by laser is high and appropriate for small
features). Thus, from our perspective, one of ordinary skill in the art
possessing such knowledge would also have been led to employ the image-
wise laser engraving technique taught by Cushner to provide a pattern
having a high image resolution on the fully cured layer of the radiation
curable liquid taught by Daems to avoid any inefficiency associated with
producing the high resolution flexographic print quality with the inkjet
printing taught by Daems.
Finally, we note that Appellants acknowledge (App. Br. 5) that:
As evidenced by the explanations provided in the columns and
line numbers of Cushner et al. listed in the paragraph above, the
deleterious effects of air borne substances created by laser
engraving are facts, which are well known by those of ordinary
skill in the art, and are not merely Appellant's opinion. In view
of the well known facts that inkjet printing does not create air
borne substances that may be harmful to humans or that
interfere with the inkjet printing process ....
Appellants also acknowledge (Spec. iii! 7-8) that the
[a]dvantages of such a [known inkjet printing] method of
preparing a flexographic printing master are the absence of any
processing steps and the consumption of no more material as
necessary to form a suitable relief image (i.e.[,] removal of
non[-]printing areas is no longer required).
However, the access time for obtaining a flexographic
printing master is increased by using the inkjet printing method,
especially when high resolution jlexographic print quality is
required. [Emphasis added.]
Such advantages and disadvantages can also be readily ascertained by one of
ordinary skill in the art from simple observation of the inkjet printing
conducted in Daems. Ludwig, 353 F.2d at 244.
8
Appeal2015-000055
Application 13/055,718
It follows that the above information would not have discouraged, but
would have suggested, using the combination of image wise inkjet printing a
radiation curable liquid on a flexographic printing support, as taught by
Daems, and image-wise laser engraving the cured radiation curable liquid, as
taught by Cushner, with a reasonable expectation of efficiently producing
high resolution flexographic print quality with less air-born toxic substances
due to the smaller amount of the radiation curable liquid employed using the
inkjet printing.
Accordingly, we find no reversible error in the Examiner's
determination that the applied prior art references would have rendered the
subject matter recited in claims 16-34 and 40 obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
ORDER
In view of the foregoing, the decision of the Examiner to reject claims
16-34 and 40 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is AFFIRMED.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § l .136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
9