Ex Parte Richards et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 17, 2008

10795540 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 17, 2008)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte SHERIDAN JOHN RICHARDS and
CHARLES REIF HAMMOND
____________

Appeal 2008-2486
Application 10/795,540
Technology Center 2800
____________

Decided: September 16, 2008
____________

Before TERRY J. OWENS, ROMULO H. DELMENDO, and KAREN M.
HASTINGS, Administrative Patent Judges.

OWENS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
The Appellants appeal from a rejection of claims 1-8, 10 and 12-17,
which are all of the pending claims. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).

Appeal 2008-2486
Application 10/795,540
THE INVENTION
The Appellants claim a method for controlling the print-to-cut register
in a web printing press, and claim a web printing press having a controller
for controlling the print-to-cut registration. Claims 1 and 10 are illustrative:
1. A method for controlling the print-to-cut register in a web
printing press having at least one print unit printing a web, each print unit
having at least one drive driving the print unit independently of any other
print units, the method comprising the steps of:
presetting a web compensator position so as to set a proper print-to-
cut registration between a print unit and a cross-cutter; and
controlling the print-to-cut register during printing by controlling the
drives of the print units and/or a drive of the cross-cutter.

10. A web printing press comprising:
at least one print unit having a cylinder for printing a web, and a drive
motor for driving the cylinder independently of any further print units;
a web compensator downstream of the print unit for adjusting a path
length of the web;
a cross-cutter downstream of the web compensator for cutting the
web; and
a controller for controlling the web compensator and the drive motor,
the controller presetting the web compensator to a position with proper print-
to-cut registration between a print unit and a cross-cutter, and controlling the
drive motor during printing to maintain the proper print-to-cut register.

THE REFERENCES
Bergland 5,016,182 May 14, 1991
Goldberg 5,458,062 Oct. 17, 1995
Seiler 6,748,857 B2 Jun. 15, 2004
(filed Jul. 28, 2003)

THE REJECTIONS
The claims stand rejected as follows: claims 1-6, 8, 10, 12, 16 and 17
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) over Seiler; claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over
2
Appeal 2008-2486
Application 10/795,540

Seiler in view of Bergland; and claims 13-15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over
Seiler in view of Goldberg.
OPINION
The rejections are affirmed as to claims 1, 4, 6-8, 10, 12, 13, 16
and 17, and reversed as to claims 2, 3, 5, 14 and 15.
Rejection of claims 1-6, 8, 10, 12, 16 and 17
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) over Seiler

We limit our discussion of the claims for which the rejections are
affirmed to the claims for which the Appellants have provided a substantive
argument for separate patentability, i.e., claims 1 and 10. The Appellants
state that claim 12 is separately argued, but the Appellants do not provide a
substantive argument as to the separate patentability of that claim (Br. 6).1
Claims 4, 6, 8 and 16 stand or fall with claim 1 from which they depend, and
claims 12 and 17 stand or fall with claim 10 from which they depend. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2007).
Claims 1, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 16 and 17
“A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in
the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior
art reference.” See Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co. of California, 814
F.2d628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987).

1 The Appellants’ argument that the applied reference does not disclose what
is recited in claim 12 (Br. 6) is tantamount to merely pointing out what the
claim covers, and that is not a substantive argument for separate
patentability. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2007).
3
Appeal 2008-2486
Application 10/795,540
Seiler discloses “a process for setting the crop mark of printed web
strands, which were obtained from one or more webs by lengthwise cutting”
(col. 1, ll. 7-10). Seiler transfers printing ink onto a web from cylinders (2a)
that preferably are not coupled mechanically with one another but, rather,
are driven by separate motors in a synchronized manner (col. 4, ll. 47-50).
Seiler then slits the web lengthwise using a cutting roller (3a) to form two
web strands (B1, B2) (col. 4, l. 62 – col. 5, l. 5). The web strands pass
through a crop mark setting device (10) and then follow separate paths
(col. 5, ll. 5-7). One web strand (B1) is guided directly to a lengthwise
folding means (9), and the other web strand (B2) is guided to a turning bar
means (8) for turning or reversing that strand, and then to the lengthwise
folding means whereat the two web strands are formed into a web strand
bundle (col. 5, ll. 7-17). Seiler states:
The web strands B1 and B2 lying one on top of another in the
bundle are folded lengthwise together while passing through the
lengthwise folding means 9 and are delivered into a
crosscutting means 25.
….
It is ensured by means of the crop mark setting device 10 that
the prints of the web strands B1 and B2 will always come to lie
between consecutive cuts of the cross-cutting means 25 and are
properly centered between the cuts in the practical operation,
i.e., they are positioned with sufficient accuracy in relation to
the common crop mark.

Seiler, col. 5, ll. 20-24, 38-43.

Seiler also discloses that to adjust for longitudinal offset of the web
strands relative to each other, the web strands’ relative longitudinal positions
can be adjusted using deflecting means (11, 12) (which correspond to the
Appellants’ web compensator) and their associated deflecting rollers (5, 6)
4
Appeal 2008-2486
Application 10/795,540
(col. 6, ll. 1-10). The deflecting means are rollers, each web strand passing
over one of the rollers, that are movable independently of each other back
and forth in the web strands’ longitudinal direction to change the web
strand’s path lengths (col. 8, ll. 10-22; fig. 1). The adjustment of the
deflecting means is controlled by a control and regulating means comprising
a control and regulating member (20), two sensors (23, 24), and two motor-
driven final control elements (21, 22) (col. 7, ll. 22-27). Sensors 23 and 24
sense, respectively, the positions of web strands B1 and B2, and send
position signals to the control and regulating member (col. 7, ll. 27-32). The
control and regulating member uses an algorithm to form setting signals for
the final control elements which act on the deflecting means to adjust their
positions (col. 7, ll. 32-43; col. 9, l. 47 – col. 10, l. 6). The control and
regulating means also sets the correct crop mark position for each web
strand (col. 7, ll. 43-47). If, because of the change in a web strand’s path
length, the web strand is not in register with the cut, the web strand can be
brought into register with the cut by adjustment of the circumferential
registers of the ink-transferring cylinders and/or the cross-cutting means
(col. 10, ll. 7-32).
The Appellants argue that Seiler’s deflecting means set a relative
registration between two strands, not between a print unit and a cross-cutter
(Br. 5).
Seiler’s deflecting means (11, 12) are part of the crop mark setting
device (10) which, Seiler teaches, ensures that the prints of the web strands
always lie between consecutive cuts of the cross-cutting means (25) (col. 5,
ll. 38-43; col. 6, ll. 1-6). By adjusting the relative positions of the web
strands so that the web strands’ prints lie between consecutive cuts of the
cross-cutting means, the deflecting means, which correspond to the
5
Appeal 2008-2486
Application 10/795,540
Appellants’ web compensator, set a proper print-to-cut registration between
the print unit and the cross-cutter.
The Appellants argue that any presetting in Seiler can ruin the print-
to-cut registration which then must be compensated for by movement of the
ink-transferring cylinders and the cross-cutting means (Br. 5-6).
Claim language is to be given its broadest reasonable construction “in
light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in
the art.” In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir.
2004). The Appellants’ claim 1, as most broadly construed in light of the
Appellants’ Specification, merely requires that the web compensator is
preset “so as to” set a proper print-to-cut ratio. Hence, the claim
encompasses presetting the web compensator such that the proper print-to-
cut register is set by control of the drives of the print units and/or the cross-
cutter. That is what Seiler does when the color marks are in alignment
before but not after path adjustment (col. 10, ll. 7-22). Furthermore, Seiler’s
disclosure that the strands “may” not be in registration with the cut after the
adjustment (col. 10, ll. 7-9, 23-25) indicates that the strands may be in
registration with the cut after the adjustment. In that case the proper print-
to-cut register has been set by the deflecting means (11, 12) corresponding to
the Appellants’ web compensator, and no adjustment of the circumferential
registers of the ink transfer cylinders or the cross-cutting means is needed.
As required by the Appellants’ claim 10, Seiler’s controller presets the
deflecting means (web compensator) to a position with proper print-to-cut
registration between a print unit and the cross-cutter and, if the strands are
not in print-to-cut registration after the path length adjustment, controls the
6
Appeal 2008-2486
Application 10/795,540

drive motor of the ink-transferring cylinders or the cross-cutting means to
maintain the proper print-to-cut register (col. 10, ll. 7-22).2
For the above reasons we are not persuaded of reversible error in the
rejection of claim 1, claims 4, 6, 8 and 16 that stand or fall therewith,
claim 10, and claims 12 and 17 that stand or fall therewith.
Claims 2, 3 and 5
Claim 2, which depends from claim 1, requires “storing a first value,
the first value being a function of an angular position of a cylinder of the
print units and/or the cross-cutter after a print job.”
The Examiner argues that “[t]he controller that controls the print units
and the drive of the cutter can be said to store the value with which it drives
the print units and/or the cutter at any moment in time” (Ans. 9), and that
“one angular positional value used to drive a cylinder (first value) is always
a function of any other angular positional value of the cylinder. In essence,
every number is a function of any other number.” See id.
A function is “a mathematical entity that assigns to each element of
one set at least one element of the same or another set”.3 The Examiner has
not established, as required by the Examiner’s argument, that Seiler uses a
mathematical entity to assign to one angular position the value of another
angular position.
Hence, the Examiner has not established a prima facie case of
anticipation by Seiler of the inventions claimed in the Appellants’ claim 2 or
its dependent claims 3 and 5.

2 As pointed out by the Appellants, in the Appellants’ claim 10, “[m]ovement
of the cross-cutter and print cylinder thus for example is not required”
(Br. 5).
3 Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary 465 (G. & C. Merriam 1973).
7
Appeal 2008-2486
Application 10/795,540

Rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
over Seiler in view of Bergland

Claim 7, which depends from claim 1, requires “adjusting a phase of
the print cylinder relative to the knife of the cross-cutter during printing
through an operator console.”
Bergland discloses a register control means for a web processing
apparatus wherein, when the register control means is in automatic
correction mode, an operator can change the print-to-cut register by pressing
switches on a control panel (col. 1, ll. 7-8; col. 4, ll. 11-12; col. 11, ll. 26-29;
fig. 4).
The Appellants argue that there is no reason to add Bergland’s register
control means to Seiler’s device (Br. 7).
That reason is to permit the print-to-cut register to be changed by an
operator as taught by Bergland (col. 11, ll. 26-29).
We therefore are not persuaded of reversible error in the rejection of
claim 7.
Rejection of claims 13-15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
over Seiler in view of Goldberg

Claim 13
Claim 13, which depends from claim 1, requires that “a single web
compensator contacts the web printed by the at least one print unit.”4
Goldberg discloses a continuous web printing press having a page
cutting apparatus (col. 1, ll. 9-11). Each of Goldberg’s webs passes over a
single compensator roller (96 for web 20, 99 for web 23) and then is

4 The web printed by Seiler’s print unit (2) is slit longitudinally and then
contacted by two web compensators (deflecting means 11 and 12) (col. 4,
l. 65 – col. 5, l. 3; col. 6, ll. 20-24; figs. 1, 4).
8
Appeal 2008-2486
Application 10/795,540
longitudinally slit (slitter 24 for web 20, slitter 25 for web 23), after which a
single compensator roller is used for each web strand (76 for web strand 26,
77 for web strand 27) (col. 3, ll. 46-48; col. 5, ll. 34-35; fig. 1A).
The Appellants argue that Seiler’s entire purpose is to avoid
Goldberg’s separate compensator for each web (Br. 7).
Like Goldberg (col. 5, ll. 42-44; fig. 1A), Seiler uses a separate web
compensator for each strand (col. 6, ll. 20-24; fig. 4). Seiler’s printed web is
slit longitudinally to form web strands, each of which passes over a separate
web compensator (deflecting means 11, 12) (col. 4, ll. 39-47; col. 6, ll. 20-
24). Those web compensators for the web strands, in combination, form a
single web compensator for the printed web from which the web strands
were formed. Hence, Seiler discloses a single web compensator which
contacts the printed web as required by the Appellants’ claim 13.
We therefore are not convinced of reversible error in the rejection of
claim 13.
Claims 14 and 15
Claim 14, which depends from claim 1, requires that “the web
contacting the web compensator is not slit.” Claim 15, which depends from
claim 1, requires that “the web is slit after the web compensator.”
The Examiner argues that “Goldberg discloses a printing device
where the web is never slit lengthwise” (Ans. 11).
That is incorrect. Goldberg’s webs are slit after they pass over the
compensator roller (col. 3, ll. 46-48; col. 5, ll. 34-35; fig. 1A).
The Examiner argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would have
eliminated Seiler’s slitting because the apparatus would function equally
well and have less moving parts (Ans. 11-12).
9
Appeal 2008-2486
Application 10/795,540
The Examiner has not established that an unslit web would function
equally well in Seiler’s device wherein the web must be slit for the web
strands produced by the slitting to have their relative paths adjusted by the
deflecting means (col. 5, ll. 1-5; col. 8, ll. 10-22), or that one of ordinary
skill in the art would have eliminating that slitting to reduce the number of
moving parts.
Hence, the Examiner has not established a prima facie case of
obviousness of the inventions claimed in the Appellants’ claims 14 and 15.
DECISION
The rejection of claims 1-6, 8, 10, 12, 16 and 17 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) over Seiler is affirmed as to claims 1, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 16
and 17, and reversed as to claims 2, 3 and 5. The rejection of claim 7 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 over Seiler in view of Bergland is affirmed. The rejection
of claims 13-15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Seiler in view of Goldberg is
affirmed as to claim 13 and reversed as to claims 14 and 15.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
tc

DAVIDSON, DAVIDSON & KAPPEL, LLC
485 7TH AVENUE, 14TH FLOOR
NEW YORK, NY 10018
10