Ex Parte Scheade et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 28, 2018

13518680 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 28, 2018)

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.
13/518,680 08/10/2012 Johannes Georg Scheade DMB-5571-10 1528
23117 7590 03/02/2018
NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC
901 NORTH GLEBE ROAD, 11TH FLOOR
ARLINGTON, VA 22203
EXAMINER
EVANISKO, LESLIE J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2854
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/02/2018 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):
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 SCHEADE and
VOLKMAR ROLF SCHWITZKY
Appeal 2017-002425
Application 13/518,680
Technology Center 2800
Before JEFFREY T. SMITH, CHRISTOPHER L. OGDEN, and
CHRISTOPHER C. KENNEDY, Administrative Patent Judges.
OGDEN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
final decision rejecting claims 1 and 3—23 in the above-identified
application.2 We have authority pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is KBA-NotaSys SA.
Appeal Brief 3, May 4, 2016 [hereinafter Appeal Br.].
2 Final Office Action, Nov. 4, 2015 [hereinafter Final Action]; Examiner’s
Answer, Sept. 23, 2016 [hereinafter Answer]; see also Appeal Br.; Reply
Brief, Nov. 23, 2016 [hereinafter Reply Br.].
Appeal 2017-002425
Application 13/518,680
BACKGROUND
Appellants’ invention relates to an intaglio printing press having a
stationary machine frame supporting an intaglio printing cylinder and an
impression cylinder, and a mobile carriage supporting an ink-collecting
cylinder designed to contact the intaglio printing cylinder. Spec.3 1:1—13.
Representative claim 1, the sole independent claim, is as follows:
1. An intaglio printing press comprising:
a stationary machine frame supporting an intaglio
printing cylinder and an impression cylinder contacting the
intaglio printing cylinder;
an inking system for inking the intaglio printing
cylinder, which inking system comprises an ink-collecting
cylinder designed to contact the intaglio printing cylinder and at
least one inking device for supplying ink to the ink-collecting
cylinder; and
at least a first mobile carriage supporting the ink-
collecting cylinder, which first mobile carriage is adapted to be
moved with respect to the stationary machine frame between a
working position where the ink-collecting cylinder contacts the
intaglio printing cylinder and a retracted position where the ink-
collecting cylinder is retracted away from the intaglio printing
cylinder,
wherein the axis of rotation of the ink-collecting cylinder
lies below a horizontal plane containing the axis of rotation of
the intaglio printing cylinder,
wherein the first mobile carriage is adapted to be moved
along a direction which is parallel to the horizontal plane,
and wherein a plane containing the axis of rotation of the
ink-collecting cylinder and the axis of rotation of the intaglio
printing cylinder forms, in the working position of the first
mobile carriage, an acute angle with respect to the horizontal
plane.
3 Specification, June 22, 2012 [hereinafter Spec.].
2
Appeal 2017-002425
Application 13/518,680
Appeal Br. 12 (emphasis of key limitation added). Claim 23, the only other
independent claim, recites limitations substantially the same as those
emphasized above in claim 1. See id. at 18.
The Examiner maintains the following grounds of rejection:4
1. Claims 1, 3—12, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Schaede5 in view of Dimninger.6 See Final Action
2-8.
2. Claims 13—22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Schaede in view of Dimninger and Price.7 See id. at 10-
11.
In the Appeal Brief, Appellants argue the claims as a group. See
Appeal Br. 8—10. Therefore, consistent with 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv), we
limit our discussion to independent claim 1. Claims 3—23 stand or fall with
claim 1.
4 The Examiner has withdrawn two additional double patenting rejections.
Answer 2—3; Final Action 12—18.
5 Schaede et al., EP 1 602 483 A1 (published July 12, 2005).
6 Diinninger et al., US 7,011,020 B2 (issued Mar. 14, 2006).
7 Price et al., US 6,883,427 B2 (issued Apr. 26, 2005).
3
Appeal 2017-002425
Application 13/518,680
DISCUSSION
Figure 1 of Schaede is reproduced below:
Figure 1 of Schaede depicts an intaglio printing machine, including ink
collector cylinder 9 in contact with plate cylinder 5, which in turn contacts
impression cylinder 3. Schaede 114. As depicted, the plane connecting the
rotational axes of cylinders 9 and 5 forms an acute angle with the horizontal
plane.
The Examiner finds that Schaede discloses an intaglio printing press in
which the “plane containing the axis of rotation of the ink-collecting
cylinder [9] and the axis of rotation of the intaglio printing cylinder [5]
forms an acute angle with respect to the horizontal plane in a working
position.” Final Action 3 (citing Schaede, Fig. 1). The Examiner finds that
Schaede fails “to specifically teach providing the intaglio printing cylinder
and impression cylinder on a stationary frame and providing a first mobile
carriage supporting the ink-collecting cylinder, the mobile carriage being
movable relative to the stationary frame between a working position and a
4
Appeal 2017-002425
Application 13/518,680
retracted position.” Id. However, the Examiner finds that Diinninger
provides this teaching. Id. (citing Diinninger, Figs. 1, 2).
Figure 1 of Diinninger is reproduced below:
14 17 13 m n
Figure 1 of Diinninger depicts an intaglio printing machine in an operating
position. Diinninger 2:5—6. The machine includes ink-collecting cylinder 12
mounted on a moving part 11 of a rack suspended on rails 04. Id. at 2:26—
28. The machine also includes a stationary part 01 containing plate cylinder
07 and counter-pressure cylinder 06. Id. at 2:15—17. In the operating
position, ink-collecting cylinder 12 is in contact with plate cylinder 07, but
the two cylinders may be separated for cleaning and maintenance by sliding
part 11 away from stationary part 01, as depicted below in Figure 2:
5
Appeal 2017-002425
Application 13/518,680
la . 2 04 09
r»’
14 17 13 11 02
See id. at 2:7—8, 50—62. Figure 2 depicts sliding part 11 after it has been
separated from stationary part 01.
The Examiner determines that
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to
provide the intaglio press in the arrangement taught by Schaede
et al. to be provided in a stationary frame/first mobile carriage
arrangement as taught by Dimninger et al. to allow for the parts
of the press to be easily movable to allow for maintenance and
cleaning of the press.
Id.
Appellants argue, “Diinninger specifically teaches that the axis of
rotation of the ink-collecting cylinder 12 and the axis of rotation of the
intaglio printing cylinder 07 are aligned along a same horizontal plane,
which coincides with the plane along which the mobile carriage 11 is
moving.” Appeal Br. 9. According to Appellants, “The alignment of the
axes of rotation of the ink-collecting cylinder and of the intaglio printing
6
Appeal 2017-002425
Application 13/518,680
cylinder of Diinninger avoids, as much as possible, occurrence of
circumferential register issues upon separation or joining of the ink-
collecting cylinder and of the intaglio printing cylinder.” Id. Thus,
according to Appellants,
there is a technical necessity (technical design requirement) that
is known by or taught to one of ordinary skilled in the art to spe­
cifically align the axes of the ink-collecting cylinder and of the
intaglio printing cylinder in an intaglio printing press of the type
comprising a mobile carriage supporting the ink-collecting cyl­
inder as exemplified by Diinninger.
Id. Appellants cite Swiss Patent No. CH 685 380 A5 as further evidence of
this technical necessity. See id. at 10. According to Appellants, the use of
mobile carriages is “a huge technological challenge for these large and
intricate machines that consistently print detailed money/banknotes.” Reply
Br. 1—2; see also id. at 5 (“This is very precise and elaborate technology, and
these large machines are designed and built to consistently print detailed
money/banknotes.”). Thus, Appellants argue,
There is no objective incentive or motivation in Schaede or
Diinninger that would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to
overcome the aforementioned technical necessity and arrive at
the [A]ppellant[s’] contrary claimed mobile carriage configura­
tion, where the axis of rotation of the ink-collecting cylinder and
the axis of rotation of the intaglio cylinder are located in a plane
that does not coincide with a horizontal plane along which the
mobile carriage moves.
Id. at 5; accord Appeal Br. 10.
The Examiner finds, in response, that “there is no clear factual support
in the Diinninger et al. reference that specifically states that there is any
criticality to the particular arrangement of the axes of the cylinders or that
the cylinders must be arranged with aligned axes for any particular
7
Appeal 2017-002425
Application 13/518,680
advantage.” Answer 5. We agree. Moreover, Appellants have not directed
our attention to any factual evidence on this record that a person of ordinary
skill in the art would have recognized the technical necessity that Appellants
allege. Arguments of counsel may not take the place of evidence. See In re
De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Figures 1 and 2 of Dimninger depict an arrangement in which the
mobile carriage moves in parallel with the plane connecting the axes of the
ink collection cylinder 12 and the intaglio printing cylinder 7. The figures of
the cited Swiss patent appear to show a similar arrangement. These
disclosures, however, do not “criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the
solution” in claim 1. In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
For the above reasons, Appellants have not shown reversible error in
the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1 and 3—23.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal maybe extended. See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv) (2016).
AFFIRMED
8