Ex parte LOOS

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Dec 21, 2001

09127347 (B.P.A.I. Dec. 21, 2001)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written for
publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 12
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte WILLIAM LOOS
____________
Appeal No. 1999-2851
Application No. 09/127,347
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before LALL, BLANKENSHIP, and DIXON, Administrative Patent Judges.
DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the examiner's final rejection of claim 1, which is
the only claim pending in this application.
We REVERSE.
Appeal No. 1999-2851
Application No. 09/127,347
2
BACKGROUND
The appellant's invention relates to an apparatus for printing graphic images on
sheet material having an ink web cassette with constant web tension. An understanding of
the invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary claim 1, which is reproduced
below.
1. A cassette for a thermal-transfer printing apparatus having a strip of
sheet material for receiving the graphic images, wherein the sheet material
defines a plurality of feed holes spaced relative to each other in opposed
marginal portions thereof; a platen mounted adjacent to the sheet material
for supporting the sheet material; a print head movable into engagement with
an ink web of the cassette and sheet material along a line of contact
extending in a lateral direction of the sheet for transferring printing ink from
the ink web onto the sheet and printing the graphic images on the sheet; a
take-up motor for driving the ink web of the cassette; a substantially
constant-torque clutch drivingly connected to the take-up motor for
generating a substantially constant motor torque; two sprockets rotatably
mounted on opposite ends of the platen relative to each other, and engaging
the feed holes of the sheet material upon passage between the platen and
print head; a drive motor drivingly connected to at least one of the platen and
sprockets for rotatably driving at least one of the platen and sprockets and
moving the sheet material engaged by the platen and sprockets; and a
controller electrically coupled to the drive motor and print head, wherein the
controller tracks the rotational position of at least one sprocket to register the
print head with the sheet material, and actuates the print head based on the
rotational position of the at least one sprocket for printing the graphic
images on the sheet material; wherein the cassette comprises:
a predetermined length of ink web; a supply spool mounted within the
cassette and carrying the ink web, wherein the supply spool is releasably
connectable to the thermal-transfer printing apparatus with the ink web
interposed between the sheet material and print head for transferring printing
ink from the ink web onto the sheet and printing the graphic images on the
sheet; a take-up spool mounted within the cassette and connected to the ink
Appeal No. 1999-2851
Application No. 09/127,347
3
web for receiving the ink web from the supply spool, wherein the take-up
spool is drivingly connectable to the constant torque clutch for rotatably
driving the take-up spool at a constant torque and winding the ink web
thereon during printing operations, and wherein the take-up spool defines a
predetermined, first overall diameter without receiving the ink web and a
greater second overall diameter upon receiving the predetermined length of
ink web, the predetermined length of the ink web and the predetermined first
overall diameter of the take-up spool having values such that the second
overall diameter is within approximately 10% of the first overall diameter for
maintaining a substantially constant tension within the ink web, and in
conjunction with the sprockets and controller thereby maintaining registration
between the print head and sheet material during printing operations.
The prior art references of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the
appealed claims are:
Hevenor et al. (Hevenor) EP 0 607 539 A2 Jul. 27, 1994
Claim 1 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Hevenor.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and the
appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the examiner's
answer (Paper No. 9, mailed May 25, 1999) for the examiner's reasoning in support of the
rejections, and to the appellant's brief (Paper No. 8, filed May 12, 1999) and reply brief
(Paper No. 10, filed Jun. 8, 1999) for the appellant's arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
Appeal No. 1999-2851
Application No. 09/127,347
4
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to the
appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of our
review, we make the determinations which follow.
Appellant argues that the claimed invention is based upon the discovery that the
tension of the ink web is a function of the overall diameter of the take-up spool, and that
variations in the tension of the ink web create corresponding variations in the web velocity,
and in turn adversely affect print registration and the quality of the printed image. (See
brief at pages 4-5.) Appellant argues that the prior cassette construction was to provide
as much ink web as possible to increase the operational life of the cassette which caused
a significant change in the overall diameter of the take-up spool resulting in a degradation
of the print quality. (See brief at page 5.) Appellant argues that the examiner, is
conclusion of obviousness is based upon hindsight. (See brief at page 6.) We agree
with appellant that the examiner has not provided a convincing line of reasoning to modify
the prior art cassette construction. Appellant argues that the prior art cassette teaches
away from the claimed invention. (See brief at page 6.) We disagree with appellant that
the Hevenor teaches away from the claimed invention, but we do agree that Hevenor alone
does not provide teaching or suggestion of the desirability of the invention as claimed.
Appeal No. 1999-2851
Application No. 09/127,347
5
The examiner relies upon logic and sound scientific principle to suggest the
obviousness of keeping the diameter of the take-up spool substantially unchanged. (See
final rejection at page 2.) While we agree with the examiner that logic and sound scientific
principles are appropriate motivations for modifications of prior art teachings, we find
nothing in Hevenor alone which would have suggested to the skilled artisan to look to logic
and sound scientific principles to motivate change in the length of the ink web to keep the
cassette within the claimed limitations. The examiner cites a teaching of a Japanese
patent (Jp-02-069276) in the argument section of the final rejection to identify the
recognition of the problem of diameter size and tension. Here, we disagree with the
examiner’s reliance upon a teaching which is not applied against the claim. As set forth in
In re Hoch, 428 F.2d 1341, 1342 n.3, 166 USPQ 406, 407 n.3 (CCPA 1970), “[w]here a
reference is relied on to support a rejection, whether or not in a ‘minor capacity,’ there
would appear to be no excuse for not positively including the reference in the statement of
rejection.” Furthermore, the examiner maintains that this reference teaches the control of
the drive source rather than maintaining the take-up spool in any specific relationship. The
examiner maintains that the complicated system of the Japanese patent is not at issue
here. We disagree with the examiner. If the teachings of the reference are to be applied
by the examiner, then the reference as a whole and what it teaches is at issue. Since the
examiner does not apply the complete teaching of the reference, it is clear that the
Appeal No. 1999-2851
Application No. 09/127,347
6
examiner is improperly attempting to pick and choose teachings as the examiner finds
appropriate to meet the language of independent claim 1. This is inappropriate; therefore,
this argument/position is not persuasive. Here, the examiner goes on at great length that
the claimed invention would have been obvious (answer at pages 4-5), but we find that the
examiner has provided no teaching or recognition of the problem of poor print quality with
significant change in the take-up spool diameter. Therefore, we find that the examiner’s
rejection is based upon speculation and lacks evidence to support the examiner is
contention concerning maintaining the take-up spool diameter in a relation as recited in the
claim. Therefore, we will not sustain the rejection of claim 1.
Appeal No. 1999-2851
Application No. 09/127,347
7
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. §
103 is reversed.
REVERSED
PARSHOTAM S. LALL )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
JOSEPH L. DIXON ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 1999-2851
Application No. 09/127,347
8
DONALD K HUBER
MCCORMICK PAULDING & HUBER
CITYPLACE II
185 ASYLUM STREET
HARTFORD , CT 06103-4102