Ex Parte Kamoda

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 1, 2017

13655647 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 1, 2017)

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.
13/655,647 10/19/2012 Hiroyoshi KAMODA 0965-0649PUS1 5208
2292 7590 08/03/2017
BIRCH STEWART KOLASCH & BIRCH, LLP
8110 Gatehouse Road
Suite 100 East
FALLS CHURCH, VA 22042-1248
EXAMINER
OLAMIT, JUSTIN N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2854
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/03/2017 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):
mailroom @ bskb. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KOMORI CORPORATION1
Appeal 2016-005683
Application 13/655,6472
Technology Center 2800
Before TERRY J. OWENS, ROMULO H. DELMENDO, and
DEBRA L. DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
DELMENDO, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
The Applicant (hereinafter “Appellant”) appeals under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134(a) from the Primary Examiner’s final decision to reject claims 1—7.3
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Hiroyoshi Kamoda is listed as the sole inventor (Application Data Sheet
filed October 19, 2012).
2 The real party in interest is identified as “KOMORI CORPORATION”
(Appeal Brief filed November 9, 2015, hereinafter “Br.,” 1 (second
occurrence)).
3 Br. 8—14; Final Office Action entered January 22, 2015, hereinafter “Final
Act.,” 2—8; Examiner’s Answer entered February 26, 2016, hereinafter
“Ans.,” 2-6.
Appeal 2016-005683
Application 13/655,647
A. BACKGROUND
The subject matter on appeal relates to “a combination printing
press[,] which enables improvement in operability and printing quality”
(Specification filed October 19, 2012, hereinafter “Spec.,” 1 8). Figure 1,
which is illustrative of the invention, is reproduced below:
i
Figure 1 above depicts a structural view of a combination printing press
according to one embodiment of the invention, wherein the press generally
includes a sheet feed unit 1, a collect-printing unit 2, an offset printing unit
3, and a delivery unit (sheet delivery unit) 4 {id. H 19—20). As shown in
Figure 1, an impression cylinder 16 in a collect-printing subunit 17 and an
impression cylinder 22 in an offset printing subunit 3 a are connected by a
single transfer cylinder 20 {id. 130). According to the inventors {id.), this
particular arrangement of the impression cylinders 16 and 22 and the single
transfer cylinder 20 reduces the number of times a paper sheet is gripped and
also improves “register accuracy.”
2
Appeal 2016-005683
Application 13/655,647
Representative claim 1 is reproduced from page 16 of the Appeal
Brief (Claims Appendix), with the disputed limitations highlighted in bold
italics, as follows:
1. A combination printing press comprising:
a collect-printing unit including a collect-printing subunit
and a movable inking unit, the collect-printing subunit having a
plurality of pattern plate cylinders, a collecting blanket cylinder
with which the plurality of pattern plate cylinders are in contact
and which has a diameter not less than two times of those of the
pattern plate cylinders, a collecting plate cylinder being in
contact with the collecting blanket cylinder, a blanket cylinder
being in contact with the collecting plate cylinder, and an
impression cylinder being in contact with the blanket cylinder,
the movable inking unit supporting a plurality of inking devices
and being movably supported so as to make the plurality of
inking devices capable of moving toward and away from the
pattern plate cylinders, the plurality of inking devices being
provided respectively for the plurality of pattern plate cylinders
and configured to supply ink to the pattern plate cylinders; and
an offset printing unit configured to perform offset
printing on a sheet subjected to the collect-printing by the collect­
printing unit, wherein
the collect-printing unit has the movable inking unit
disposed below a sheet transport route, and is configured to
perform collect-printing on a lower surface of the sheet, the
offset printing unit includes a lower surface offset printing
subunit configured to perform offset printing on the lower
surface of the sheet, the lower surface offset printing subunit
having a plate cylinder, a blanket cylinder being in contact with
the plate cylinder, an impression cylinder being in contact with
the blanket cylinder and having a diameter which is two times of
that of the plate cylinder, and an ink supply unit configured to
supply ink to the plate cylinder, and
the impression cylinder of the collect-printing subunit
and the impression cylinder of the lower surface offset printing
subunit are connected by a single transport cylinder.
3
Appeal 2016-005683
Application 13/655,647
B. REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
On appeal, the Examiner maintains two rejections under pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. § 103(a):
I. Claims 1, 2, and 5 as unpatentable over Shibata4 in view
of Germann;5 and
II. Claims 3, 4, 6, and 7 as unpatentable over Shibata in
view of Germann and Fischer.6
(Final Act. 2—8; Ans. 2—6.)
C. DISCUSSION
Although the Examiner maintains two rejections, the Appellant relies
on the same arguments for all claims on appeal based on the same disputed
limitations highlighted above in reproduced claim 1 (Br. 9—14). Consistent
with 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv), we confine our discussion to representative
claim 1. All other claims stand or fall with claim 1.
The Examiner finds that Shibata describes a combination printing
press comprising an offset printing unit including most of the limitations
recited in claim 1 (Final Act. 2—3). The Examiner finds, however, that
Shibata differs from the combination printing press recited in claim 1 in that
all the printing units are offset printing units (id. at 3). To resolve this
difference, the Examiner relies on Germann (id. at 3 4). Specifically, the
Examiner finds that Germann teaches that collect printing can be used with
offset printing to print security features onto banknotes (id. at 4; Ans. 4).
4 US 6,772,709 B2, issued August 10, 2004.
5 US 5,042,378, issued August 27, 1991.
6 US 4,493,255, issued January 15, 1985.
4
Appeal 2016-005683
Application 13/655,647
Based primarily on these findings, the Examiner concludes that “[i]t would
have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art... to modify a
printing unit of Shibata to be convertible to the collect-printing unit as taught
by Germann in order to print a multicolor safety background for banknotes”
(Final Act. 4).
The Appellant contends that a prima facie case of obviousness has not
been established because neither Shibata nor Germann discloses the disputed
limitations highlighted above in claim 1—i.e., “the impression cylinder of
the collect-printing subunit and the impression cylinder of the lower surface
offset printing subunit are connected by a single transport cylinder” (Br. 9.
12). Specifically, the Appellant argues that elements 10a and 10b, as shown
in Shibata’s Figure 1, are both impression cylinders and, therefore, “[tjhere
is no impression cylinder of a collect-printing subunit and an impression
cylinder of a lower surface offset printing subunit being connected by a
single transport cylinder as claimed in the present application” {id. at 13).
The Appellant’s arguments fail to identify a reversible error in the
Examiner’s rejection. In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
Shibata’s Figure 1 is reproduced below:
5
Appeal 2016-005683
Application 13/655,647
Shibata’s Figure 1 above depicts a sheet-fed rotary press 1 provided with a
coating section 4, wherein the sheet-fed press 1 includes a sheet feeder
section 2 and a printing section 3 (column 3,11. 36—39; col. 3,1. 66-col. 4,1.
8). Shibata teaches that printing section 3 includes obverse surface printing
units 6A—6D, which are provided with double-diameter impression cylinders
10a, and reverse surface printing units 7A—7D, which are provided with
double-diameter impression cylinders 10b (col. 4,11. 8—28).
Germann teaches a combined sheet-fed rotary printing machine for
securities, especially banknotes (col. 1,11. 8—10). According to Germann,
the printing machine provides banknotes with a front side that has a
multicolor main design and a multicolor safety background and a rear side
that has a multicolor safety background (col. 2,11. 25—34). In particular,
Germann teaches a printing machine having an indirectly-printing printing
unit A that has, inter alia, a blanket cylinder 5 (adjustable or convertible to
either a collect printing position or an offset printing position) that is in a
collect printing position (col. 6,1. 59—col. 7,1. 13).
Here, the Examiner finds that one of Shibata’s offset printing units
(e.g., unit 7A) could be modified to include Germann’s convertible collect
printing elements while preserving the configuration of Shibata’s impression
cylinders, wherein each of the impression cylinders 10b is separated from
each other by impression cylinder 10a (e.g., 10a of unit 6B) (Ans. 2, 4—5).
As the Examiner points out {id. at 2), Shibata’s impression cylinder 10a also
operates as a transfer cylinder that transfers a sheet from one bottom
impression cylinder (e.g., 10b of unit 7A) to the next bottom impression
cylinder (e.g., 10b of unit 7B). Other than conclusory statements, the
Appellant does not provide us with any technical explanation or persuasive
6
Appeal 2016-005683
Application 13/655,647
reasoning why these findings are fatally flawed (Br. 13). Thus, we detect
no error in the Examiner’s conclusion (Ans. 4) that, in view of the prior art’s
collective teachings, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have
found it obvious to modify one of Shibata’s offset printing units to a
convertible collect-printing unit as shown in Germann in order to print
security features onto banknotes. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.
398, 417 (2007) (“[I]f a technique has been used to improve one device, and
a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve
similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its
actual application is beyond his or her skill.”).
For these reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s rejections.
D. SUMMARY
Rejections I and II are affirmed. Therefore, the Examiner’s final
decision to reject claims 1—7 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).
AFFIRMED
7