Ex Parte Rancourt et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 22, 201814042946 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 22, 2018) Copy Citation 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. 14/042,946 10/01/2013 Michael Raymond RANCOURT 6003.1287 3774 23280 7590 01/24/2018 Davidson, Davidson & Kappel, LLC 589 8th Avenue 16th Floor New York, NY 10018 EXAMINER EVANISKO, LESLIE J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2854 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/24/2018 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): ddk @ ddkpatent .com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte MICHAEL RAYMOND RANCOURT and HOWARD W. HOFF1 Appeal 2017-002580 Application 14/042,946 Technology Center 2800 Before MARKNAGUMO, MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, and DEBRA L. DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges. COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL 1 Appellants identify Goss International Americas, Inc. as the real party interest. App. Br. 2 Appeal 2017-002580 Application 14/042,946 Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 the final rejection of claims 1—16. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. The appeal is directed to a printing press which is configured as a roll- to-roll system and a method of operating the printing press (Spec, f 1; claims 1 and 9). Claim 1 is illustrative: A method for recording print processing conditions on a printed web of a rewind roll during operation of a printing press to print a print job, comprising: providing a web roll, the web roll containing a web; unwinding the web from the web roll and passing the web through a printing unit of the printing press; printing on the web with the printing unit as the web passes through the printing unit; passing the web through one or more further processing components to a rewind station located downstream of the printing unit; winding the printed web onto a rewind roll located at the rewind station; wherein, as the web passes through the one or more further processing components, further performing the steps of: tracking, with a position sensor, a plurality of equally spaced locations on the web; detecting, using one or more sensors, a plurality printing process parameters of the printing press at a plurality of time points; and further including the steps of associating the sensed printing process parameters with the tracked locations on the web at which the printing process parameters were sensed such that, for each tracked location, there is an associated set of printing process parameters; storing in memory, for each tracked location, the associated set of printing process parameters; and storing in memory an identification of the rewind roll, and an association of the rewind roll with the associated set of printing process parameters for each tracked location. 2 Appeal 2017-002580 Application 14/042,946 Appellants appeal the following rejection: Claims 1—16 are rejected under 35 USC § 103(a) as unpatentable over Yamamoto (US 8,075,211 B2, issued Dec. 13, 2011) in view of Currans (US 2007/0022892 Al, published Feb. 1, 2007). FINDINGS OF FACT & ANALYSIS Claims 1 and 9 Appellants argue the same limitations of independent claims 1 and 9 (App. Br. 7—10, 12—14). We select claim 1 as representative of this grouping of claims. 37 CFR § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). Appellants argue that Currans does not disclose the steps of tracking with a position sensor, a plurality of equally spaced locations on the web as required by claim 1 (App. Br. 8). Appellants contend that Currans discloses that sensors 24a, 24b and 24c are any sensors that detect errors in the web and these sensors would not detect equally spaced positions locations because position is not an error (App. Br. 8). Appellants argue that the Examiner’s reason for combining Currans and Yamamoto lacks rational underpinning (App. Br. 8—9). Appellants argue that the Examiner’s finding that the errors the sensors are detecting in Currans are completely different from the errors that are being printed in the error field of the manifest is erroneous and baseless (App. Br. 9). The Examiner finds that Yamamoto describes generally the method of claim 1 except for the use of sensors to measure position and other parameters (Final Act. 3 4). The Examiner finds that Currans teaches using sensors to monitor parameters and errors in a roll-to-roll printing process (Final Act. 4—5). The Examiner finds that Currans teaches a position sensor 3 Appeal 2017-002580 Application 14/042,946 that tracks a plurality of equally spaced locations on the web (Final Act. 4). The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to combine Currans’ controller/processor, position sensor, and one or more sensors with Yamamoto in order to associate the sensed printing parameters with the tracked locations on the web such that the printing parameters, and the identification of the rewind roll may be stored in memory so as to allow for improved monitoring and control of the printing process (Final Act. 5). The Examiner finds that Currans’ teachings as a whole would have suggested tracking the position of an error on the web because determining if errors exist on the web would entail also determining where on the web those errors are located (Ans. 3—5). The Examiner finds that to detect effectively the error in the printed image and/or web in Currans would have also entailed determining the location of the error (Ans. 4). Appellants’ argument that Currans’ sensors 24A to 24C are only for detecting errors is not persuasive. Currans teaches that the sensor 24c, for example, may be used to detect the length of the web used to form the imaged roll (f 35). The length detected by the sensor 24c is then sent to the manifest logic (f 35). Currans discloses that position and distance on the web (i.e., length) are parameters that may be included in the manifest (f 23). Therefore, Curran’s sensors 24a to 24c may be used to sense not only errors but also parameters such as length or position. Although Currans may not explicitly describe tracking a plurality of equally spaced locations on the web with a position sensor, the Examiner finds that Currans’ determination of errors coupled with the teaching to determine the image position on the web would have used such equally spaced tracking to determine the exact location of the image on the web (Ans. 4). Currans’ sensor 24C measures 4 Appeal 2017-002580 Application 14/042,946 length and therefore, tracks a plurality of equally spaced locations on the web in order to determine the length of the web. The Examiner explains that it is well understood that determining the position on the web of an error is important when performing a finishing operation (Ans. 3-4). Appellants contend that it improper for the Examiner to make such a finding without factual support and that the Examiner’s finding is not based upon official notice (Reply Br. 2-3). We find that the Examiner’s reliance on what is “well understood” in the art amounts to a finding that the mapping of an error to the position of the error on the web is common knowledge in the art based upon official notice. Although Appellants contend that such is not a proper taking of official notice, the Examiner is permitted to take official notice of facts that may be readily supported when seasonably challenged. Appellants do not specifically challenge the Examiner’s finding that it would have been important in a finishing operation to know the location and error in the print (Reply Br. 3). Indeed, the finishing operation would not want to include print errors in a finished product and so the location of the print errors would have been important. Appellants argue that Currans’ use of a print manifest and a finishing operation does not require measuring equally spaced locations or mapping the errors on the web to a location (Reply Br. 3). The Examiner, however, does not rely solely on the print manifest and finishing operation as the basis for finding that the mapping of error locations would have been suggested by the prior art. Rather, the Examiner determines that the totality of Currans’ teachings would have suggested mapping error locations on the web using equally spaced locations on the web. (Ans., sentence bridging 4— 5.) Appellants do not specifically address the Examiner’s finding that the 5 Appeal 2017-002580 Application 14/042,946 totality of Curran’s teachings including the determination of errors and measuring length of the web would have suggested tracking the web at equally spaced locations. Determining length or distance using equally spaced locations on a web to provide accurate points of reference for interpolation is an ancient practice (cf tossing the log line to measure the speed of a ship). Based upon Currans’ teachings, the preponderance of the evidence favors the Examiner’s conclusion that the combined teachings of Yamamoto and Currans would have suggested using the sensors to track at equally spaced intervals the printing on the web to determine length of the printed region and the location of any errors in the printing. Appellants contend that the Examiner lacks support in finding on page 3 of the Answer that it is well understood that an important aspect in performing finishing operations is recognizing if errors are present in the images(Reply Br. 2—3). Appellants contend that there is no apparent connection between a general reference that a manifest can be an aid in a finishing operation and tracking, with a position sensor, a plurality of equally spaced location on the web (Reply Br. 3). Contrary to Appellants’ argument, a person of ordinary skill in the art is a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton. KSR Int 7 Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US 398, 421 (2007). Currans teaches that the manifest may provide notice to the user of the content and where the content is printed on the roll along with a list of printing errors on the web (ff 9, 10). A person binding the printed material would have understood that it is desirable to avoid errors in the final bound product. That is why Currans records what the errors are on the manifest to aid the binder. Currans also teaches that the sensor 24c may be used to measure the length of the web 6 Appeal 2017-002580 Application 14/042,946 used to print a particular image (f 35). It would have been obvious in view of Currans’ teachings to track position readings at equally spaced locations on Yamamoto’s web to determine the location and distance of particular content on the printed web to be printed on a manifest. On this record, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 over Yamamoto in view of Currans. Claims 4 and 12 Appellants argue the same limitations in claims 4 and 12 (App. Br. 10—11, and 14). We select claim 4 as representative of the claim grouping. Appellants argue that Currans fails to teach a printing process parameter includes registration, and the registration is one or more of circumferential register, lateral register and skew (App. Br. 10). Appellants argue that Currans does not mention registration or even the concept of print registration (App. Br. 10). The Examiner finds that registration is a well-known type of error that needs to be monitored in a printing process (Final Act. —6). The Examiner also finds that Appellants admit in paragraphs 4 and 29 of the Specification that it was known in the prior art to monitor lateral register, circumferential register and skew (Ans. 5—6). The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to monitor such a well-known control variable in Yamamoto’s printing press as modified by Currans for improved monitoring and control of the printing process (Final Act. 5—6). Contrary to Appellants’ arguments, the Examiner’s finding that monitoring web registration is well-known is based on Appellants’ admitted prior art. Appellants do not contest the Examiner’s finding that the 7 Appeal 2017-002580 Application 14/042,946 Specification shows that the control of web registration is a well-known control variable (Reply Br. generally). On this record, we affirm the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claims 4 and 12 over Yamamoto in view of Currans. Claims 5 and 13 Appellants argue the same limitation in claims 5 and 13 (App. Br. 11, 15). We select claim 5 as representative of the group. Appellants argue that Currans does not disclose a master image or matching a printed image to a master image (App. Br. 11). The Examiner finds that Currans teaches detecting print errors (Ans. 6). The Examiner finds that detecting errors necessarily includes the step of comparing a printed image with a desired image (or master) image in order to determine if there is an error in the print (Ans. 6). The Examiner also finds that Appellants’ Specification teaches that matching a printed image to a master is a well-known process variable (Ans. 7). Appellants do not contest these findings of the Examiner (Reply Br. generally). The preponderance of the evidence favors the Examiner’s conclusion that it would have been obvious to compare a printed image with a master image to determine if the image printed properly. On this record, we affirm the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claims 5 and 13 over Yamamoto in view of Currans. DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claims 1—16 over Yamamoto in view of Currans. 8 Appeal 2017-002580 Application 14/042,946 The Examiner’s decision 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). ORDER AFFIRMED 9 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation