Ex parte NIEMIRO et al.

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Apr 20, 1998

08308186 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 20, 1998)

Application for patent filed September 19, 1994.1
-1-
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered
today (1) was not written for publication in a law
journal and (2) is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 15
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
________________
Ex parte THADDEUS A. NIEMIRO and THOMAS W. ORZECHOWSKI
________________
Appeal No. 96-3874
Application 08/308,1861
________________
ON BRIEF
________________
Before McCANDLISH, Senior Administrative Patent Judge, STAAB and
CRAWFORD, Administrative Patent Judges.
STAAB, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on an appeal from the final rejection of
claims 6-10, all the claims currently pending in the
Appeal No. 96-3874
Application 08/308,186
Although the examiner’s answer indicates that claim 11 is2
a rejected claim in this appeal, claim 11 has been canceled by an
amendment submitted on June 29, 1995 (Paper No. 5).
-2-
application.2
With reference to drawing Figure 1, appellants’ invention
pertains to a dampening system for a printing press which
includes an accumulator 26 located between a pressure regulator
22 and a spray bar 16 for dampening pressure pulses of liquid
being supplied to the spray bar.
Independent claim 6 is illustrative of the appealed subject
matter and reads as follows:
6. A dampening assembly for a printing press,
comprising:
a spray bar for spraying a liquid onto a portion of the
press;
a source of the liquid;
a pressure regulator being connected to the source by a
first conduit, and being connected to the spray bar by a second
conduit;
an accumulator having a chamber communicating with the
second conduit, and having a diaphragm separating the chamber
into a first compartment being connected to the second conduit,
and a second closed compartment being charged with an inert gas,
said accumulator dampening pressure pulses of the liquid being
supplied to the spray bar.
In rejecting appellants’ claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the
examiner has relied upon the references listed below:
Appeal No. 96-3874
Application 08/308,186
-3-
Pirsch 1,893,685 Jan. 10, 1933
Smith, Jr. (Smith) 4,050,378 Sept. 27, 1977
Miller 4,445,829 May 1, 1984
Webb 4,570,538 Feb. 18, 1986
Plager et al. (Plager) 5,337,791 Aug. 16, 1994
Claims 6, 7 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Smith in view of each of Plager, Miller
and Pirsch. Claims 8 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Smith in view of each of Plager,
Miller and Pirsch, and further in view of Webb.
The examiner considers that Smith discloses in Figure 1 a
dampening system for a printing press comprising a spray bar 25,
a source of liquid 126, and a pressure regulator 130 connected to
the source of liquid by a first conduit (not numbered) and to the
spray bar by a second conduit 125. The examiner further
considers that each of Plager, Miller and Pirsch discloses the
conventional expedient of minimizing pulsations in a liquid
delivery line by utilizing an accumulator device charged with
air. The examiner concedes that Smith does not disclose an
accumulator in the dampening system thereof. It is the
examiner’s position, however, that it would have been obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art “to broadly utilize an
accumulator in the feed line of Smith” (answer, page 4) in
accordance with the teachings of each of Plager, Miller and
Appeal No. 96-3874
Application 08/308,186
See column 5, line 34-51. Presumably the cylindrically3
shaped object seen in Smith’s Figure 1 between the filter 127 and
the check valve 129 constitutes the pump in question.
-4-
Pirsch for the purpose of dampening pressure pulses such as
taught by each of the secondary references. Implicit in the
examiner’s rejection is the position that the proposed
modification of Smith would result in a dampening assembly that
corresponds to the claimed assembly in all respects.
We will not sustain this rejection. At the outset, it is
questionable whether it would have been obvious as a general
proposition to provide an accumulator in the dampening system of
Smith in view of the collective teachings of the applied
references. Admittedly, it is well known, as a general
proposition, that vibrations may be caused by pressure pulsations
at the beginning and end of the delivery stroke of a pump, and
that these pulsations can be minimized by utilizing an
accumulator device in communication with the liquid being pumped.
The secondary references to Plager, Miller and Pirsch teach as
much. However, it is not apparent, nor has the examiner
explained, why one of ordinary skill in the art would have
appreciated this circumstance to be applicable to Smith’s
printing press dampening apparatus. In this regard, Smith does
not indicate that system pump 128 or any of the metering pumps3
Appeal No. 96-3874
Application 08/308,186
-5-
26 for the individual printing towers are a problem in the sense
that they cause damaging vibrations as a result of pressure
pulsations in the dampening liquid.
Furthermore, even if we were to assume that one of ordinary
skill in the art would have been motivated by the collective
teachings of the applied references to provide an accumulator in
the system of Smith, there remains the issue of where one would
locate the accumulator. In that Plager, Miller and Pirsch teach
that the source of the pressure pulsations is the system pump, it
appears to us that, at best, in following the teachings of these
references the ordinarily skilled artisan would locate the
accumulator upstream of Smith’s pressure regulator 130 in order
to place the accumulator as close as possible to the source of
the pressure pulsations. However, appealed claim 6 calls to the
accumulator to be located downstream of the pressure regulator
next to the spray bar. This is presumably because, as set forth
in appellants’ specification in the sentence bridging pages 6 and
7, the constantly changing pressure pulses are created by the
on/off cycling of the spray bar nozzle valve operators. The
examiner has not addressed this location issue raised by
Appeal No. 96-3874
Application 08/308,186
See page 6 of the brief (“. . . nor is it clear where to4
dampen the pulses on Smith Jr. in the absence of the applicants’
teachings in the present specification.” (emphasis added)).
-6-
appellants in the brief and we can think of no reason why it4
would have been obvious to locate an accumulator in the Smith
apparatus at this particular location.
Where prior art references require a selective combination
to render obvious a claimed invention, there must be some reason
for the combination other than hindsight gleaned from the
invention disclosure, Interconnect Planning Corp. v. Feil, 774
F.2d 1132, 1143, 227 USPQ 543, 551 (Fed. Cir. 1985). In the fact
situation before us, we are unable to agree with the examiner
that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated
by the teachings of the secondary references to incorporate an
accumulator in the system of Smith in the location required by
claim 6.
In light of the foregoing, we will not sustain the
examiner’s standing § 103 rejection of claims 6, 7 and 9 as being
unpatentable over Smith in view of each of Plager, Miller and
Pirsch.
Nor will we sustain the standing § 103 rejection of claims 8
and 10 as being unpatentable over Smith in view of each of
Plager, Miller and Pirsch, and further in view of Webb. In
Appeal No. 96-3874
Application 08/308,186
-7-
short, Webb’s disclosure of using a pressure gauge (e.g.,
pressure gauge 80) in the dampening fluid supply line does not
cure the above noted deficiencies of the basic combination with
respect to the subject matter recited in parent claim 6.
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
HARRISON E. McCANDLISH )
Senior Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
LAWRENCE J. STAAB ) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 96-3874
Application 08/308,186
-8-
Patrick D. Ertel
Marshall, O’Toole, Gerstein, Murray
& Borum
6300 Sears Tower
233 South Wacker Drive
Chicago, IL 60606-6402