Ex Parte Schaede et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 13, 201713806896 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 13, 2017) 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. 13/806,896 07/26/2013 Johannes Georg Schaede DMB-5571-15 1787 23117 7590 11/15/2017 NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC 901 NORTH GLEBE ROAD, 11TH FLOOR ARLINGTON, VA 22203 EXAMINER RETALLICK, KAITLIN A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2482 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/15/2017 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): PTOMAIL@nixonvan.com pair_nixon @ firsttofile. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JOHANNES GEORG SCHAEDE, THOMAS TURKE, and ROLF VOLKMAR SCHWITZKY1 Appeal 2017-005852 Application 13/806,896 Technology Center 2400 Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, JOHN P. PINKERTON, and MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges. PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judge DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1—6, 8—23, 25—29, 31—49, and 51—54. Claims 24 and 50 are canceled.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 Appellants identify KBA-NotaSys SA, which is a Switzerland company, the real party in interest. App. Br. 3. 2 Claims 7 and 30 are objected to, but those objections are not before us. Appeal 2017-005852 Application 13/806,896 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction Appellants’ disclosed and claimed invention is generally directed to “in-line inspection of printed material in intaglio printing presses.” Spec. 1, 11. 2-3.3 Claims 1 and 4 are representative and reproduced below (with the disputed limitations emphasized)'. 1. An intaglio printing press comprising an inspection system for in-line inspection of sheet or web material on the intaglio printing press, wherein the inspection system comprises an optical quality control apparatus for carrying out inspection of a printed area on a printed side of the sheet or web material, the optical quality control apparatus including a camera system with one or more camera units each comprising at least one line-scan camera for scanning and acquiring an image of the printed area while the sheet or web material is being transported in the intaglio printing press past the camera system, wherein a location of the at least one line-scan camera in the intaglio printing press along a delivery path of the sheet or web material is such that cyclical vibrations that spread periodically throughout the intaglio printing press during operation of the intaglio printing press do not occur while the camera system is scanning the printed area of the sheet or web material and acquiring a complete image of the printed area. 3 Our Decision refers to the Final Action mailed May 16, 2016 (“Final Act.”); Appellants’ Appeal Brief filed Oct. 12, 2016 (“App. Br.”) and Reply Brief filed Feb. 22, 2017 (“Reply Br.”); the Examiner’s Answer mailed Dec. 22, 2016 (“Ans.”); and the original Specification filed Dec. 26, 2012 (“Spec.”). 2 Appeal 2017-005852 Application 13/806,896 4. An intaglio printing press comprising an inspection system for in-line inspection of sheet or web material on the intaglio printing press, wherein the inspection system comprises an optical quality control apparatus for carrying out inspection of a printed area on a printed side of the sheet or web material, the optical quality control apparatus including a camera system with one or more camera units each comprising at least one line-scan camera for scanning and acquiring an image of the printed area while the sheet or web material is being transported in the intaglio printing press past the camera system, and wherein the inspection system comprises an intermediate transfer unit for guiding the sheet or web material away from an impression cylinder of the intaglio printing press to the circumference of a downstream located inspection cylinder or drum, which inspection cylinder or drum guides the sheet or web material in front of and past the camera system, the intermediate transfer unit being interposed between the impression cylinder and the inspection cylinder or drum. Rejections on Appeal Claims 1-6, 8-10, 12, 14—21, 23, 25, 29, 31-35, 37, 39-44, 46, 49, and 51 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kamoda (US 2010/0237560 Al; published Sept. 23, 2010), Lohweg et al. (US 2008/0295724 Al; published Dec. 4, 2008) (“Lohweg”), and Prince (US 2007/0102478 Al; published May 10, 2007). Claims 11 and 36 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kamoda, Lohweg, Prince, and Shibata et al. (EP 0 820 864 Al; published Jan. 28, 1998) (“Shibata”). Claims 13, 26—28, 38, and 52—54 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kamoda, Lohweg, Prince, and Endo et al. (US 2002/0035939 Al; published Mar. 28, 2002) (“Endo”). 3 Appeal 2017-005852 Application 13/806,896 Claims 22 and 48 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kamoda, Lohweg, Prince, and Nagahdaripour et al. (US 2006/0008137 Al; published Jan. 12, 2006) (“Nagahdaripour”). Claims 45 and 47 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kamoda, Lohweg, Prince, and Diederichs (US 2008/0164430 Al; published July 10, 2008). ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’ arguments in the Briefs and are not persuaded the Examiner erred. Unless otherwise noted, we adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Office Action from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 6—26) and in the Examiner’s Answer (Ans. 22—32), and we concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner. For emphasis, we consider and highlight specific arguments as presented in the Briefs. Rejection of Claims 1—6, 8—10, 12, 14—21, 23, 25, 29, 31—35, 37, 39—44, 46, 49, and 514 under § 103(a) Claim 1 The issue raised by the arguments in the Briefs with respect to claim 1 is whether the combination of Kamoda, Lohweg, and Prince teaches or suggests the limitation wherein a location of the at least one line-scan camera in the intaglio printing press along a delivery path of the sheet or web 4 Appellants argue these claims as a group, focusing on independent claims 1 and 4. App. Br. 8—16. Thus, we decide the rejection of these claims on the basis of representative claims 1 and 4. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). 4 Appeal 2017-005852 Application 13/806,896 material is such that cyclical vibrations that spread periodically throughout the intaglio printing press during operation of the intaglio printing press do not occur while the camera system is scanning the printed area of the sheet or web material and acquiring a complete image of the printed area [“the location limitation”]. App. Br. 9-13; Reply Br. 2—8. The Examiner finds Kamoda teaches an intaglio printing press comprising a quality inspection unit 47 that includes three CCD-line cameras 47a. Ans. 22 (citing Kamoda Fig. 1, || 1, 40). However, the Examiner finds Kamoda fails to explicitly disclose a location to place the camera so cyclical vibrations of the press do not occur while acquiring the image, as recited in the location limitation. Final Act. 7; Ans. 23. Regarding the location limitation, the Examiner finds as follows: It is known in the art by anyone of ordinary skill in the art that it is preferable to take an image without vibration or the lowest level of vibration due to the vibration causing image distortion. Prince discloses that the imaging of a circuit board for inspection is done so when the vibration or oscillation stops [See Prince, 0007]. Thus, it would have been known by one of ordinary skill in the art to take an image when the vibrations are at the lowest because it would be favorable for the image outcome. Lohweg discloses that the behaviour of the printing press can be monitored to determine the noises and/or vibrations produced by the printing press at any appropriate location on the printing press [See Lohweg, 0099]. Since the monitoring of the vibrations are known along with the locations of the vibrations and/or noises occurring, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to place the camera where the vibrations are at the lowest level. 5 Appeal 2017-005852 Application 13/806,896 Ans. 23; see also Final Act. 7—8. Appellants argue it is undisputed that Kamoda fails to explicitly teach the location limitation and that Lohweg and Prince do not overcome the deficiencies of Kamoda. App. Br. 10-12. In particular, Appellants argue that Lohweg is silent with respect to the use of line-scan cameras. Id. at 11. Appellants also argue that Lohweg is based on the use of an array camera that “leads away from the claimed invention.” Id. at 10—11. According to Appellants, “Lohweg does not in any way teach to position the optical inspection system in the intaglio printing press as claimed.” Id.', Reply Br. 4—5. Appellants further argue that imaging with an array camera is instantaneous, so vibrations occurring over time will not interfere with the image acquisition process, which is not the case with a line-scan camera as claimed. App. Br. 11—12; Reply Br. 5. Regarding Prince, Appellants argue “Prince is believed to be irrelevant” and “merely relates to a stencil printer for depositing solder paste onto an electronic substrate.” App. Br. 12; Reply Br. 6. Appellants argue that Prince teaches imaging only when there are no vibrations in the imaging system and does not refer to “vibrations created by the (stencil) printer.” Id.', Reply Br. 8. Appellants also argue Prince is silent with respect to the use of any line-scan camera as claimed. Id. Appellants further argue the camera 16 in Prince is stopped during the image acquisition process and then moved to another position to be imaged, which process is “totally incompatible with the use of line-scan cameras.” Id. at 12—13; Reply Br. 7—8. We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner erred. First, Appellants’ arguments attacking Lohweg and Prince individually are not persuasive because the Examiner relies on the 6 Appeal 2017-005852 Application 13/806,896 combination of Kamoda, Lohweg, and Prince as teaching or suggesting the location limitation. See Ans. 22—23. Non-obviousness cannot be established by attacking references individually where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a combination of references. In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The relevant inquiry is whether the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art in light of the combined teachings of the references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). Here, Appellants argue that Lohweg and Prince are silent with respect to the use of line-scan cameras, but these arguments are not persuasive because the Examiner relies on Kamoda as teaching a quality inspection apparatus using line-scan cameras. Ans. 22 (citing Kamoda 140). Appellants’ other attacks on Lohweg and Prince individually are also unpersuasive because they fail to address the Examiner’s finding based on the combination of the references that “it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to place the camera where the vibrations are at the lowest level.” Id. at 23 (citing Kamoda 140; Prince 17; Lohweg 199). Second, we are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument that Lohweg “leads away” or teaches away from the use of line-scan cameras. Instead, we agree with the Examiner’s conclusion that Lohweg does not teach away because Lohweg teaches that optical inspection systems are well known in the art and that any suitable optical inspection system can be used as long as it is adapted “to acquire images for the detection of the occurrence of printing errors on printing sheets.” Ans. 25—26 (citing Lohweg, Fig. 1 (item 5), H44, 45, 53). In addition, we also agree with the Examiner’s findings that Lohweg teaches an inspection system to detect printing errors on printed 7 Appeal 2017-005852 Application 13/806,896 substrates and that the noises and vibrations of the printing press can be monitored and measured at any appropriate location on the printing press. Ans. 25 (citing Lohweg 1, 99). Third, the Examiner finds, and we agree, that (a) Prince teaches that “cameras are used to image the printed item (i.e., circuit board) in order to perform an inspection of the item” and (b) in addition to teaching that the camera 16 is moved and imaging only occurs when no vibrations are occurring in the imaging system {id. at 29 (citing Prince 17)), Prince also teaches moving the printed circuit board “under the camera, which is stationary, to be imaged for inspection” {id. (citing Prince 1 66)). Thus, contrary to Appellants’ arguments, we find the process in Prince is not incompatible with the use of line-scan cameras because Prince teaches imaging with a stationary camera that is not moved from location to location. Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in (1) finding the combined teachings of Kamoda, Lohweg, and Prince teach or suggest the location limitation of claim 1 and (2) concluding that the combination of the teachings of these references renders the subject matter of claim 1 obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, as well as claims 2, 3, 22, 23, and 25—28, which depend from claim 1. Claim 4 The issue raised by the arguments in the Briefs with respect to claim 4 is whether Kamoda teaches or suggests the limitation wherein the inspection system comprises an intermediate transfer unit for guiding the sheet or web material away from an impression cylinder of the intaglio printing press to the 8 Appeal 2017-005852 Application 13/806,896 circumference of a downstream located inspection cylinder or drum, which inspection cylinder or drum guides the sheet or web material in front of and past the camera system, the intermediate transfer unit being interposed between the impression cylinder and the inspection cylinder or drum [“the transfer limitation”]. Appellants argue the Examiner’s finding that Kamoda teaches the transfer limitation is incorrect because the delivery chains 42 run all the way from the impression cylinder 21 to the delivery section 51. App. Br. 14; Reply Br. 9. Appellants also argue it is “factually incorrect to contend that the delivery chain . . . of Kamoda is in any way ‘interposed between the impression cylinder and the inspection cylinder or drum’ as required in claim 4.” Id. at 14—15 (emphasis omitted). We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner erred. The Examiner concludes, and we agree, that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the intermediate transfer unit “being interposed between the impression cylinder and the inspection cylinder or drum” is that the intermediate transfer unit “is located in between the impression cylinder and the inspection cylinder or drum.” Ans. 30. The Examiner finds, and we agree, Kamoda teaches that “printed sheets are transferred from the impression cylinder 21 along the delivery chains 42 to the vacuum cylinder 48.” Id. at 30-31 (citing Kamoda, Fig. 1,148). Thus, the Examiner also finds, and we agree, Kamoda teaches the transfer limitation because Kamoda discloses that the intermediate transfer unit ([See Kamoda, Fig. 1] delivery chains 41) being interposed between the impression cylinder ([See Kamoda, Fig. 1] impression cylinder 21) and the inspection cylinder or drum ([See Kamoda, Fig. 1] vacuum cylinder 48). 9 Appeal 2017-005852 Application 13/806,896 Id. at 31. Furthermore, we agree with the Examiner that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the transfer limitation reads on the Kamoda inspection system, even though the delivery chains run all the way from the impression cylinder 21 to the delivery section 51, as Appellants argue, because the delivery chains 41 are interposed between Kamoda’s impression cylinder 21 and the vacuum or inspection cylinder 48, as claimed, while also being interposed between the inspection cylinder and the delivery section 51. Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in (1) finding Kamoda teaches or suggests the transfer limitation of claim 1 and (2) concluding that the combination of the teachings of Kamoda, Lohweg, and Prince renders the subject matter of claim 4 obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 4, as well as claims 5—21, 29-49, and 51—54, which depend from claim 4. Rejection of Claims 11, 13, 26—28, 36, 38, 45, 47, and 52—54 under § 103(a) Appellants advance no separate, substantive arguments for claims 11, 13, 26—28, 36, 38, 45, 47, and 52—54. Instead, Appellants argue these claims are not obvious over Kamoda, Lohweg, and Prince for the same reasons argued regarding independent claims 1 and 4. App. Br. 13—15. However, for the reasons discussed above, we find the Examiner properly rejected independent claims 1 and 4. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of dependent claims 11, 13, 26—28, 36, 38, 45, 47, and 52—54 under § 103(a). DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—6, 8—23, 25—29, 31— 49, and 51—54 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). 10 Appeal 2017-005852 Application 13/806,896 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED 11 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation