10393881 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 24, 2009)

Ex Parte Hasseler

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesMar 24, 2009

10393881 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 24, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ________________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ________________ Ex parte KELVIN HASSELER ________________ Appeal 2008-6011 Application 10/393,881 Technology Center 2800 ________________ Decided:1 March 24, 2009 ________________ Before TERRY J. OWENS, MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, and JEFFREY B. ROBERTSON, Administrative Patent Judges. OWENS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-8, 10-19 and 23-32, which are all of the pending 1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, 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 2008-6011 Application 10/393,881 claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). The Invention The Appellant claims a fluid short management assembly and method for a fluid-injection device such as an inkjet printer. Claim 1 is illustrative: 1. A fluid short management assembly for a plurality of fluid- ejection devices organized into a plurality of pairs of fluid-ejection devices comprising: one or more monitoring mechanisms to monitor one or more fluid short conditions for each of the plurality of fluid-ejection devices selected from the group essentially consisting of: a fluid short over-current condition by sampling device current of the fluid-ejection device a plurality of times, determining an average device current based on the device current sampled the plurality of times, and determining whether the device current sampled any of the plurality of times is greater than the average device current by more than a threshold; a fluid short over-voltage condition by sampling device voltage of the fluid-ejection device a plurality of times, determining an average device voltage based on the device voltage sampled the plurality of times, and determining whether the device voltage sampled any of the plurality of times is greater than the average device voltage by more than a threshold; and, a fluid short over-temperature condition; and, a controller comprising a sub-controller for each of the pairs of fluid- ejection devices to turn off any fluid-ejection device of the pair of fluid- ejection devices failing any of the one or more fluid short conditions without affecting any other of the plurality of fluid-ejection devices of the pair of fluid-ejection devices not failing any of the one or more fluid short conditions. The References Yamashita 6,002,215 Dec. 14, 1999 Juve 6,039,428 Mar. 21, 2000 Kean 6,292,018 Sep. 18, 2001 Barbour 6,318,828 B1 Nov. 20, 2001 Silverbrook 6,454,378 B1 Sep. 24, 2002 2 Appeal 2008-6011 Application 10/393,881 The Rejections The claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as follows: claims 1- 4, 6-8, 11-14, 17, 23-27, 29 and 30 over Juve in view of Silverbrook and Yamashita; claims 5, 15, 18 and 19 over Juve in view of Silverbrook, Yamashita and Barbour; and claims 10, 16, 28, 31 and 32 over Juve in view of Silverbrook, Yamashita and Kean. OPINION We reverse the Examiner’s rejections. Issue Has the Appellant shown reversible error in the Examiner’s determination that the applied references would have rendered prima facie obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, an apparatus or method for fluid short management of each of a plurality of fluid-ejection devices, comprising sampling device current or voltage of a fluid-ejection device a plurality of times, determining an average device current or voltage based on the device current or voltage sampled the plurality of times, and determining whether the device current or voltage sampled any of the plurality of times is greater than the average device current or voltage by more than a threshold? Findings of Fact Juve discloses an inkjet printer having active circuits that electrically monitor the functionality of pens, data lines, or both, to detect an ink short and isolate pens having an ink short problem (col. 10, ll. 14-18). An ink short is detected and an alarm signal is generated when a pen fails to respond to print or control data or when a data line is stuck at power or ground potential (col. 10, ll. 18-44). 3 Appeal 2008-6011 Application 10/393,881 Silverbrook discloses an inkjet printer having, for each print engine (26.1, 26.2), two printheads (112) each having a 2:1 nozzle redundancy that allows factory-detected defective nozzles to be bypassed so as to maximize printhead yield (col. 5, ll. 4-8; Fig. 11). Yamashita discloses “a lighting circuit capable of coping with short- circuiting of and current leakage from, a discharge lamp” (col. 1, ll. 6-8). The short-circuiting or current leakage is detected “when a difference between a sampled value of the lamp voltage or the lamp current, and an average value of the lamp voltage or the lamp current at the sampling point of the sampled value exceeds an allowable range” (col. 7, ll. 57-60). Power to the discharge lamp then can be turned off (col. 10, ll. 16-35). Analysis The Appellant argues that Yamashita’s disclosure regarding discharge lamps would not have motivated one of ordinary skill in the art to apply Yamashita’s disclosure to electrical circuits generally and, therefore, apply it to an inkjet printer circuit (Br. 14; Reply Br. 7). The Examiner argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would have combined Yamashita and Juve “to be able to grasp how the sampled current/voltage of the device changes in [sic] relative to an average value which indicates a tendency of changes in sampled values over a long period of time, thus contributing to accurate determination of abnormality as taught by Yamashita et al. (column 10, lines 23-27)” (Ans. 5). That disclosure by Yamashita pertains to discharge lamps. The Examiner has not established that one of ordinary skill in the art would have considered it to be applicable to electrical circuits generally or to inkjet printer circuits. 4 Appeal 2008-6011 Application 10/393,881 The Examiner argues (Ans. 10): [I]t is certain that a determination of an abnormal condition in an apparatus based on a plurality of sampling values is more accuracy [sic] than if based on a single sampling value. Therefore, it is reasonable to believe that one of ordinary skill in the art would have motivation to modify of [sic] Juve’s method to detect/sample voltage or current by sampling [a] plurality of times, averaging the sample values, and comparing the averaged value to a threshold value as taught by Yamashita to obtain such benefit. As stated in KSR Int’l. Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1741 (2007), “‘rejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness’” (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). See also In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967) (“A rejection based on section 103 clearly must rest on a factual basis, and these facts must be interpreted without hindsight reconstruction of the invention from the prior art”). The Examiner has not provided evidence or technical reasoning which shows that the applied prior art would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to extend, to inkjet printers, Yamaguchi’s disclosure regarding discharge lamps. Thus, the record indicates that the benefit of doing so relied upon by the Examiner comes from the Appellant’s disclosure rather than the applied prior art and that, therefore, the Examiner used impermissible hindsight in rejecting the Appellant’s claims. Conclusion of Law The Appellant has shown reversible error in the Examiner’s determination that the applied references would have rendered prima facie 5 Appeal 2008-6011 Application 10/393,881 obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, an apparatus or method for fluid short management of each of a plurality of fluid-ejection devices, comprising sampling device current or voltage of a fluid-ejection device a plurality of times, determining an average device current or voltage based on the device current or voltage sampled the plurality of times, and determining whether the device current or voltage sampled any of the plurality of times is greater than the average device current or voltage by more than a threshold. DECISION/ORDER It is ordered that the Examiner’s decision is reversed. REVERSED ssl HEWLETT PACKARD COMPANY P O BOX 272400, 3404 E. HARMONY ROAD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ADMINISTRATION FORT COLLINS, CO 80527-2400 6