Ex Parte Rivas et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 25, 2017

13849109 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 25, 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.
13/849,109 03/22/2013 Rio Rivas 83204540 5135
22879
HP Tnr
7590 09/27/2017 EXAMINER
3390 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 35
MARINI, MATTHEW G
FORT COLLINS, CO 80528-9544 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2854
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/27/2017 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):
ipa.mail@hp.com
barbl@hp.com
y vonne.bailey @ hp. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE
THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RIO RIVAS,1
Kellie Susanne Jensen, and T. Stafford Johnson
Appeal 2016-006732
Application 13/849,109
Technology Center 2800
Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, MARKNAGUMO, and
JEFFREY R. SNAY, Administrative Patent Judges.
NAGUMO, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Hewlett-Packard Development Company, LP (“HP”) timely appeals
under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection2 of claims 5—10 and 14—
23, which are all of the pending claims. We have jurisdiction.
35 U.S.C. § 6. We affirm.
1 The applicant under 37 C.F.R. § 1.46, and hence the appellant under
35 U.S.C. § 134(a), is the real party in interest, identified as Hewlett-Packard
Development Company, LP, a wholly-owned affiliate of Hewlett-Packard
Company (“HP”). (Appeal Brief, filed 18 November 2015 (“Br.”), 3.)
2 Office action mailed 22 September 2015 (“Final Rejection”; cited as
“FR”).
Appeal 2016-006732
Application 13/849,109
OPINION
A. Introduction3
The subject matter on appeal relates to printheads for inkjet printers.
(Spec. 1 [0001].) Of special interest are media-wide inkjet printers in which
the print medium (e.g., paper) is moved past a stationary print bar assembly.
(Id. at [0006].) A flex circuit (for printing control) is connected to bond
pads on each printhead. (Id. ) The ’109 Specification reveals that the comers
of the printhead are susceptible to damage from print media striking the
printhead during printing. (Id. at 2 [0006].)
HP seeks patent protection for a printhead stmcture that is said to
avoid these problems by providing a generally rectangular nozzle plate
having rounded comers and a stepped perimeter edge profile.
(Id. at [0007].) An embodiment of an inventive printhead 104 is illustrated
on the following page.
In this embodiment, printhead 10 is built up on a substrate 14, through
which a fluid slot 16 provides printing fluid (ink) to dispensers 20.
Dispensers 20 comprise a chamber 24 and a drop generator 26, which may
be a thermal firing resistor, a piezoelectric drop generator, etc. Drops of ink
are ejected along arrow 50 through nozzle 22. Nozzles 22 are formed in
outermost nozzle layer 46, which is supported by chamber layer 48, in which
chambers 24 are formed. Chamber layer 48 is in turn supported by thin
3 Application 13/849,109, Printhead structure, filed 22 March 2013. We
refer to the “’109 Specification,” which we cite as “Spec.”
4 Throughout this Opinion, for clarity, labels to elements are presented in
bold font, regardless of their presentation in the original document.
2
Appeal 2016-006732
Application 13/849,109
primer layer 42, which is formed on various dielectric layers formed on
substrate 14. Together, layers 46, 44, and 42 form nozzle plate 38, in which
a large number of nozzles 22 and associated dispensers 20 may be formed.
{Figure 1 (below left) plan view Figure 2 (below right) section view}
{Fig. 1: printhead 10 with {Fig. 2: printhead 10 with nozzle plate 38
nozzles 22, layers with comprised of sublayers 46 (nozzle layer),
rounded comers 52} 44 (chamber layer), and 42 (primer layer)}
In the words of the Specification, “[t]he edge profile of the nozzle
plate has been made more robust, less susceptible to media damage,
by (1) adding a step 43 between the edges of nozzle plate chamber (second
layer 44) and nozzle (third) layer 46 and (2) rounding the comers 52 of each
layer 44 and 46.” (Spec. 5 [0016].)
A flexible circuit 60 is attached to printhead 10 along the long side of
each printhead. (See Fig. 4, not reproduced here.) A media-wide printbar
3
Appeal 2016-006732
Application 13/849,109
may be formed by arranging plural printheads in a staggered row in which
each printhead overlaps an adjacent printhead. {Id. at 6 [0018]; see Fig. 3,
not reproduced here).
Claim 5 illustrates many of the critical limitations necessary to resolve
this appeal, and reads:
A printhead assembly, comprising:
a printhead [10] having:
multiple fluid ejectors [20];
a fluid chamber [24] near each ejector; and
multiple nozzles [22] in an elongated nozzle plate [38]
covering the fluid chambers [24],
the nozzle plate including an outermost layer [46]
having
a generally rectangular perimeter with
exposed rounded corners [52] and
an exposed step [43] at one or more of the corners
to define an exposed stepped edge profile of the
nozzle plate; and
a flexible circuit [60] connected to the printhead [10] at a
long side of the nozzle plate.
(Claims App., Br. 28; some indentation, paragraphing, emphasis, and
bracketed labels to Figures 1, 2, and 4 added.)
Independent claim 9 is drawn to a print bar made up of a row of
staggered printheads, each comprising a layered nozzle plate with rounded
comers at the perimeter and flexible circuits connected to each printhead.
Remaining independent claim 17 is drawn to a printhead assembly
having a chamber layer and a nozzle layer, both with rounded comers, the
radius of the nozzle layer comers being larger than the radius of the chamber
layer comers, and a flexible circuit connected to a long side of the printhead.
4
Appeal 2016-006732
Application 13/849,109
The Examiner maintains the following grounds of rejection5,6:
A. Claims 5, 7, and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in
view of the combined teachings of Chikamoto,7 Hirota,8 and
Silverbrook.9
A2. Claims 6 and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view
of the combined teachings of Chikamoto, Hirota,
Silverbrook, and Chen.10
A3. Claim 15 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of
the combined teachings of Chikamoto*, Hirota, Silverbrook,
and Chen.
B. Claims 9 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in
view of the combined teachings of Chikamoto, Maher,11
Hirota, and Silverbrook.
Bl. Claim 16 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of
the combined teachings of Chikamoto*, Maher, Hirota, and
Silverbrook.
5 Examiner’s Answer mailed 26 April 2016 (“Ans.”).
6 Because this application was filed after the 16 March 2013, effective date
of the America Invents Act, we refer to the AIA version of the statute.
7 Tadanobu Chikamoto, Inkjet recording device, U.S. Patent Application
Publication 2008/0198196 A1 (2008). (An appended asterisk, “*,” indicates
additional dependence on Figures 10A and 10B.)
8 Atsushi Hirota, Ink jet printer head, JP 2002-067345 A (2002) (JPO
translation of the detailed description only).
9 Kia Silverbrook et al., Printhead system having power and data
connectors, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2007/0153031 Al (2007).
10 Chien-Hua Chen et al., Inkjet printhead with cross-slot conductor routing,
U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/0019597 Al (2012). [HP]
11 Edward P. Maher, Printing device and method for servicing same, U.S.
Patent Application Publication 2004/0189736 Al (2004). [HP]
5
Appeal 2016-006732
Application 13/849,109
C. Claims 17, 18, and 20—23 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of the combined teachings of
Chikamoto*, Hirota, and Silverbrook.
Cl. Claim 19 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of
the combined teachings of Chikamoto*, Hirota, Silverbrook,
and Chen.
B. Discussion
The Board’s findings of fact throughout this Opinion are supported by
a preponderance of the evidence of record.
The Examiner finds that Chikamoto illustrates, in Figure 5, below,
(Chikamoto Fig. 5: layers of a printhead main body in cross section}
an inkjet printhead main body 3 with a nozzle plate 130 having exposed
comers and a stepped edge profile. (FR, para, bridging 2—3.) The Examiner
finds that Chikamoto is silent regarding rounded exposed comers on the
nozzle plate, and regarding a flexible circuit connected to the printhead.
(Id. at 3,11. 4—5.) The Examiner finds that Silverbrook teaches such a flex
circuit connection. HP does not challenge the Examiner’s findings or
conclusion that it would have been obvious to use such a connection with the
printheads described by Chikamoto, so we need not dwell on this aspect.
6
Appeal 2016-006732
Application 13/849,109
The Examiner finds that Hirota describes an inkjet printhead having a
nozzle plate 43 with rounded comers
shown in Figure 2, reproduced right.
Examiner reasons that it would have
been obvious to provide the nozzle
assembly described by Chikamoto
with rounded comers as taught by
Hirota to “preserve a wiping
feature of the printhead, thereby
ensuring image quality throughout
a long period of time.” (FR3,
11. 11-12.)
(Hirota Figure 2 shows a printhead with
nozzle plate 43 having rounded comers}
HP focuses on the perceived defects of Chikamoto and Hirota. In
particular, HP urges that Hirota does not disclose a nozzle plate having an
exposed edge because the edge is covered by the edge of window
opening 57 in protective cover plate 47.
This argument is not persuasive of harmful error because it does not
address the Examiner’s rationale, which is to substitute the curved perimeter
7
Appeal 2016-006732
Application 13/849,109
of nozzle plate 43 described by Hirota for the rectangular perimeter of
nozzle plate 30 described by Chikamoto.
HP urges further that the substitution of the curved nozzle plate taught
by Hirota for the rectangular nozzle plate taught by Chikamoto would
change the principle of operation of the Chikamoto inkjet and render it
unsatisfactory for its intended purpose. (Br. 9, 2d full para.)
This argument is not persuasive of harmful error. Although
Chikamoto does describe plates 122—130 (including nozzle plate 130) as
having a plane rectangular shape (Chikamoto 3 [0048], and the mating
cap 76 as having a plate-like member 76b “whose shape is [a] rectangular
plane” (id. at 4 [0055]), HP has not directed our attention to disclosure
indicating that this shape is critical to the function of inkjet printing.12 As
the Examiner finds, the modification of the printhead shape will be
accompanied by a modification of the cap to ensure the quality of the seal.
(Ans. 3, 1st para.) Moreover, Chikamoto states expressly that “many
alternatives, modifications and variations will be apparent to those skilled in
the art. Accordingly, the preferred embodiments of the invention as set forth
above are intended to be illustrative, not limiting.” (Chikamoto 7 [0093].)
HP has not shown that the modification proposed by the Examiner, based on
Hirota, “depart[s] from the spirit and scope of the invention” (id.) disclosed
by Chikamoto.
12 Chikamoto describes two other embodiments having a slightly different
geometry (“embodiment 2,” with an o-ring in cap 76, as shown in Figure 9
and described at 6 [0078]—[0082]; and “embodiment 3,” shown in Figure 10
and described at 6 [0083] to 7 [0090]).
8
Appeal 2016-006732
Application 13/849,109
HP argues that claim 7, which depends from claim 5 and requires that
the nozzle plate includes two or more layers and that “the exposed step is
formed between the outmost layer and an underlying layer” (Claims App.,
Br. 28) is not met or suggested by Chikamoto because structures (127—129
are “not ‘layers’ of nozzle plate 130” (Br. 11,11. 4—5). “Rather,” HP
continues, “127 and 128 are manifold plates of passage unit 104 and 129 is a
cover plate of passage unit 104.” (Id.; emphasis omitted.)
This argument is not persuasive of harmful error because HP has not
shown structural or functional significance in the distinct labelling of those
layers by Chikamoto. Comparison of Figure 2 from the ’109 Specification
with Chikamoto Figure 5 indicates that nozzle plate 38 comprises chamber
primer layer 42, chamber layer 44, and nozzle layer 46, while “manifold
layers” 127 and 128, and “cover layer” 129 comprise an antechamber to
nozzle orifice 108 in nozzle layer 130. As the Examiner responds, “[a]ll the
claim [i.e., claim 7] requires is the nozzle plate ‘includes’ the layers, which
Chikamoto clearly teaches.” (Ans. 4,11. 2—3.)
Claims 6 and 8 depend from claim 5 and require, respectively, that the
inkjet printhead is thermal and comprises a resistor, and that the nozzle plate
comprises three layers separated by exposed edges. The Examiner finds that
Chen describes an inkjet printhead having the required features in Figure 1
(not reproduced here), and concludes that it would have been obvious to
incorporate those features into a printhead obvious in view of Chikamoto,
Hirota, and Silverbrook. (FR 4—5.)
HP urges that Chen does not disclose the exposed rounded comers
required by independent claim 5, and therefore does not cure the deficiencies
9
Appeal 2016-006732
Application 13/849,109
of the other references. (Br. 11.) HP urges further that Chikamoto does not
describe the three-layered nozzle plate, as discussed supra, but does not
challenge the Examiner’s findings regarding Chen. {Id. at 12.)
As explained supra, HP has not demonstrated harmful error in the
teachings of Chikamoto and Hirota. Accordingly, we are not persuaded of
harmful error in the combination of the further teachings of Chen.
Claim 15 depends from claim 8 and further specifies that the
outermost (third) layer of the nozzle plate has a radius of curvature larger
than the radius of the curved comer of the first layer (“first radius”) and the
second radius. (Claims App., Br. 29.) The Examiner finds that Chikamoto,
in Figure 10b, discloses rounded second and third layers, and reasons that
providing such rounded comers for the rectangular profile of the first and
second layers (128 and 129) of the nozzle plate in Figure 5 would have been
obvious as a way of “reducing sharp edges being formed on a printhead.”
(FR 8, last line.) The Examiner reasons further that rounding the third
(outermost) nozzle layer [obvious in view of Hirota, as discussed supra]
would have been the obvious optimization of a result-effective variable,
namely, the radius of the curved comers. {Id. at 9, 2d para.)
HP urges that Chikamoto does not describe rounded comers for
nozzle plate 130, but only for the other plates 122—129. (Br. 13.) Moreover,
HP argues, the rounded comers described by Chikamoto in Figure 10B are
covered by sealing material 136. {Id. at 14.) On this basis, HP concludes
that the rejection of claim 15 should be reversed. {Id. at 15, 1st full para.)
The difficulty with these arguments is that they do not address the
Examiner’s rationale, which is not based on the substitution of the nozzle
10
Appeal 2016-006732
Application 13/849,109
plate illustrated in Fig. 10B for the embodiment illustrated in Fig. 5. (Ans.,
para, bridging 4—5.) Rather, the Examiner proposes to round the comers of
layers 128 and 129, based on the embodiment shown in Fig. 10B, and to
round the comers of nozzle layer 130 based on the teachings of Hirota, as
discussed supra. HP has not challenged the Examiner’s underlying findings,
and has not addressed the rejection advanced by the Examiner. Accordingly,
HP’s arguments are not persuasive of harmful error in the rejection of
claim 15.
The Examiner finds that the limitation of a print bar comprising a row
of staggered print heads required by independent claim 9 would have been
suggested by Maher, Figure 11. The Examiner holds that the additional
limitations of the rounded comers at the perimeter of the nozzle plate and the
flexible circuit connection would have been obvious in view of Chikamoto,
Hirota, and Silverbrook, as discussed supra. (FR 6—8.) The Examiner finds
that the further limitations regarding rounded comers of nozzle layers recited
in dependent claim 16, which is parallel to claim 15, discussed supra, would
have been further obvious in view of the teachings of Chikamoto
Figure 10B.
HP argues that Maher does not cure the deficiencies of Chikamoto,
Hirota, and Silverbrook. (Br. 15—18.) As we have not been persuaded by
those arguments, we affirm Rejections B and Bl.
Claims 17—23 are similar to the claims based on claim 5, and HP’s
arguments (Br. 21—27) are similar to those discussed supra', we find them no
more persuasive.
11
Appeal 2016-006732
Application 13/849,109
In conclusion, HP’s arguments do not persuade us of harmful error in
the appealed rejections.
C. Order
It is ORDERED that the rejection of claims 5—10 and 14—23 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).
AFFIRMED
12