Ex Parte Dawley et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 15, 201713890485 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 15, 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. 13/890,485 05/09/2013 Douglas Joseph DAWLEY 6003.1280 5735 23280 7590 11/17/2017 Davidson, Davidson & Kappel, LLC 589 8th Avenue 16th Floor New York, NY 10018 EXAMINER MARINI, MATTHEW G ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2854 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/17/2017 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): ddk @ ddkpatent .com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte DOUGLAS JOSEPH DAWLEY, DANIEL MATTHEW PERDUE, and DREW EDWIN KIEFABER (Applicant: GOSS INTERNATIONAL AMERICAS INC.) Appeal 2016-007672 Application 13/890,4851 Technology Center 2800 Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, ROMULO H. DELMENDO, and DEBRA L. DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges. DELMENDO, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL The Applicant (hereinafter “Appellant”) appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Primary Examiner’s final decision to reject claims 1—20.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 Goss International Americas Inc. is listed as both the Applicant and the real party in interest (Application Data Sheet filed May 9, 2013; Appeal Brief filed December 21, 2015, hereinafter “Appeal Br.,” 2). 2 Appeal Br. 4—12; Reply Brief filed August 9, 2016, hereinafter “Reply Br.,” 2—5; Final Office Action entered March 19, 2015, hereinafter “Final Act.,” 2—11; Examiner’s Answer entered June 10, 2016, hereinafter “Ans.,” 2-5. Appeal 2016-007672 Application 13/890,485 I. BACKGROUND The subject matter on appeal relates to a system and method for controlling untensioned product length of a web in a printing press (Specification filed May 9, 2013, hereinafter “Spec.,” 11). Representative claim 1 is reproduced from the Appeal Brief (Claims Appendix 1), with key limitations emphasized, as follows: 1. A method for providing closed loop control of an untensioned product length of a web moving through a printing press under tension during production, comprising, using a controller: while a printing press is printing on the web, the printing press including at least one printing unit having a plate cylinder, a blanket cylinder, and an impression cylinder: receiving a calculated untensioned product length L0(t) of the web in the span of the printing press while the web is moving through the printing press under tension, comparing L0(t) to a previously stored untensioned product length setpoint Lsetpoint, maintaining closed loop control of the untensioned product length by controlling one or more of the plate cylinder, the blanket cylinder or the impression cylinder as a function of said comparing step, and repeating the steps receiving, comparing, maintaining and controlling over time while the printing press is printing on the web. 2 Appeal 2016-007672 Application 13/890,485 II. REJECTION ON APPEAL On appeal, the Examiner maintains a rejection of claims 1—20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (AIA) as unpatentable over Schaede3 in view of Franklin et al.4 (hereinafter “Franklin”) (Ans. 2—5; Final Act. 3—12). III. DISCUSSION The Appellant’s arguments against the rejection are limited to those provided under two separate sub-headings for claims 1 and 12, respectively (Appeal Br. 5—12). We address them in order below. Claim 1. The Examiner finds that Schaede describes most of the limitations recited in claim 1 but acknowledges the differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art reference as follows: Schaede remains silent regarding receiving a calculated untensioned product length Lo(t) of the web in the span of the printing press while the web is moving through the printing press under tension, comparing L0(t) to a previously stored untensioned product length setpoint, Lsetpoint, maintaining closed loop control of the untensioned product length by controlling one or more of plate cylinder, the blanket or the impression cylinder as a function of said comparing step, and repeating the steps receiving, comparing, maintaining and controlling over time while the printing press is printing on the web. (Final Act. 3). The Examiner finds further, however, that Franklin teaches a similar method that would have prompted a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the two references in the manner claimed by the inventors {id. at 3^4; see also Ans. 3). 3 US 7,040,231 B2, issued May 9, 2006. 4 US 7,891,276 B2, issued February 22, 2011. 3 Appeal 2016-007672 Application 13/890,485 The Appellant contends that “neither Schaede nor Franklin show or teach” the limitation highlighted in reproduced claim 1 above—i.e., “controlling one or more of the plate cylinder, the blanket cylinder or the impression cylinder as a function of [a] comparing step” (Appeal Br. 5; emphases omitted). The Appellant argues that “if one of ordinary skill in the art were going to combine the disclosure of Franklin with the disclosure of Schaede, the control system . . . of Franklin would be used to increase or decrease the speed of the web or cut length in Schaede” {id. at 8; emphases omitted). According to the Appellant, “[sjince Franklin discloses controlling the drive roll 31, vacuum feed roll 37, and anvil cylinder 47,” a person having ordinary skill in the art would have “control [led] similar components in Schaede”—namely, Schaede’s draw-in roller 02, first traction roller 03, and second traction roller 11 {id.; referring to elements shown in Franklin’s Fig. 1 and Schaede’s Fig. 1). In addition, the Appellant argues that “Schaede desires controlling the web tension before the web enters the first printing unit” {id. at 9). Based on these arguments, the Appellant urges that the Examiner’s rejection is based on impermissible hindsight {id.). We do not find the Appellant’s arguments sufficient to identify a reversible error in the Examiner’s rejection. In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Schaede describes a method for regulating a web elongation in a rotary printing press using phase position measurements to compensate for changes or fluctuations in the longitudinal elongation in the web-conveying direction (col. 1,11. 43—51; col. 2,11. 38-42). The Examiner finds—and the Appellant does not refute—that Schaede describes a printing unit 06 including an element 22 that corresponds to “a blanket cylinder,” a first 4 Appeal 2016-007672 Application 13/890,485 element 21 corresponding to “a plate cylinder,” and a second element 21 corresponding to “an impression cylinder,” all as recited in claim 1 (compare Ans. 2 and Final Act. 3 with Appeal Br. 6; see also Schaede, Fig. 1). As the Appellant argues (Appeal Br. 9), however, Schaede teaches that the measurements are used to control or regulate a web draw-in unit, which is located upstream of the first printing unit (col. 1,11. 52—58; col. 2,11. 51— 57). In other words, Schaede does not teach “controlling one or more of the plate cylinder, the blanket cylinder or the impression cylinder as a function of [a] comparing step” as required by claim 1. Franklin teaches a method for controlling the length of an elastic web segment, which is cut from a continuous web, by comparing a predicted recovered web segment length at time “t” after a cut to a target length at time “t” after a cut (Fig. 2). According to Franklin, adjustments to system parameters are made if the difference between the predicted (i.e., calculated) and target lengths exceeds a tolerance limit (id.). Specifically, Franklin teaches (col. 12,1. 48—col. 13,1. 3; italics added): Where the predicted recovered length is shorter than the target recovered length, the web 23b speeds and/or web tensions and/or cut length are increased to increase the cut length to thereby increase the recovered length of the discrete webs 23a, or the web speeds and/or tensions may be adjusted to decrease the tension in the web at the cutting station 43 (while the cut length remains generally unchanged) to decrease the amount of recovery and thereby increase the recovered length of the discrete web at the time t after the cut. As the wound roll 25 is unwound, the wound off tension will vary and thus the web handling system 21 operating parameters may be repeatedly modified by the control system 71 as the wound off tension changes. Thus, in accordance with the feed-forward control, the control system 71 determines the needed cut length (or discrete 5 Appeal 2016-007672 Application 13/890,485 length) and/or operating parameter adjustments while the continuous web is upstream from the cutting station (i.e., the particular processing station of interest), based on the predicted recovered length, so that upon recovery for a time t downstream of the cutting station 43 (i.e., the particular processing station) the recovered length of the discrete web 23a (i.e., the discrete segment) will match the target recovered length. Thus, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have drawn a reasonable inference from Franklin’s teachings that the web segment length may be controlled by adjusting the web speeds and/or web tensions. Consistent with the Examiner’s findings (Ans. 4), a person having ordinary skill in the art that would have understood that controlling or varying Schaede’s cylinder 2l’s speed relative to the draw-in roller changer 01’s speed would affect web tension. Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to implement Franklin’s idea of controlling web segment lengths by varying web speeds in Schaede’s method by controlling the rotational speeds of any cylinder that would affect web speeds (or web tension) such as, e.g., Schaede’s cylinders 21 and/or 22. KSRInt’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007) (“[I]f a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill.”); id. at 421 (“A person of ordinary skill is also a person of creativity, not an automaton.”). Although the Appellant is correct that Schaede teaches the tension in the web is preferably made at the draw-in unit 02 (col. 3,11. 50-52), a mere preference for an alternative design does not constitute a teaching away. In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1200 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“[C]ase law does not 6 Appeal 2016-007672 Application 13/890,485 require that a particular combination must be the preferred, or the most desirable, combination described in the prior art in order to provide [the] motivation [or reason] for the current invention.”). For these reasons and those given by the Examiner, we sustain the rejection of claim 1. Claim 12. The Appellant’s arguments in support of claim 12 are substantially identical to those offered in support of claim 1 (Appeal Br. 10— 12). Therefore, we uphold the rejection of claim 12 for the same reasons given for claim 1. IV. SUMMARY The Examiner’s final decision to reject claims 1—20 is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1). AFFIRMED 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation