Ex Parte Guillen et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 19, 2009

10437993 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 19, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte ROBERTO GUILLEN, FRANCISCO JAVIER POZUELO,
and JOAN MATIAS GUERRA
____________

Appeal 2007-3930
Application 10/437,993
Technology Center 2800
____________

Decided:1 March 19, 2009
____________

Before KENNETH W. HAIRSTON, MARC S. HOFF,
and KARL D. EASTHOM, Administrative Patent Judges.
HAIRSTON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of
claims 9, 10, 17, and 18. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

1 Any applicable time period for the Appellant(s) to take further action in
this case, such as the time periods proscribed by 37 C.F.R. §§ 1.304 and
41.50(b), begins to run from the decided date shown on this page of the
decision. The time period does not run from the Mail Date (paper delivery)
or Notification Date (electronic delivery).
Appeal 2007-3930
Application 10/437,993

2
We will sustain the obviousness rejection.
Appellants’ invention is directed to a printing apparatus comprising a
printer and a laminator for printing and laminating a plurality of plots on a
web of media. The web of media material is cut between at least some
consecutive printed plots, and the printing apparatus selectively directs some
of the pieces of the cut media along one path to the laminator and selectively
directs other pieces of the cut media to another path away from the laminator
(Figs. 1 and 2; Spec. 4 to 9).
Claim 9 is representative of the claims on appeal, and it reads as
follows:
9. A printing apparatus comprising a printer for printing a plurality of
plots on a web of media and a laminator device for laminating said plots in
an integrated operation when they leave said printer, said apparatus further
comprising cutting means for cutting said media between at least some
consecutive printed plots, and a switching arrangement for selectively
directing pieces of medium, when cut by the cutting means, along one of a
path to the laminator and a path away from the laminator.
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Ueda US 5,368,677 Nov. 29, 1994
Ramaswamy US 6,517,200 B1 Feb. 11, 2003
The Examiner rejected claims 9, 10, 17, and 18 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) based upon the teachings of Ueda and Ramaswamy.
Appellants argue that Ueda uses a flipper to direct a printed sheet to
either a lamination stage or a non-lamination stage, and that Ueda has no
need of a cutter, as taught by Ramaswamy, because the printer in Ueda uses
Appeal 2007-3930
Application 10/437,993

3
a cut sheet feeder that feeds cut sheets to the printer (App. Br. 3 and 4). The
print stock in Ramaswamy is from a web/roll of paper to a printer. After a
printed sheet exits the printer, Ramaswamy uses a knife to cut the sheet at a
desired length prior to sending the printed sheet to a laminator. The
Examiner contends (Ans. 4) that “[i]t would have been obvious to one
having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the media
web and cutting and control means of Ramaswamy et al. with the printing
apparatus of Ueda et al. in order to be able to efficiently produce printed and
laminated plots of varying lengths.”
ISSUE
Have Appellants demonstrated that the Examiner erred by finding it
would have been obvious to the skilled artisan to use the media web and
cutting and control means of Ramaswamy with the printing apparatus of
Ueda in order to be able to efficiently produce printed and laminated plots of
varying lengths?
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The printing and laminating device described by Appellants
comprises a printer 1 that feeds a web of printed plots to a cutting and
switching device 3 (Fig. 2). After a cutting operation, some of the cut plots
are stacked in a stacker 4, and the remainder of the cut plots is sent via the
rollers 22 and 23 to a laminator.
2. Ueda describes a printing apparatus that comprises a printer B for
printing a plurality of plots on a sheet of media fed to the printer from a
sheet cassette 9, and a laminator device C for laminating the plots in an
integrated operation when they leave the printer. A switching arrangement
17 is located between the printer B and the laminator device C to selectively
Appeal 2007-3930
Application 10/437,993

4
direct printed sheets along lamination path 21 to the laminator device C or to
a stacking tray 20 (Fig. 1; col. 2, ll. 25 to 61).
3. Ramaswamy describes a printing apparatus that comprises a printer
12 for printing a plurality of plots on a web 20 of media, and a laminator
device 14 for laminating the plots in an integrated operation when they leave
the printer (Fig. 1). The printing apparatus further comprises cutting means
24 for cutting the media between at least some consecutive printed plots
(col. 4, ll. 57 to 61). Although a web 20 of media material is used in the
preferred embodiment, Ramaswamy states that media can be fed in sheets to
the printer 12 (col. 4, ll. 36 to 38).
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
The Examiner’s articulated reasoning in the rejection must possess a
rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness. In re
Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
“[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.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.
Ct. 1727, 1740 (2007).
ANALYSIS
Inasmuch as Ramaswamy teaches that it is known in the printing and
laminating art to use either a web of media material or individual sheets of
media material (FF 3), we agree with the Examiner’s reasoning that it would
have been obvious to the skilled artisan to use a web of media material in
Ueda in lieu of the individual sheets of media material stored in the sheet
cassette 9 (FF 2). See Kahn, 441 F.3d at 988. We additionally agree with
Appeal 2007-3930
Application 10/437,993

5
the Examiner that the skilled artisan is presumed to possess the skill to
appreciate that a printer that uses a web of media material must use a cutting
means to cut the media material to the desired length after the printing
operation as taught by Ramaswamy. See KSR Int’l, 127 S. Ct. at 1740.
In summary, the Examiner did not have to resort to selective picking
and choosing from the teachings of Ueda and Ramaswamy in order to
demonstrate the obviousness of the claimed subject matter set forth in claims
9, 10, 17, and 18 (Reply Br. 2).
CONCLUSION OF LAW
The Appellants have not demonstrated that the Examiner erred by
finding that the skilled artisan would have found it obvious to use the media
web and cutting and control means of Ramaswamy with the printing
apparatus of Ueda in order to be able to efficiently produce printed and
laminated plots of varying lengths.
ORDER
The decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 9, 10, 17, and 18 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. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED

Appeal 2007-3930
Application 10/437,993

6
tdl

HEWLETT PACKARD COMPANY
P O BOX 272400, 3404 E. HARMONY ROAD
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ADMINISTRATION
FORT COLLINS CO 80527-2400