Ex Parte Kanga

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 23, 2009

10586414 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 23, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte RUSTOM S. KANGA
____________

Appeal 2009-006927
Application 10/586,414
Technology Center 1700
____________

Decided: September 23, 2009
____________

Before JEFFREY T. SMITH, MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, and
JEFFREY B. ROBERTSON, Administrative Patent Judges.

ROBERTSON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2009-006927
Application 10/586,414

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 6-10 and 12-25.1 (App. Br. 2). We have jurisdiction
pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).2
We AFFIRM.
THE INVENTION
Appellant describes a method of making a hollow cylindrical printing
sleeve. Claims 6, 12, and 13, reproduced below, are representative of the
subject matter on appeal.
6. A method of making a hollow cylindrical printing sleeve,
the method comprising:
a) providing a photosensitive priming element
comprising:

i) a hollow cylindrical support layer, the
hollow cylindrical support layer comprising an
actinic radiation absorbing compound uniformly
distributed throughout;

ii) at least one layer of photopolymerizable
material deposited on the hollow cylindrical
support layer; and

iii) a masking layer on top of the at least one
layer of photopolymerizable material that absorbs
radiation at a wavelength used to polymerize the
layer of photopolymerizable material;

1 Claims 1-5, 11, and 26 have been canceled. (Appeal Brief filed May 30,
2008, hereinafter “App. Br.,” 2).
2 Oral arguments were heard in this Appeal on September 15, 2009.
2
Appeal 2009-006927
Application 10/586,414

b) removing portions of the masking layer by
exposing the masking layer to laser radiation at a
selected wavelength and power;
c) exposing the layer of photopolymerizable material
to actinic radiation through the hollow cylindrical
support layer to create a floor layer of polymerized
material;

d) exposing the surface of the cylindrical sleeve to at
least one source of actinic radiation to polymerize
the portions of the layer of photopolymerizable
material revealed during laser ablation of the
masking layer, wherein the at least one source of
actinic radiation comprises one or more collimated
sources of actinic radiation; and

e) developing the photosensitive printing element to
remove the masking layer and the unpolymerized
portions of the layer of photopolymerizable
material to create a relief image on the surface of
the photosensitive printing element;

wherein light rays emanating from the at least one
source of actinic radiation strike the photosensitive
printing element at an angle that is substantially
perpendicular to the surface of the photosensitive
printing element at the point of impact.

12. The method of claim 6, wherein the at least one source of
actinic radiation comprises ultraviolet lamps arranged around
the photosensitive printing element, said ultraviolet lamps
simultaneously exposing the entire surface of the photosensitive
printing element to actinic radiation.

13. The method of claim 12, wherein the ultraviolet lamps
are collimated by positioning at least one collimator between
the ultraviolet lamps and the photopolymerizable printing
element, said at least one collimator having first and second
opposing major faces and comprising at least one cell that
3
Appeal 2009-006927
Application 10/586,414

extends from the first major face to the second major face,
wherein the at least one collimator is defined by at least one
surface that substantially absorbs actinic radiation incident upon
the surface and actinic radiation passes through the collimator
before reaching the photopolymerizable printing sleeve.

THE REJECTIONS
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Ferree US 1,986,052 Jan. 1, 1935
Plambeck, Jr. US 2,791,504 May 7, 1957
Trump US 3,217,625 Nov. 16, 1965
Werber US 3,615,450 Oct. 26, 1971
Gush US 3,619,601 Nov. 9, 1971
Speicher US 3,645,178 Feb. 29, 1972
Karol US 3,645,179 Feb. 29, 1972
Kitamura US 4,868,090 Sep. 19, 1989
Fan US 5,262,275 Nov. 16, 1993
Nellissen US 5,686,230 Nov. 11, 1997
Cushner US 5,798,019 Aug. 25, 1998
Gelbart US 6,180,325 B1 Jan. 30, 2001
Kanga US 6,413,699 B1 Jul. 2, 2002
Ohba US 6,664,999 B2 Dec. 16, 2003
Wier US 6,766,740 B1 Jul. 27, 2004

There are six grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for review
on appeal:
(1) the Examiner rejected claims 6-10, 13, and 14 as being
unpatentable over Kanga in view of Fan, Cushner, Gush, Werber, Gelbart,
Ohba, Nellissen, Wier, Trump, Karol, and Speicher;
(2) the Examiner rejected claim 12 as being unpatentable over Kanga
in view of Fan, Cushner, Gush, Werber, Gelbart, Ohba, Nellissen, Wier,
4
Appeal 2009-006927
Application 10/586,414

Trump, Karol, and Speicher, further in view of Kitamura, Plambeck, Jr., and
Ferree;
(3) the Examiner rejected claim 13 as being unpatentable over Kanga
in view of Fan, Cushner, Gush, Werber, Gelbart, Ohba, Nellissen, Wier,
Trump, Karol, and Speicher, further in view of Kitamura, Plambeck, Jr., and
Ferree
(4) the Examiner rejected claim 15 as being unpatentable over Kanga
in view of Fan, Cushner, Gush, Werber, Gelbart, Ohba, Nellissen, Wier,
Trump, Karol, and Speicher, further in view of Kitamura, Plambeck, Jr., and
Ferree;
(5) the Examiner rejected claims 16, 17, and 21-25 as being
unpatentable over Fan in view of Cushner, Plambeck, Jr., Ferree, Nellissen,
Wier, Trump, Karol, and Speicher; and
(6) the Examiner rejected claims 17-20 as being unpatentable over
Fan in view of Cushner, Plambeck, Jr., Ferree, Nellissen, Wier, Trump,
Karol, and Speicher, further in view of Kanga.

In rejecting the claims on appeal, the Examiner found that Kanga
and/or Fan and Cushner fail to disclose the use of a collimated light source
where the light strikes the photosensitive printing element at a substantially
perpendicular angle to the arcuate surface. (Examiner’s Answer entered
August 19, 2008, hereinafter “Ans.,” 3, 4, and 9-11). The Examiner relies
on Werber, Gush, Gelbart, Ohba, Nellissen, Wier, Trump, Speicher, Karol
and Plambeck, Jr. to show that using collimated light to obtain sharp clear
relief images is conventional in the art and also that it is known in the art
that fine relief images are formed when collimated light strikes
5
Appeal 2009-006927
Application 10/586,414

photosensitive printing elements at angles substantially perpendicular to the
surface. (Ans. 4-6, and 9-12). The Examiner determined that it would have
been obvious to use collimated light at an angle substantially perpendicular
to the arcurate photosensitive printing element in the combination of Kanga
and/or Fan and Cushner for the art recognized purpose of forming fine
images. (Ans. 6, 7, and 12).
Appellant contends that the Examiner has not established a prima
facie case of obviousness because the prior art when viewed as a whole,
would not have suggested using collimated sources of actinic radiation
wherein the light rays emanating form the one or more sources “strike the
photosensitive printing element at an angle that is substantially
perpendicular to the surface of the photosensitive printing element at the
point of impact.” (App. Br. 9-14 and 19-22).

ISSUES
(1) Has Appellant shown that the Examiner reversibly erred in
determining that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art to employ collimated light in the photosensitive printing elements of
Kanga and/or Fan and Cushner such that the light rays emanating from the
one or more sources “strike the photosensitive printing element at an angle
that is substantially perpendicular to the surface of the photosensitive
printing element at the point of impact” in view of the prior art of record?
(2) Has Appellant shown that the Examiner reversibly erred in
determining that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art to employ ultraviolet lamps arranged around the photosensitive printing
6
Appeal 2009-006927
Application 10/586,414

element to simultaneously expose the entire surface of the photosensitive
element to actinic radiation in view of Kitamura?
(3) Has Appellant shown that the Examiner reversibly erred in
determining that the structure of the collimator recited in claim 13 would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of Plambeck, Jr.
and Ferree?

FINDINGS OF FACT
The record supports the following findings of fact (FF) by a
preponderance of the evidence.
1. The Examiner stated:
[t]he examiner believes that WIER . . . teach[es] . . . that
collimating light that is to be used to image a layer underneath a
mask layer in the relief printing plate formation art to form a
finer image is well known in the art. The desire to have the
light strike the plate even if flat instead of rounded as in a
cylinder is the same as wanting to strike the plate as
perpendicularly as possible at the point of image. The desire to
have such a strike perpendicular at all points of the plate
whether flat or cylindrical is held prima facie obvious for all the
same reasons, i.e. to form a finer image.
(Ans. 14-15)
2. Nellissen discloses a body having a ball shape, on which a three-
dimensional relief is provided. (Fig. 2, col. 4, ll. 62-63).
3. Nellissen discloses that sharp images are obtained using collimated
light having small collimation angles. (Col. 5, ll. 30-41).
4. Wier discloses photopolymer plates and methods to expose them to
provide sharp printed images, specifically: “a device and method
7
Appeal 2009-006927
Application 10/586,414

for directing the ultraviolet light perpendicularly against the
photopolymer plate.” (Col. 1, ll. 50-65).
5. Wier states: “[i]n order to provide a sharp clear image, it is
desirable to increase angle 16 thereby orienting side surface 13 at a
steep angle relative to top surface 12 minimizing any image
transferred by the side surfaces 13.” (Col. 1, ll. 44-47; Fig. 1).
6. Wier discloses that a film negative 31 may be positioned between a
photopolymer plate 20 and a collimating filter 30 where light rays
pass through translucent portions of film 31 striking plate 20
perpendicularly. (Col. 3, ll. 9-17, 40-49; Fig. 4).
7. Ohba discloses: “[d]evices which record (expose) an image on an
image-forming layer (photosensitive layer), which is on a support
of a sheet-form printing plate (for example, a ‘photopolymer
plate’), with a direct light beam (a laser beam) have been
developed as printing plate exposure devices (image-recording
devices).” (Col. 1, ll. 10-16).
8. Ohba discloses collimated light which is used to expose a printing
plate that is wound onto the outer periphery of a cylindrical rotary
drum. (Col. 9, ll. 50-65).
9. Karol discloses exposing a very accurate pattern in a photoresist on
the outside surface of a cylinder using light that is collimated in
radial planes. (Karol, col. 2, ll. 20-48).
10. Karol states: “the gist of the invention is in the use of collimated
light with conical mirrors to convert the light into radially
collimated beams. The radial beams pass through masks to the
8
Appeal 2009-006927
Application 10/586,414

inner or outer surface of the cylinder to expose a very accurate
pattern in a photoresist.” (Col. 4, ll. 55-60).
11. Kitamura discloses exposing a cylindrical element to expose a
relief image using a plurality of chemical lamps 10b arranged
around the cylindrical element. (Col. 11, ll. 2-42; Fig. 11).
12. Plambeck, Jr. discloses a process for producing relief images,
where when fine lines are being produced, a light controlling
baffle, such as an egg-crate baffle is used to eliminate rays below a
desired minimum angle. (Col. 4, ll. 59-69).

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
“The combination of familiar elements according to known methods
is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”
KSR Int’l. Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
In an obviousness rejection, the combination of references must be
considered as a whole, rather than the specific teaching of each reference. In
re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395 (CCPA 1971); In re Simon, 461 F.2d
1387, 1390 (CCPA 1972). In responding to a prima facie case of
obviousness, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references
individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references.
In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800
F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).

9
Appeal 2009-006927
Application 10/586,414

ANALYSIS
As Appellant has not separately argued the claims subject to each
ground of rejection, we confine our discussion to appealed claims 6, 12, 13,
and 15-17, which contain claim limitations representative of the arguments
made by Appellant pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).3
At the outset, we note that the Examiner has relied on several
references to support the position that the use of substantially perpendicular
collimated light is conventional in photosensitive printing elements having
cylindrical and non-planar surfaces. For the purposes of rendering our
decision, we limit our discussion to Wier, Nellissen, Ohba, and Karol as
being representative of the prior art cited by the Examiner.
Issue 1: Grounds of Rejection (1) and (5)
We agree with the Examiner that the cited prior art demonstrates that
the use of collimated light in photosensitive printing plates having arcurate
surfaces, where the light strikes the photosensitive printing element at an
angle that is substantially perpendicular to the surface of the printing
element at the point of contact is conventional in the art. Specifically, Wier
discloses that collimated light is used to promote the formation of steep sides
in the photopolymer layer, which Wier discloses results in sharp clear
images. (FF 4 and 5). In addition, Ohba, Nellissen, and Karol disclose that
collimated light is used in exposing a photoresist on the outside surfaces of
cylinders and spheres, which are non-planar. (FF 2, 8, and 9). Further, Wier
discloses that the collimated light strikes the photosensitive printing element

3 Only those arguments actually made by Appellant have been considered in
this decision. Arguments which Appellant could have made but chose not to
make have not been considered and are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2007).
10
Appeal 2009-006927
Application 10/586,414

at an angle that is substantially perpendicular to the surface of the printing
element at the point of contact in order to produce a clear sharp image. (FF
4). The Examiner’s conclusions are also consistent with Karol, which states
that the “gist” of the invention is in the use of collimated light in radially
collimated beams to expose very accurate patterns in the photoresist. (FF
10). Thus, the Examiner has presented sufficient evidence to support the
conclusion that using collimated light such that the light strikes the
photosensitive printing element at an angle that is substantially
perpendicular to the surface of the cylindrical printing element of Kanga
and/or Fan and Cushner would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art.
Appellants’ arguments, while stating that the prior art as a whole does
not render the presently recited method obvious, improperly focus on the
individual teachings of each reference, rather than what the prior art as a
whole conveys to one of ordinary skill in the art. Appellants have not shown
error in the Examiner’s statements regarding what the cited references
collectively discloses to one of ordinary skill in the art. For example,
Appellants contend that Wier discloses only flat photosensitive printing
elements. However, Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in
finding that it is well known in the art that collimated light may be used to
form finer images. (FF 1). In addition, the Examiner relies on Ohba,
Nellissen and Karol for disclosing collimated light used on non-planar
printing plates. (Ans. 16-18, See also FF 2, 8, and 9).
Moreover, we are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments regarding
the individual references. Specifically, contrary to Appellants’ argument
that Wier only discloses a collimator between a mask layer and a
11
Appeal 2009-006927
Application 10/586,414

photosensitive layer, Wier expressly discloses a collimator atop a mask,
where the mask sits atop the photosensitive layer. (Ans. 15, FF 6).
In addition, Appellants’ argument that the light in Ohba is collimated
to record an image, not to expose the printing element to actinic radiation is
not persuasive. Ohba uses the word “record” interchangeably with “expose”
and specifically discloses exposing the printing plate. (FF 7).
Appellants additionally contend that Nellissen does not disclose a
cylindrical element or collimated light that strikes the element at a
substantially perpendicular angle. (App. Br. 12). However, discussed by the
Examiner in the Answer, Nellissen is relied on for the purpose of showing
how to image a non planar element with collimated light to end up with a
fine image. (Ans. 17).
With respect to Karol, Appellants unduly focus on the manner of
mounting the mask on the cylinder, rather than the solution of collimated
light to form a finer image on a cylindrical surface. (Ans. 18). Indeed,
Karol itself discloses that the invention should not be limited in the manner
suggested by Appellants. (FF 10). Accordingly, Appellants’ arguments are
not persuasive.
Issue 2: Ground of Rejection (2)
Appellants’ arguments that Kitamura is not directed to collimated
light sources, but is directed to curing an entire surface of resin composition,
and cannot be combined with the other prior art references cited by the
Examiner, fail to take into account what Kitamura as a whole would convey
to one of ordinary skill in the art. We agree with the Examiner’s position
that Kitamura discloses multiple light sources for imaging the surface of a
cylinder, and that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how to
12
Appeal 2009-006927
Application 10/586,414

image a printing plate surface with a mask using multiple sources of light.
(Ans. 20). The reasons for collimating light and striking the photosensitive
printing element at an angle that is substantially perpendicular to the surface
of the printing element at the point of contact are demonstrated by the other
references of record as discussed supra. Appellants have not provided any
persuasive evidence that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been
unable to modify the multiple light sources of Kitamura to obtain the art-
recognized benefits of collimated light.

Issue 3: Ground of Rejection (3)
Appellant does not dispute that Plambeck, Jr. in view of Ferree
discloses the collimator recited in claim 13. Rather, Appellant argues that
Plambeck, Jr. and Ferree do not recognize the use of collimated light at
substantially perpendicular angles to the surface of a photosensitive printing
element. (App. Br. 17-18). We are not persuaded by Appellants’
contentions. Appellants have not demonstrated error in the Examiner’s
position that the egg crate baffles disclosed in Plambeck, Jr. and Ferree are
collimators, which remove non-parallel light. (Ans. 21-22). Appellants
have also not addressed the Examiner’s position that because the angle of
taper with respect to the printing surface can be controlled to 90 degrees, the
light would be substantially perpendicular to the horizontal base. (Ans. 21).
Last, Appellants have not shown error in the Examiner’s position that even
though Plambeck, Jr. is directed to planar surfaces, that the application to
non-planar surfaces would have been understood by one of ordinary skill in
the art. (Ans. 22).

13
Appeal 2009-006927
Application 10/586,414

Grounds of Rejection (4) and (6)
Appellants do not separately argue the rejections of claims 15 and 17-
20. Accordingly, we affirm these rejections for the same reasons as
discussed supra.

CONCLUSION
Appellant has failed to demonstrate that the Examiner reversibly
erred:
(1) in determining that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art to employ collimated light in the photosensitive printing
elements of Kanga and/or Fan and Cushner such that the light rays
emanating from the one or more sources “strike the photosensitive printing
element at an angle that is substantially perpendicular to the surface of the
photosensitive printing element at the point of impact” in view of the prior
art of record;
(2) in determining that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art to employ ultraviolet lamps arranged around the
photosensitive printing element to simultaneously expose the entire surface
of the photosensitive element to actinic radiation in view of Kitamura; and
(3) in determining that the structure of the collimator recited in claim
13 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of
Plambeck, Jr. and Ferree.

ORDER
We affirm all of the Examiner’s rejections of claims 6-10 and 12-25
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
14
Appeal 2009-006927
Application 10/586,414

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)(v).
AFFIRMED

tc

JOHN L. CORDANI
CARMODY AND TORRANCE
P.O. BOX 1110
50 LEAVENWORTH STREET
WATERBURY, CT 06721-1110

15