Ex Parte Johnson et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 22, 201613107971 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 22, 2016) Copy Citation 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. 13/107,971 05/16/2011 Eric Johnson LNP001US 8681 113258 7590 Memjet c/o Cooley LLP 1299 Pennsylvania Ave. NW Suite 700 Washington, DC 20004 12/27/2016 EXAMINER SHENDEROV, ALEXANDER D ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2853 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/27/2016 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): zpatdcdocketing@cooley.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ERIC JOHNSON, JINSONG GAO, CHRISTOPHER HIBBARD, KENT BENJAMEN KWAN, GEOFFREY PHILIP DYER, and EDWARD ELLIS ESDAILE-WATTS Appeal 2015-007570 Application 13/107,9711 Technology Center 2800 Before JEFFREY T. SMITH, KAREN M. HASTINGS, and LILAN REN, Administrative Patent Judges. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the July 9, 2014 Final rejection of claims 1—3 and 5—8.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. 1 The real party in interest is Memjet Technology Limited. (App. Br. 1). 2 The Examiner has indicated claim 9 contains allowable subject matter. (Final Act. 9). Appeal 2015-007570 Application 13/107,971 Appellants’ invention relates generally to a solid oxide fuel cell incorporating an extreme temperature gasket and an apparatus comprising a solid oxide fuel cell. (Spec. 2). Claim 1 is representative of the subject matter on appeal and reproduced from the Brief below: 1. An inkjet printer comprising: an inkjet printhead having an inlet and an outlet; a user-replaceable ink cartridge installed in the printer and positioned below the printhead, the ink cartridge having first, second and third fluid ports; a first fluid path connecting the first fluid port to the inlet of the printhead; a second fluid path connecting the second fluid port to the outlet of the printhead; a pump on the second fluid path, said pump being switched off and thereby closing the second fluid path during printing; and a third fluid path connecting the third fluid port to atmosphere, wherein: the first and second fluid ports are configured so that ink from the ink cartridge flows between the first and second fluid paths via the printhead; during printing, a back pressure of ink at the printhead is determined solely by a position of the ink cartridge relative to the printhead and a height of ink in the ink cartridge; a body of the ink cartridge has a shortest dimension and two relatively longer dimensions, the shortest dimension defining a height of the ink cartridge when installed in the printer; and the shortest dimension determines a range of the back pressures over a lifetime of the ink cartridge. 2 Appeal 2015-007570 Application 13/107,971 The Examiner has maintained the following rejections I. Claims 1, 2, and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Kang et al. (US 2008/0007604 A1 published Jan. 10, 2008) (“Kang”), in view of Pawlowski et al. (US 5,852,459 issued Dec. 22, 1998)(“Pawlowski”). II. Claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Kang, Pawlowski, and Ota et al. (US 2008/0273064 Al issued Nov. 6, 2008). III. Claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Kang, Pawlowski, and Barinaga et al. (US 2003/0202058 Al published Oct. 30, 2003). IV. Claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Kang, Pawlowski, Barinaga, and Crossdale et al. (US 5,086,950 issued Feb. 11, 1992). V. Claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Kang, Pawlowski, and Umeda (US 2008/0079788 Al published Apr. 3, 2008). We refer to the Examiner’s Final Action for a statement of the rejection. (Final Act. 2—8). 3 Appeal 2015-007570 Application 13/107,971 OPINION After review of the respective positions provided by Appellants and the Examiner, we sustain the Examiner’s rejections for the reasons expressed in the Final Action, the Answer, and below. Rejection I Appellants argue the combination of Kang and Pawlowski does not teach or suggest an inkjet printer in which: (1) the shortest dimension [of the ink cartridge] determines a range of the back pressures over a lifetime of the ink cartridge; and (2) during printing, a back pressure of ink at the printhead is determined solely by a position of the ink cartridge relative to the printhead and a height of ink in the ink cartridge; as why required by claim 1. (App. Br. 4—5). Appellants’ arguments regarding the back pressure are not persuasive. The Examiner properly determined the Pawlowski discloses arranging the ink cartridges such that the shortest distance would provide the height of the cartridge. (Final Act. 3). The Examiner also determined that Kang describes the location of the ink cartridges relative to the printhead determines the back pressure at the printhead. (Final Act. 3; Kang 165). The Examiner further pointed out that Kang’s system can operate without the use of the pump. (Kang 172). Appellants argue the Examiner has not established the back pressure is solely determined by the position of the ink cartridges because the back pressure in Kang is maintained by the pump 180. (App. Br. 6). The Examiner reasonably determined that the back pressure and a gravity fed system would be based upon the height of the liquid. The 4 Appeal 2015-007570 Application 13/107,971 Examiner has demonstrated where Kang discloses an operation where the valve 170 is open and the pump 180 is not utilized thus creating a gravity fed system. (Ans. 6). Appellants have not directed us to evidence to refute the Examiner’s position regarding a gravity fed system. Appellants’ argument that the orientation of the ink cartridges proposed by the Examiner is based upon hindsight is not persuasive. (App. Br. 8). The Examiner properly determined that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have sufficient skill to determine the appropriate shape and orientation of the printer cartridges as described by Pawlowski. (Ans. 6—7). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that horizontal orientation of the ink cartridges (such as described by Pawlowski) could reduce the vertical dimensions of the printer as proposed by the Examiner. Regarding claim 7 we adopt the Examiner’s response to Appellants’ argument presented in the Answer page 8. Appellants have not directed us to evidence to establish that the ink cartridge orientation and location at a height below the printhead is beyond a person of ordinary skill in the art or produces unexpected results. Rejection II Appellants argue there is no reason to modify Kang’s printer because Kang the printer system already has an adequate process for cleaning the printheads. Appellants further argue the adaptation of Kang system to allow flow in either direction would fundamentally change the principle of operation. (App. Br. 11—12). Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive of reversible error, ft has not been disputed that Ota teaches the use of circulation system to direct ink 5 Appeal 2015-007570 Application 13/107,971 in either direction in a loop was known to persons of ordinary skill in the art. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had sufficient skill to modify the system of Kang to incorporate a known circulation system. A claimed invention is unpatentable if the differences between it and the prior art “are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art.” 35 U.S.C. § 103. “The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” KSRInt'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). KSR further states that 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.” Id. at 418; see also DyStar Textilfarben GmBH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“Our suggestion test is in actuality quite flexible and not only permits, but requires, consideration of common knowledge and common sense.”). Rejections III and IV Appellants rely on their contentions that the Examiner erred in rejecting the base claim, independent claim 1 from which claims 5 and 6 depend, and argue that the additionally cited reference fails to address the deficiencies of Kang and Pawlowski. (App. Br. 14—15). Because we are unpersuaded of reversible error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, Appellants’ position as to these rejections are also without merit. Accordingly, we sustain the rejections of claims 5 and 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). 6 Appeal 2015-007570 Application 13/107,971 Rejection V When addressing the rejection of claim 8 Appellants present arguments directed to argue Pawlowski alone and not the combination as set forth by the Examiner. For example, Appellants argue “Pawlowski’s ink cartridges are installed in a fixed station and cannot be independently positioned at different heights relative to a printhead.” (App. Br. 16—17). Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive because they do not address the rejection as provided by the Examiner. The Examiner specifically found Umeda teaches printing systems comprising a plurality of ink cartridges containing different colored inks that are position a different height relative to the printhead. (Final Act. 8). Appellants further argue that the combination of Kang, Pawlowski, and Umeda is illusory. (App. Br. 17—18). Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive of reversible error. It has not been disputed that Umeda teaches systems comprising a plurality of ink cartridges containing different colored inks that are position a different height relative to the printhead. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have possessed sufficient skill to modify the system of Kang to incorporate a known ink cartridge arrangement. Appellants have not persuasively established that the arrangement of ink cartridges in different orientations produce unobvious and/or unexpected results. Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1—3 and 5—8 for the reasons presented by the Examiner and given above. 7 Appeal 2015-007570 Application 13/107,971 ORDER The Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 1—3 and 5—8 are 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). AFFIRMED 8 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation