10009680 (B.P.A.I. May. 30, 2012)

Ex Parte Haug

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesMay 30, 2012

10009680 (B.P.A.I. May. 30, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________________ Ex parte WERNER HAUG ____________________ Appeal 2009-014409 Application 10/009,680 Technology Center 3600 ____________________ Before: PHILLIP J. KAUFFMAN, JAMES P. CALVE, and BENJAMIN D. M. WOOD, Administrative Patent Judges. WOOD, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2009-014409 Application 10/009,680 2 STATEMENT OF CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1, 4, and 5. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. THE INVENTION The claims are directed to a franking machine for printing “postal objects” (e.g., letters and postcards). Spec. 1. Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. Franking machine with at least one print head of an inkjet print mechanism for printing flat postal objects such as letters or postcards insertable into or passing through the machine, comprised of a guide part arranged so as to project about the print head and further relative to its jet opening plane, having correlated therewith a transport device for transporting the postal objects between it and oppositely positioned conveying rollers rotating about axes oriented transverse to the conveying direction, wherein the transport device has two drive rollers connected in driving connection with one another and forming together with the guide part a conveying path, which drive rollers, when viewed in the conveying direction, are arranged before and behind the print head, and has a counterpressure roller arranged opposite thereto, respectively, which exerts a pressure against one drive roller or the postal object transported therebetween and is reversibly liftable, wherein a sensing wheel (38, 119) is arranged between the drive rollers (32, 33; 127, 113) which sensing wheel is driven by the postal object passing along it and is correlated with an encoding device (122) for the purpose of speed and positioning monitoring of a postal object to be transported, respectively, for controlling printing on a postal object, wherein the encoding device (122) is connected to a control unit connected to a computer, wherein the sensing wheel (38, 119) is in drive connection with the drive roller (33, 113) arranged downstream in the conveying direction. Appeal 2009-014409 Application 10/009,680 3 REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Otani US 6,106,094 Aug. 22, 2000 Gilham EP 0 376 575 A2 Apr. 7, 1990 REJECTIONS The Examiner made the following rejections: Claim 1 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C §102(b) as being anticipated by Otani. Ans. 3. Claims 4 and 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C §103(a) as being unpatentable over Otani and Gilham. Ans. 5. ANALYSIS Claim 1 – Anticipation -- Otani Independent claim 1 recites, inter alia, a franking machine comprising at least one inkjet print head, a “guide part arranged so as to project about the print head,” and “two drive rollers connected in driving connection with one another” and forming, with the guide part, a “conveying path” for transporting the postal objects past the print head. App. Br. 17 (Claims Appendix). The drive rollers, when viewed in the conveying direction, are arranged “before and behind the print head.” Id. The Examiner found that Otani discloses a franking machine with an inkjet print head, a guide part, and two drive rollers connected in driving connection with one another and arranged before and behind the print head. Ans. 3-4 (citing Otani, Abstract ll. 1-3; col. 4, ll. 38-40, 48-58; col. 6, ll. 59- 64; col. 18, ll. 46-51; Figs. 18A, 18B). Appellant disputes, inter alia, that Appeal 2009-014409 Application 10/009,680 4 Otani discloses two drive rollers connected and arranged as per claim 1. App. Br. 10. We agree with Appellant. Having reviewed the portions of Otani on which the Examiner relies, we are unable to find a description of how the drive rollers of Otani’s device are connected, or how they are arranged with respect to the print heads. We therefore find that the Examiner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Otani discloses two drive rollers “connected in driving connection [and] arranged before and behind the print head.” The anticipation rejection of claim 1 is not sustained. Claims 4, 5 – Obviousness – Otani and Gilham Gilham is not relied upon by the Examiner to cure the above-noted deficiency of the Otani reference in anticipating claim 1, from which claims 4 and 5 depend. The rejection of claims 4 and 5 over Otani in view of Gilham is not sustained. DECISION For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 4, and 5 is reversed. REVERSED mls