Ex Parte Schniepp

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 16, 2016

12602377 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 16, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/602,377 11130/2009
7055 7590 02/18/2016
GREENBLUM & BERNSTEIN, PLC
1950 ROLAND CLARKE PLACE
RESTON, VA 20191
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Jochen Schniepp
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
P37418 4467
EXAMINER
JORDAN, ANDREW
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2883
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/18/2016 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):
gbpatent@gbpatent.com
greenblum.bernsteinplc@gmail.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JOCHEN SCHNIEPP
Appeal2014-003398
Application 12/602,377
Technology Center 2800
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, and
SHARON PENICK, Administrative Patent Judges.
LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant 1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's final rejection of claims 8-27. Claims 1-7 have been canceled.
App. Br. 4. We have jurisdiction over the pending claims under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Kaindl Flooring
GmbH. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2014-003398
Application 12/602,377
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant's Invention
Appellant's invention generally relates to printing a cladding panel for
cladding a substrate such as, for example, a floor. Spec. i-f 2. The cladding
panel includes a contact surface designated for installation on the substrate
and a visible surface facing away from the contact surface. Id. The cladding
panel also includes two pairs of side edges lying opposite one another. Id.
At least one of the pairs of side edges is provided with a coupling element
for connecting the cladding panel to another cladding panel. Id. A first
pattern is printed on the visible surface of the cladding panel and a second
pattern is printed on a visible section of the coupling elements in a
contactless manner in a common printing operation. Id. i-fi-12, 6. Claim 8,
which is representative, reads as follows:
8. A method for printing a cladding panel having a contact
surface designated for installation on a substrate and a visible
surface facing a\~1ay from a contact surface, t\~10 pairs of side
edges lying opposite one another and at least one of the two pairs
is provided with coupling elements for connecting two panels
formed identically with regard to the coupling elements, in which
each coupling element includes at least one visible section of a
surface having a face oriented such that a surface normal of the
face includes a component oriented in a same direction as a
surface normal of the visible surface, and, relative to a vertical
direction of the panel, the at least one visible section is arranged
between the visible surface and the contact surface, the method
compnsmg:
guiding the cladding panel under a printing unit to print a
first predetermined pattern on the visible surface in a contactless
manner; and
printing a second predetermined pattern on at least a part
of the visible section of at least one of the coupling elements,
2
Appeal2014-003398
Application 12/602,377
wherein the first predetermined pattern and the second
predetermined pattern are printed onto the cladding panel in a
contactless manner in a common printing operation, and wherein
a different spacing of the printing unit to the visible surface and
to the at least one part of the visible section of the at least one
coupling element is taken into consideration by an adjustment of
the control signals fed to the printing unit.
Rejections
Claims 8-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Nollet (US 2006/0130421 Al; published June 22, 2006),
Chen (US 2007 /0283648 Al; published Dec. 13, 2007) and Fujii (JP
10058668; published March 3, 1998). Final Act. 2-8.
Claims 22-27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Nollet, Chen, Fujii, and Jung (US 2006/0238565 Al;
published Oct. 26, 2006). Final Act. 8-11.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellant's
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellant's
conclusions. We adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth by the
Examiner in the Final Office Action from which this appeal is taken and the
reasons set forth in the Examiner's Answer in response to Appellant's
Appeal Brief. Final Act. 2-13; Ans. 4--8. We highlight and address specific
findings and arguments for emphasis as follows.
Claims 8-21
Appellant contends the Examiner erred in finding the combination of
Nollet, Chen, and Fujii teaches or suggests the limitations recited in claim 8.
3
Appeal2014-003398
Application 12/602,377
App. Br. 11-15. In particular, Appellant contends the applied references fail
to teach or suggest "guiding the cladding panel under a printing unit to print
a first predetermined pattern on the visible surface in a contactless manner;
and printing a second predetermined pattern on at least a part of the visible
section of at least one of the coupling elements" and "wherein the first
predetermined pattern and the second predetermined pattern are printed onto
the cladding panel in a contactless manner in a common printing operation,"
as recited in claim 8. App. Br. 11-15; Reply Br. 2-8.
Regarding the teachings of Nollet, Appellant contends that, with
respect to printing on the visible surface, Nollet only teaches printing a
chamfer 35 formed on an edge of the floor panel. App. Br. 11-12 (citing
Nollet Fig. 13; i-f 126); Reply Br. 3-5 (citing Nollet Figs. 3, 4, 12; i-fi-198, 99,
101, 126). Appellant contends Nollet fails to teach or suggest "printing any
portions of coupling elements 6 and/or 7, and certainly not for printing on at
least a part of the visible section of at least one of the coupling parts," as
required by claim 8. App. Br. 12.
Regarding the teachings of Chen, Appellant acknowledges that Chen
teaches non-transfer printing, such as digital printing, on surfaces of a
tongue and groove (e.g., a coupling element), but contends Chen fails to
teach or suggest the disputed limitations because "CHEN fails to provide
any express or implied teaching that the bevel is printed with a first
predetermined pattern and that the tongue and groove surfaces are printed
with a second predetermined pattern, such that the first and second
predetermined patterns are printed onto the panel in a common printing
operation," as required by claim 8. App. Br. 13 (citing Chen i-f 39); see also
Reply Br. 5-7.
4
Appeal2014-003398
Application 12/602,377
Appellant's contentions are not persuasive because they are
tantamount to an individual attack against Nollet and Chen. One cannot
show non-obviousness by attacking the references individually where the
rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Merck & Co., 800
F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). See also In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425
( CCP A 1981 ). Here, the Examiner finds, and we agree, Nollet teaches that
the decor or pattern on the visible surface of the floor panel may be realized
"by printing it directly onto an underlying substrate, whether or not by the
intermediary of primers, sealing layers or the like" and that the printing may
be accomplished "by means of a printer, for example, a digital printer."
Ans. 5 (citing Nollet i-fi-144, 45). As such, Nollet teaches or suggests
"guiding the cladding panel under a printing unit to print a first
predetermined pattern on the visible surface in a contactless manner," as
recited in claim 8.
The Examiner finds, and we agree, Chen teaches a method of non-
transfer printing, such as digital printing, to print a pattern on a surface of a
tongue and groove (e.g., a coupling element). Final Act. 3 (citing Chen
i139). As such, Chen teaches or suggests "printing a second predetermined
pattern on at least a part of the visible section of at least one of the coupling
elements," as recited in claim 8. Based on these findings, the Examiner
finds the combined teachings of Nollet and Chen teach or suggest the
disputed limitations. Appellant's contentions fail to address the Examiner's
findings regarding the combined teachings of the references and, therefore,
are unpersuasive of error.
We find Appellant's contention regarding Chen's bevel surfaces as
failing to teach or suggest the claimed "coupling elements" (App. Br. 12
5
Appeal2014-003398
Application 12/602,377
(citing Chen il 41 )) unpersuasive because as found by the Examiner (Final
Act. 3), and acknowledged by Appellant (App. Br. 13), Chen teaches that the
described method is applicable to "non-transfer printing, such as digital
printing, on the bevel surfaces and/ or one or more other surfaces, such as
surfaces of tongue and groove" (Chen i-f 39 (emphasis added)).
Appellant further contends the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1
because the combination of Nollet, Chen, and Fujii is improper. App.
Br. 17; Reply Br. 8-9. According to Appellant, "FUJII is specially designed
for printing on curved printing swfaces" and "those ordinarily skilled in the
art would have found no express or implied suggestion for printing the
bevel/chamfer of NOLLET or CHEN with the printer head of FUJII." Id.
We do not find Appellant's contention persuasive. As discussed
supra, the Examiner finds Nollet's teaching of printing the decor or pattern
on the visible surface of the floor panel and Chen's teaching of printing on
the surfaces of tongue and groove to teach or suggest the claimed printing of
the first and second predetermined patterns. Appellant's contention fails to
address the express findings of the Examiner and, therefore, is unpersuasive
of error.
Accordingly, we are unpersuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 8. Regarding the rejection of claims 9-21, because Appellant has
either not presented separate patentability arguments or relies on the
arguments previously discussed with respect to claim 8 (App. Br. 19-22),
claims 9-21 fall therewith. See 37 C.F.R. § 1.37(c)(l)(iv).
6
Appeal2014-003398
Application 12/602,377
Claims 22-27
Regarding the rejection of claims 22-27, Appellant contends the
teachings of Jung do not cure the deficiencies in the teachings of Nollet,
Chen, and Fujii discussed supra with respect to claim 8. App. Br. 22-27.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claims
22-27 for the reasons discussed above with respect to claim 8.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejections of claims 8-27 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).
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
7