11683835 (P.T.A.B. May. 26, 2015)

Ex Parte Hoffman et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 26, 2015

11683835 (P.T.A.B. May. 26, 2015)

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. 11/683,835 03/08/2007 Ted M. Hoffman F12.12-0169 1606 93288 7590 05/26/2015 HID Global c/o Westman Champlin & Koehler, P.A 900 Second Avenue South, Suite 1400 Minneapolis, MN 55402 EXAMINER CULLER, JILL E ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2854 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/26/2015 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ________________ Ex parte TED M. HOFFMAN and THOMAS G. GALE, JR. ________________ Appeal 2013-007051 Application 11/683,835 Technology Center 2800 ________________ Before TERRY J. OWENS, MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI and MICHELLE N. ANKENBRAND, Administrative Patent Judges. OWENS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–8, 10, 12, 13 and 15–23. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). The Invention The Appellants claim a credential production device and a credential processing assembly for the device. Claim 1 is illustrative: 1. A credential production device comprising: a frame having a cartridge chamber; a substrate input; a substrate transport configured to deliver individual substrates from the substrate input along a processing path; Appeal 2013-007051 Application 11/683,835 2 a support member having a first end and a second end, the support member pivotally coupled to the frame at a first axis located between the first end and the second end such that the support member is divided into a first portion extending from the first axis to the first end and a second portion extending from the first axis to the second end; and a transfer roller coupled to the first portion of the support member and configured to rotate about a transfer roller axis, which is perpendicular to the first axis; wherein the transfer roller is supported within the cartridge chamber during installation of a transfer ribbon cartridge into the cartridge chamber and removal of a transfer ribbon cartridge from the cartridge chamber. The References Baranyi US 4,685,815 Aug. 11, 1987 Saito US 4,772,146 Sept. 20, 1988 Shiozaki US 4,938,616 July 3, 1990 Collins US 5,165,806 Nov. 24, 1992 Honma US 2003/0025781 A1 Feb. 6, 2003 The Rejections The claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as follows: claims 1– 7, 10, 12 and 15-19 over Honma in view of Baranyi and Saito, claims 8 and 13 over Honma in view of Baranyi and Shiozaki,1 claim 20 over Honma in view of Saito and claims 21–23 over Honma in view of Saito and Collins. OPINION We reverse the rejections. Honma discloses an indirect-transfer image forming apparatus wherein, to enable replacement of a transfer film (3) cassette (22) and an ink ribbon (4) cassette (30), a block (32) (which the Examiner relies upon as corresponding to the Appellants’ support member (Final Rejection mailed 1 Saito, which is applied to claims 1 and 12 from which, respectively, claims 8 and 13 depend, is not applied to claims 8 and 13. Appeal 2013-007051 Application 11/683,835 3 Nov. 7, 2012,2 p. 2)) which supports components including a platen roller (2), a heating roller (5) and a guide roller (36) is swingable about an axis (32a) between an operational position (Fig. 4) and a retreat position (Fig. 5) (¶¶ 97–99, 102–06). Baranyi discloses a printing apparatus comprising a frame structure (30) which has a pivot axis (43) (which the Examiner relies upon as corresponding to the Appellants’ first axis (FR, p. 3)) about which a printhead (20) supported by the frame structure (30) is movable toward and away from a platen roller (22) (col. 5, ll. 46-50; Fig. 2). Saito discloses a recording apparatus comprising a platen (45) which supports a pinch roller (40) and has a shaft (46a) (which the Examiner relies upon as having an axis to which a roller axis, i.e., that of the pinch roller (40), is perpendicular (FR, p. 3)) about which the platen (45) is rotatable to clamp paper between the pinch roller (40) and a feed roller (46) supported by a printer baseboard (31) (col. 6, ll. 41–44; col. 7, ll. 22–30, 42; Fig. 3). The Examiner asserts that “[i]t would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the apparatus of Honma et al. to include a support member for the transfer roller structured as taught by Baranyi, so that the apparatus will take up less space when the support member is moved” (FR, p. 3) and to modify Honma’s heating roller (5) such that its axis is perpendicular rather than parallel to axis 32a (Fig. 4) because “the location of the mounting does not affect the functional operation of the transfer roller or in any way provide an 2 Hereinafter “FR”. Appeal 2013-007051 Application 11/683,835 4 unpredictable result” (id. at 3, 9) and “it is known to mount rollers such that their axis is perpendicular to an axis of rotation of a support member, as taught by Saito et al. and therefore applying this mounting to the transfer roller of Honma et al. would be a desirable modification in order to change the shape of the internal space required to move the transfer roller” (id. at 3– 4, 9). Setting forth a prima facie case of obviousness requires establishing that the applied prior art would have provided one of ordinary skill in the art with an apparent reason to modify the prior art to arrive at the claimed invention. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). The Examiner asserts that “the modification of a structure to allow mounting of elements in a different way in order to change the size and shape of the apparatus is well within the bounds of the knowledge generally available to one having ordinary skill in the art” (Ans. 4) and states that “this is considered to be sufficient motivation to make the suggested modifications” (id.). The Examiner’s mere assertions do not establish that the proposed modifications to the prior art would have been apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art from the applied references. The Examiner has not addressed the structural and functional differences between the relied-upon components of Baranyi’s and Saito’s apparatus and those of Honma’s apparatus and explained why, regardless of the differences, those references would have provided one of ordinary skill in the art with an apparent reason to modify their disclosures to produce the Appellants’ claimed invention. Hence, we reverse the rejections. Appeal 2013-007051 Application 11/683,835 5 DECISION/ORDER The rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 1–7, 10, 12 and 15-19 over Honma in view of Baranyi and Saito, claims 8 and 13 over Honma in view of Baranyi and Shiozaki, claim 20 over Honma in view of Saito and claims 21–23 over Honma in view of Saito and Collins are reversed. It is ordered that the Examiner’s decision is reversed. REVERSED mat