Ex Parte Hetzer et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 15, 2009

09911811 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 15, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte ULRICH HETZER, JAN KEUNECKE, TORSTEN SCHLAAFF,
and GEORGE G. GELFER
____________

Appeal 2009-003218
Application 09/911,811
Technology Center 2800
____________

Decided:1 June 16, 2009
____________

Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, MAHSHID D. SAADAT, and ROBERT
E. NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judges.

RUGGIERO, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Final Rejection of
claims 1-12, which are all of the pending claims. An oral hearing was

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 2009-003218
Application 09/911,811

conducted on this appeal on June 9, 2009. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner,
reference is made to the Brief (filed April 16, 2008), the Answer (mailed
June 25, 2008), and the Reply Brief (filed August 21, 2008) for the
respective details. Only those arguments actually made by Appellants have
been considered in this decision. Arguments which Appellants could have
made but chose not to make in the Briefs have not been considered and are
deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).

Appellants’ Invention
Appellants’ invention relates to an apparatus for determining warm-up
cycle data of an inkjet printhead in which warm-up data are stored in a first
memory area of a memory. Data representative of at least two
predetermined conditions are stored in a second memory area of the
memory. A control unit is programmed to determine warm-up data for a fast
start dependent on the sensed ambient temperature and at least two of the
predetermined conditions. (See generally Spec. 5:4-19).
Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and reads as follows:
1. An arrangement for determining data for a warm-up cycle of an
ink jet printhead, said arrangement comprising:
an ink cartridge having an ink jet printhead and a drive unit connected
to the ink jet printhead for heating, measuring a temperature of,
and driving the ink jet printhead;
a control unit connected to the drive unit for controlling the drive unit;
2
Appeal 2009-003218
Application 09/911,811

a memory accessible by said control unit having a first memory area
in which warmup data are stored in re-writable fashion, and a
second memory area in which data representing at least two
predetermined conditions are stored, said at least two
predetermined conditions being selected from the group
consisting of temperature-related conditions,
history-related conditions and user-related conditions;
a sensor connected to said drive unit for measurement of ambient
temperature; and
said control unit being programmed to implement at least one
measurement of said ambient temperature with said sensor, and
to determine warm-up data for a fast start, executed in less than
30 seconds, for a current warm-up cycle dependent upon said
ambient temperature and dependent on said at least two
predetermined conditions.

The Examiner’s Rejections

The Examiner’s Answer cites the following prior art references:
Smith US 4,791,435 Dec. 13, 1988
Kneezel US 5,107,276 Apr. 21, 1992
Berson US 5,513,563 May 7, 1996
Bullock US 5,812,156 Sep. 22, 1998

Claims 1, 10, and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Smith in view of Kneezel.
3
Appeal 2009-003218
Application 09/911,811

Claims 2-4, 6-8, and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Smith in view of Kneezel and further in view of
Bullock.
Claims 5 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Smith in view of Kneezel and Bullock and further in view
of Berson.

ISSUE
The pivotal issue before us in making the determination as to whether
the Examiner erred in rejecting appealed claims 1-38 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) is whether Appellants have demonstrated that the Examiner erred in
determining the obviousness to the ordinarily skilled artisan of combining
Kneeezel’s teaching of using ambient temperature as a condition for
determining warm-up data for a printhead with the printhead warm-up cycle
control teachings of Smith.

FINDINGS OF FACT
The record supports the following findings of fact (FF) by a
preponderance of the evidence:
1. Smith discloses (Fig. 2A; col. 1, l. 35-col. 2, l. 12) a printhead
warm-up cycle control system in which warm-up data is stored in a first
memory area and data representative of at least two predetermined printhead
conditions is stored in a second memory area.
2. Smith further discloses (Fig. 2A) that the predetermined
printhead conditions can be selected from temperature-related conditions,
history-related conditions, and user-related conditions.
4
Appeal 2009-003218
Application 09/911,811

3. Smith also discloses (col. 2, ll. 6-12) that the determination of
the number of printhead warm-up pulses is based on multiple conditions.
4. Kneezel discloses (col. 8, ll. 1-30) the use of measured ambient
temperature at start-up to maintain the operating temperature of the
printhead substantially constant.
5. Kneezel further discloses (col. 12, ll. 15-31) that ambient
temperature sensed data can be used in a printhead warm-up cycle lasting 1-
4 seconds.

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, it is incumbent upon the
Examiner to establish a factual basis to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 1988). In so
doing, the Examiner must make the factual determinations set forth in
Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17 (1966) (stating that 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 leads to three basic factual inquiries: the scope and content of the prior
art, the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue, and the
level of ordinary skill in the art). “[T]he examiner bears the initial burden,
on review of the prior art or on any other ground, of presenting a prima facie
case of unpatentability.” In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir.
1992). Furthermore,
‘there must be some articulated reasoning with some
rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness’ . . . [H]owever, the analysis need not seek
out precise teachings directed to the specific subject
matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take
account of the inferences and creative steps that a person
of ordinary skill in the art would employ.
5
Appeal 2009-003218
Application 09/911,811

KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (quoting In re
Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).

ANALYSIS
With respect to the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
appealed independent claim 1 based on the combination of Smith and
Kneezel, Appellants’ arguments in response assert a failure to set forth a
prima facie case of obviousness since all of the claimed limitations are not
taught or suggested by the applied prior art references. Appellants’
arguments focus on the contention that, in contrast to the claimed invention,
the printhead control system disclosed by Smith determines warm-up cycle
data based only upon sensed temperature data. According to Appellants
(App. Br. 4-12; Reply Br. 1-3), there is no disclosure in Smith of the
determination of warm-up cycle data based on at least two predetermined
conditions in addition to ambient temperature.
We do not find Appellants’ arguments to be persuasive. As illustrated
in Figures 2A-2B of Smith, multiple outputs from the read only memory 2b
of microprocessor 2 to the pulse generator 24a of the printhead control logic
circuit 24 are representative of stored data indicative of printhead conditions
such as use profile, ink color, substrate location in addition to temperature.
In addition, we find in Smith an explicit disclosure of the determination of
the number of printhead warmup pulses being based on multiple conditions
(FF 3). As described by Smith:
At low temperatures low energy pulses are sent to a nozzle
to heat it. These pulses are below the threshold which would
cause a drop of ink to be fired. The number of pulses used in this
6
Appeal 2009-003218
Application 09/911,811

warm up process is based on the nozzle’s temperature, the location
of the nozzle in the substrate, the dye (color) in the nozzle, and the
use profile of the nozzle. (Emphasis added).

(Smith, col. 2, ll. 6-12).
We also find to be without merit Appellants’ related argument (App.
Br. 5; Reply Br. 2) that, since Smith illustrates in Figure 2A that information
is only proceeding from the data processing section 2a to the read-only
memory 2b where data related to other print conditions are stored, there is
no utilization of anything other than sensed temperature in determining
warm-up data. It is immaterial in the context of the claimed subject matter
whether information is actually read by the processor 2a from the read-only
memory 2b and further processed. In our view, there is an unambiguous
disclosure in Smith of the processor 2a, at the very least, directing the flow
of printhead multiple condition data to the pulse generator of the printhead
control circuit which in turn uses the data to control the generation of warm
up pulses. (Smith, col. 2. ll. 8-12).
We further find no error in the Examiner’s finding (Ans. 5, 6, and 12-
14) that Kneezel’s teaching of using ambient temperature as a control factor
to prevent printhead temperature fluctuation and to achieve fast starting
would serve as an obvious enhancement to the system of Smith. As
described by Kneezel at column 12, lines 20-23, fast starting is achieved
within 1-4 seconds which is within the claimed “less than 30 seconds.” (FF
5).
Appellants’ arguments (App. Br. 6, 7, and 11; Reply Br. 2-3) attack
Kneezel as not disclosing that conditions in addition to ambient temperature
are used in determining warm-up data. We find such contention to be
7
Appeal 2009-003218
Application 09/911,811

unpersuasive since the Examiner has relied upon Smith, not Kneezel, for a
teaching of multiple printhead condition data in addition to temperature
condition data being used to determine printhead warm-up data. It is
apparent from the Examiner’s line of reasoning in the Answer that the basis
for the obviousness rejection is the combination of Smith and Kneezel. One
cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the
rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Keller, 642 F. 2d
413, 425 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F. 2d 1091, 1096 (Fed.
Cir. 1986).
For the above reasons, since it is our opinion that the Examiner has
established a prima facie case of obviousness based on the combination of
Smith and Kneezel which has not been overcome by any convincing
arguments from Appellants, the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
independent claim 1, as well as dependent claims 10 and 11 not separately
argued by Appellants, is sustained.
We also sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of dependent
claims 2-9 and 12 in which the Bullock and Berson references have been
separately added to the combination of Smith and Kneezel to address,
respectively, the ink cartridge identification and security module encryption
code features of these claims. Appellants have made no separate arguments
as to the patentability of these claims but, instead, have relied on arguments
made against claim 1, which we found to be unpersuasive as previously
discussed.

8
Appeal 2009-003218
Application 09/911,811

CONCLUSION OF LAW
Based on the findings of facts and analysis above, we conclude that
Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting appealed
claims 1-12 for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-12, all of the appealed
claims, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 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

ELD

SCHIFF HARDIN, LLP
PATENT DEPARTMENT
6600 SEARS TOWER
CHICAGO, IL 60606-6473
9