Ex Parte Izume

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 4, 2016

11887262 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 4, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
111887,262
21874 7590
Locke Lord LLP
P.O. BOX 55874
BOSTON, MA 02205
07/15/2009
03/08/2016
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Masayuki Izume
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.
1451551.105US9 3077
EXAMINER
CULLER, JILL E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2854
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/08/2016 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address( es):
patent@lockelord.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MASA YUKI IZUME
Appeal2014-003902
Application 11/887 ,262
Technology Center 2800
Before BRUCE R. WINSOR, LINZY T. McCARTNEY, and
NATHAN A. ENGELS, Administrative Patent Judges.
WINSOR, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
.6. .... ,1 .... ,....,-TTr'1.r-"\ l\-1,....Al/'\.r'" , .. C- "1 • ,• Appeuant' appeals unaer j) u.~.L. s U4~aJ rrom me nna1 reJecuon
of claims 1and3. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Claims 2
and 4 are canceled. See App. Br. 4.
We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Invention
"[T]he present invention ... provide[s] a unit of a plurality of divided
vibrating rollers that detects the abnormality in switching of the position of
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is I. Mar Planning Inc.
App. Br. 3.
Appeal2014-003902
Application 11/887 ,262
the vibrating roller to prevent the occurrence of abnormality caused
therefrom, and a printing machine." Spec. i-f 7.
Claim 1 is independent and illustrative of the subject matter on
appeal:
1. A unit of a plurality of divided vibrating rollers
compnsmg:
a support member fixed to a frame of a printing machine;
a plurality of movable members of short circular cylinder
shape attached to the support member so as to individually
reciprocate in the same direction;
a vibrating roller rotatably attached to the outer periphery
of each movable member; and
a change-over device, arranged on the support member,
for individually switching the position of each movable
member; wherein
with respect to each of all the movable members, a
change-over detection sensor for detecting the switching of the
position of the movable member is disposed at the portion of
the support member slidably contacting the movable member,
the change-over detection sensor is one magnetic sensor; and
a permanent magnet is attached to the portion of the
movable member facing the change-over detection sensor,
wherein the movable member and the vibrating roller are
switched by the change-over device to a first position where the
vibrating roller moves away from a fountain roller and presses
against a distributing roller as a first state and to a second
position where the vibrating roller moves away from the
distributing roller and presses against the fountain roller as a
second state,
the magnetic sensor is fixed in an embedded manner at a
surface of the support member that slidably contacts a bottom
wall of a bore of the movable member and the permanent
magnet is fixed in an embedded manner at the bottom wall of
the bore of the movable member facing thereto,
2
Appeal2014-003902
Application 11/887 ,262
when the movable member is switched to any one of the
first position and the second positions, the magnetic sensor
faces to the permanent magnet and when the movable member
is switched to another one of the first position and the second
positions, the magnetic sensor deviates from the permanent
magnet,
therefore, the output of the magnetic sensor changes
depending on the position of the movable member, and whether
the vibrating roller is at the first state or at the second state is
recognized from the output of the magnetic sensor, and
when switching of the position of the vibrating roller has
not been properly performed, a warning is given and the
operation is stopped.
App. Br. 12.
Rejection on Appeal
Claims 1and3 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Izume (US 6,422,144 Bl; issued July 23, 2002), Douillard
et al. (US 6,615,726 B2; issued Sept. 9, 2003), and Tymkewicz et al. (US
4,538,515; issued Sept. 3, 1985). See Final Act. 2-5.
ANALYSIS
Change Over Detection Sensor Limitation
Appellant contends Douillard does not teach or suggest claim 1 's
"change-over detection sensor" because Douillard's lateral detection sensor
is located external to--rather than embedded within-the vibration roller
and detects motion in a direction perpendicular to that of the "change-over
detection sensor." See App. Br. 9-10; Reply Br. 4--5. Appellant further
contends the Examiner's proposed modification of Douillard' s lateral
detection sensor to achieve claim 1 's "change-over detection sensor" and
"permanent magnet" elements is unsupported and employs improper
3
Appeal2014-003902
Application 11/887 ,262
hindsight reconstruction by ( 1) using Appellant's application as a blueprint
to cobble together an obviousness rejection and (2) focusing on the
commonality between the solutions of Appellant and the prior art, rather
than the problem faced by Appellant. Id. at 6, 8.
We are unpersuaded of error. We agree with the Examiner that
Douillard's magnetic sensor that detects a change in a roller's position
would have suggested the "change-over detection sensor" and "permanent
magnet," elements of claim 1. See Final Act. 3--4; Douillard col. 5, 11. 32-
37. In particular, we agree that it is well known to detect the relative
positions of components of a printing machine using magnetic sensors such
as Douillard' s, and that such sensors operate through the detection of
proximity between a sensor and a magnet. See Final Act. 4. We also agree
that, in light of Douillard' s teaching of detecting position with a magnetic
sensor, applying a magnetic sensor to Izume's vibration roller would have
been obvious to one skilled in the art, resulting in the magnetic sensor parts
located as claimed so that magnets would come into and out of proximity as
the change-over device is activated. See id. As the Examiner finds, because
Izume's moving elements are located within its vibration roller, it would
have been obvious to locate the magnetic sensor elements therein to detect
the elements' relative positions. See Ans. 5; Final Act. 4; compare Izume
Fig. 4, item 8, movable member, with Spec. Fig. 4, item 8, movable member.
We find that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand to locate a
movement-detecting magnetic sensor proximate to the site of the movement
to be detected. See KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007)
("Rigid preventative rules that deny factfinders recourse to common sense
... are neither necessary under our case law nor consistent with it."); Wyers
4
Appeal2014-003902
Application 11/887 ,262
v. Master Lock Co., 616 F.3d 1231, 1240 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ("In appropriate
cases, the ultimate inference as to the existence of a motivation to combine
references may boil down to a question of 'common sense.'") (internal
quotations omitted). Appellant's present no evidence to suggest that
locating a magnetic sensor within the vibration roller would have been
"uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art" or
otherwise "represented an unobvious step over the prior art." See Leapfrog
Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007);
Final Act. 4 (finding the particular claimed location of the magnetic sensor
and permanent magnet does not provide any unexpected function of the
apparatus).
We are also unpersuaded by Appellant's contentions that the
Examiner employed improper hindsight reconstruction with respect to
Douillard because ( 1) the Examiner's findings and reasoning derive from the
prior art and the knowledge of one skilled in the art, not Appellant's
disclosure; and (2) the Examiner properly focused on the problem faced by
Appellant (i.e., detecting an undesirable position of a vibrating roller using a
magnetic sensor). See Final Act. 2-5; Ans. 2-5; contra App. Br. 6, 8; see
also Ans. 3 (citing In re McLaughlin, 443F.2d1392, 1395(CCPA1971)).
Warning Limitation
Appellant contends the Examiner employed improper hindsight in
rejecting "when switching the position of the vibrating roller has not been
properly performed, a warning is given and the operation is stopped," as
recited in claim 1. See App. Br. 7, 12 (emphasis added). Specifically,
Appellant points to the similarity between the Examiner's motivation to
5
Appeal2014-003902
Application 11/887 ,262
combine, "to provide indications of rollers being out of position and prevent
inaccurate printing and reduce waste of time and materials" (Final Act 4--5),
and Appellant's Specification, which discloses "detect[ing] the abnormality
in switching of the position of the vibrating roller to prevent the occurrence
of abnormality caused therefrom" (Spec. i-f 7). See id.
We are unpersuaded by Appellant's contention that the advantages of
Tymkewicz cited by the Examiner evidence improper hindsight. See App.
Br. 7. The Examiner finds Tymkewicz teaches or suggests the limitation at
issue by evidencing the well-known concepts of providing indicators and
stopping a process when an element of a system is out of position. See Final
Act. 3-5; Tymkewicz col. 6, 11. 29-35. The Examiner further finds these
well-known concepts are "known to be advantageous in printing systems ...
in order to prevent inaccurate printing and reduce waste of time and
materials." See Ans. 3--4; accord Tymkewicz col. 6, 11. 38--42 (generating
status indicators to apprise the user of the status of the printing machine
during operation). Because the advantages cited by the Examiner would
have been within the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art at the time
of Appellant's invention, we are unpersuaded by Appellant's contention that
the Examiner relied on Appellant's disclosure and employed improper
hindsight reconstruction. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 421; Wyers, 616 F.3d at
1240.
Summary
In summary, as the Examiner finds, Izume's vibrating rollers
correspond to those of Appellant's claim 1, except for the "change-over
detection sensor," "permanent magnet," and "warning" elements. See Final
6
Appeal2014-003902
Application 11/887 ,262
Act. 2; lzume col. 7, 1. 41---col. 8, 1. 65; Fig. 2; compare Appellant's Fig. 4,
with Izume Fig. 4. The Examiner further finds and we agree that Douillard
and Tymkewicz, given the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art,
would have suggested those elements not taught by Izume. See Final Act.
3-5; Douillard col. 5, 11. 32-37; Tymkewicz col. 6, 11. 29-35. In light of the
above, we conclude the Examiner, without the use of improper hindsight,
provided adequate rationale to combine the teachings of Izume, Douillard,
and Tymkewicz to suggest claim 1 as a whole. See Final Act. 3-5.
For the foregoing reasons, we find no Examiner error. Accordingly,
we sustain the rejection of independent claim 1, as well dependent claim 3,
which was not argued separately with particularity beyond the arguments
advanced for claim 1. See App. Br. 5-10; Reply Br. 4---6.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1 and 3 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)(l) (2013).
See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
7