Ex Parte Messer et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 9, 2017

14105365 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 9, 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.
14/105,365 12/13/2013 James Messer DAY 0960 PA/34380.379 4297
23368 7590 06/13/2017
DINSMORE & SHOHL LLP
FIFTH THIRD CENTER, ONE SOUTH MAIN STREET
SUITE 1300
DAYTON, OH 45402-2023
EXAMINER
CULLER, JILL E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2854
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/13/2017 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):
daytonipdocket@dinsmore.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JAMES MESSER, BRIAN JAMES, and
THOMAS SMATLAK
Appeal 2016-005124
Application 14/105,365
Technology Center 2800
Before TERRY J. OWENS, MARK NAGUMO, and MONTE T. SQUIRE,
Administrative Patent Judges.
OWENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1—4 and 6—12. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
The Invention
The Appellants claim a printing blanket and a printing blanket
mounted on a blanket cylinder. Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A printing blanket comprising at least a printable surface
layer and a non-extensible backing layer, said printing blanket
having lead and trail ends adapted to be inserted into the gap of
a printing blanket cylinder; said lead end of said blanket
including a first relief area positioned inwardly from said lead
end and extending substantially across the width of said
blanket, said first relief area defined by a gap in the blanket
Appeal 2016-005124
Application 14/105,365
carcass and bounded on either side by blanket walls; said lead
end of said blanket including a blanket bar extending around
said blanket carcass and said non-extensible backing layer; said
non-extensible backing layer extends beyond said blanket
carcass on said trail end of said blanket; said blanket including
a second relief area positioned inwardly from said trail end and
extending substantially across the width of said blanket, said
second relief area defined by a gap in the blanket carcass and
bounded on either side by blanket walls, said first and second
relief areas positioned such that when said blanket is mounted
on said blanket cylinder, said relief areas substantially align
with the point at which the lead and trail ends of said blanket
are inserted into said gap in said blanket cylinder.
Shoji
Andrew
Czemer
The References
US 5,787,812
US 6,530,321 B2
US 2007/0101884 A1
The Rejections
Aug. 4, 1998
Mar. 11,2003
May 10, 2007
The claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as follows: claims 1—
4, 6, 7, and 12 over Czemer in view of Andrew and claims 8—11 over Shoji
in view of Czemer and Andrew.
OPINION
We reverse the rejections.
Rejection of claims 1—4, 6, 7, and 12
over Czerner in view of Andrew
We need address only the independent claims (1 and 12). Claim 1
requires a printing blanket having a lead end including a blanket bar
extending around a blanket carcass and a non-extensible backing layer, and a
trail end whereat the non-extensible backing layer extends beyond the
blanket carcass. Claim 12 requires a printing blanket having a lead end
2
Appeal 2016-005124
Application 14/105,365
whereat a non-extensible backing layer is coextensive with the end of a
blanket carcass, and a trail end whereat the non-extensible backing layer
extends beyond the blanket carcass.
Czemer discloses a printing blanket (10) which has a relief area (24)
near its leading (42) and trailing (40) ends and includes a coextensive,
non-extensible backing layer (18) flflf 9-12, 19, 42, 50; Figs. 2A, 5A).
“[T]he relief area(s) [24] are positioned such that when the ends of the
blanket [10] is [sic, are] inserted into the gap [34] of the blanket
cylinder [32], the blanket [10] is bent along the relief area(s) [24]” (| 19;
Fig. 5A).
Andrew discloses a printing blanket (15) including a non-extensible
base layer (20) having leading and trailing ends (22) which extend beyond
the printing blanket (15)’s other plies (14) and are bent and inserted into a
blanket cylinder (12)’s gap (16) (col. 6,11. 34—39; Fig. 2).
The Examiner finds that “the combination of [Czemer’s] layer, 18,
and the blanket bar, 62, could together be considered to be the claimed
non-extensible backing layer, in which case this embodiment could be
considered to teach that the non-extensible backing layer extends beyond the
blanket carcass [Fig. 4B]” (Ans. 2—3).
Czemer’s blanket bar (62) cannot reasonably be considered part of the
non-extensible backing layer (18) because the blanket bar (62) and the
non-extensible backing layer (18) are separate components of the printing
blanket (10) (148).
The Examiner finds that “[although Czemer teaches that both ends of
the blanket include backing layers which are co-extensive with the blanket
carcass, the teachings of Andrew suggest that one having ordinary skill in
3
Appeal 2016-005124
Application 14/105,365
the art would be aware of other options” (Ans. 4), and concludes that “[i]t
would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of
the invention to modify the structure of Czemer such that the non-extensible
backing layer extends beyond the blanket carcass, as taught by Andrew, as a
known and therefore obvious alternative structure which allows locking up
the ends of the backing layer without contacting the blanket carcass” (Non-
final Act. 3^4)1 and that “it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in
the art that the blanket bars taught in [Andrew’s] Figs. 9-14 are functional
equivalents of one another, and that any of these configurations, including
the one of Fig. 9, in which the non-extensible backing layer, 20, extends
beyond the blanket carcass, 14, could be substituted for the configuration
taught by Czemer, on either of the blanket ends, in order to meet the
requirements of a different type of printing press, blanket cylinder, or
lock-up mechanism” (Ans. 5).
The Appellants challenge the Examiner’s finding that the
embodiments in Andrew’s Figures 9 to 14 are functional equivalents (Reply
Br. 4). Therefore, we do not accept that finding as fact. See In re
Kunzmann, 326 F.2d 424, 425 n.3 (CCPA 1964). Regardless, establishing a
prima facie case of obviousness requires an apparent reason to modify the
prior art as proposed by the Examiner. See KSR Int 7 Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). The Examiner’s finding that Andrew’s stmcture
“could be substituted for the configuration taught by Czemer” (Ans. 5) and
the Examiner’s conclusion that Andrew’s stmcture was a “known and
therefore obvious alternative stmcture” (Non-final Act. 3 4) do not provide
1 Citations herein to the Non-final Action are to the action mailed on July 8,
2015.
4
Appeal 2016-005124
Application 14/105,365
the required reason why extending Czemer’s non-extensible backing
layer (18) beyond the blanket carcass at the blanket’s trail end but not at its
lead end would have been apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art from
the references.
Rejection of claims 8—11 over Shoji in view of Czerner and Andrew
Claim 8, which is the only independent claim among claims 8—11,
requires that respective portions of a blanket carcass which are positioned
beyond first and second relief areas meet in frictional engagement in a gap in
a blanket cylinder.
Shoji discloses a blanket cylinder (1) whose gap (3) has a notch (16)
which is blocked by a printing blanket (2)’s leading edge flat bar (15a) such
that the printing blanket (2)’s leading (2a) and tail (2b) edges contact each
other where the printing blanket (2) enters the gap (3) so that “the non
printing length L produced by the gap width of the blanket cylinder can be
decreased to a dimension equivalent to the maximum thickness of two
blankets” (col. 4,1. 16 —col. 5,1. 1).
The Examiner finds that “Shoji does not teach. . . . wherein respective
portions of said blanket carcass which are positioned beyond said first and
second relief areas meet in frictional engagement in said gap in said blanket
cylinder” (Non-final Act. 6), but also finds, regarding the end portions of
Czemer’s printing blanket (10) meeting in frictional engagement and
entering the gap (34) in the blanket cylinder (32), that “the end portions of
the blanket in Shoji clearly do both of these things and therefore it would be
obvious that a combination of Shoji and Czemer would result in this
frictional engagement” (Ans. 6—7).
5
Appeal 2016-005124
Application 14/105,365
The Examiner does not address the differences between Shoji’s and
Czemer’s printing blankets and blanket cylinders and establish that
regardless of those differences, those references would have provided one of
ordinary skill in the art with an apparent reason to combine their disclosures
as proposed by the Examiner. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418.
The Examiner, therefore, has not established a prima facie case of
obviousness of the Appellants’ claimed printing blanket (claims 1 and 12) or
printing blanket mounted on a blanket cylinder (claim 8).
DECISION/ORDER
The rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 1—4, 6, 7, and 12 over
Czemer in view of Andrew and claims 8—11 over Shoji in view of Czemer
and Andrew are reversed.
It is ordered that the Examiner’s decision is reversed.
REVERSED
6