Ex Parte Huck et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 12, 2016

13777628 (P.T.A.B. May. 12, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
131777,628 02/26/2013
26984 7590
WILLIAM L. LONDON
3010 LEE AVENUE
P.O. BOX 152
SANFORD, NC 27330
05/12/2016
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Donald R. Huck
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
IMG.162 5790
EXAMINER
LEBRON, JANNELLE M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2853
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
05/12/2016 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 DONALD R. HUCK and ANTHONY D. CAUSEY 1
Appeal2015-000492
Application 13/777,628
Technology Center 2800
Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, JASON V. MORGAN, and
MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges.
ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1, 2, 4, 6-8, 10, 12-15, 17, 19, and 21, which are all pending claims
in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
Technology
The application is related to inkjet printer cartridges, specifically fins
or tabs on the cartridges used to identify which ink color the cartridge
contains and which type of printer the cartridge is compatible with. Spec.
Abstract, Figs. 3-5.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Static Control
Components, Inc. App. Br. 1.
1
Appeal2015-000492
Application 13/777,628
Representative Claim
The application has three independent claims. Claim 1 is
representative and reproduced below with the key limitation emphasized:
1. A universal inkjet cartridge usable in an inkjet printer, the
inkjet cartridge comprising:
an inkjet tank, the inkjet tank storing ink and having an
upper portion and a lower portion, mounted on the lower portion
is a configurable color identification tab and mounted on the
upper portion are printer designation fins, the configurable color
identification tab is moveable to one of a plurality of color
identification positions to allow the universal inkjet cartridge to
be used in an inkjet cartridge location within the inkjet printer
identified by the printer designation fins.
Independent claim 8 is similar to claim 1 but requires that the "printer
designation fins" be movable rather than the color identification tabs.
Independent claim 14 is also similar but requires both the printer designation
fins and the color identification tabs be "changeable" rather than movable.
Rejection
Claims 1,2,4,6-8, 10, 12-15, 17, 19,and21 standrejectedunder35
U.S.C § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Thoman et al. (US 5,519,422;
May 21, 1996) in view of Santhanam (US 6,547,378 B2; Apr. 15, 2003) and
in further view of Morton et al. (US 2006/0017776 Al; Jan. 26, 2006). Final
Act. 3.
ISSUE
Did the Examiner err in finding Morton teaches or suggests fins or
tabs that are "moveable," as recited in claims 1 and 8, or "changeable," as
recited in claim 14?
2
Appeal2015-000492
Application 13/777,628
ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6-8, 10, 12-5, 17, 19, and 21
The prior art Morton discloses an inkjet printer cartridge. Morton i-f 2.
Morton teaches that each cartridge can have a series of projections (which
Morton calls "keys"), such as a four by four grid of keys. Id. i-fi-122, 28, Fig.
2. Each of the keys "may be individually omitted ... to uniquely identify a
particular type of inkjet cartridge." Id. i-f 28. For example, the different
combinations of keys might identify the "product lines"; "color"; or "SKUs"
for which the cartridge was intended. Id. i-fi-1 7, 9.
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in finding Morton teaches or
suggests that such keys are "moveable," as recited in claims 1 and 8, or
"changeable," as recited in claim 14. App. Br. 6-8. Appellants make the
same basic argument for all three independent claims. Id. According to
Appellants, Morton's keys are either "fixed in a location" or "absent from a
location," but not moveable or changeable. Id.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments. Morton states that
"[ e Jach of the sixteen keys may be individually omitted from the multiple
projection key module 220 to uniquely identify a particular type of inkjet
cartridge." Morton i-f 28. We agree with the Examiner that this teaches or
suggests either removing keys or selectively inserting them, both of which
teach or suggest moving or changing the keys. Ans. 4.
Figures 2 and 3 of Morton are reproduced below and help illustrate
our findings and conclusions.
3
Appeal2015-000492
Application 13/777,628
2Hl
Figure 2
320
Figure 3
Figure 2 of Morton depicts an inkjet cartridge with a four by four grid
in which all sixteen keys (labeled 230) have been inserted, whereas Figure 3
of Morton shows an inkjet cartridge in which five keys have been omitted
(the resulting holes are labeled 312). Morton i-fi-128-32. In Figure 3 of
Morton, the printer uses five corresponding printer keys (labeled 320) to test
whether the cartridge has omitted keys at the appropriate locations. Morton
i129.
Figure 4 of Morton (not reproduced herein) is similar to Figure 3 but
omits a different combination of five keys, indicating a different type of
cartridge that would not be compatible with the cartridge shown in Figure 3.
Morton i-fi-131-33.
It would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to start at
Figure 2 of Morton and arrive at Figure 3 by removing keys, or to start at
Figure 3 and arrive at Figure 4 by removing and inserting the necessary
4
Appeal2015-000492
Application 13/777,628
keys. This is substantially similar to the example shown in Figures 6 and 7
of the present application, in which fins and tabs "may be removed and
inserted" into empty slots. Spec. i-fi-134--37. Appellants' have not provided
sufficient evidence to support their conclusion that Morton's keys are
permanently fixed or that even if they were fixed, it would not be obvious to
make the keys in Morton moveable or changeable.
Appellants further contend that Morton "teaches away from moveable
[or changeable] keys" because "Morton teaches that it is undesirable to
allow the keys (310) to be removed." App. Br. 6-8 (citing Morton i1 6). We
also are not persuaded by this argument. The only evidence that Appellants
cite in support of this theory is paragraph 6 of Morton. App. Br. 6-8. Yet
paragraph 6 of Morton criticizes a prior art system that was not moveable
except forcibly "with clippers" as being "inefficient," which not only differs
from Morton's invention but further shows that Morton teaches or suggests
it would be more "efficient" to have moveable projections rather than
immovable ones requiring clippers.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1, and
claims 2, 4, 6-8, 10, 12-5, 17, 19, and 21, which Appellants argue are
patentable for similar reasons. See App. Br. 6-8; 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv)
(2013).
5
Appeal2015-000492
Application 13/777,628
DECISION
For the reasons above, we affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting
claims 1, 2, 4, 6-8, 10, 12-5, 17, 19, and 21.
TIME TO RESPOND
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(±).
AFFIRMED
6