Ex Parte Sender et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 6, 201612741640 (P.T.A.B. May. 6, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 121741,640 06/22/2010 22879 7590 05/10/2016 HP Inc, 3390 E. Harmony Road Mail Stop 35 FORT COLLINS, CO 80528-9544 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Jordi Sender 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. 82237694 8883 EXAMINER BISHOP, JEREMY S ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2863 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/10/2016 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): ipa.mail@hp.com barbl@hp.com yvonne.bailey@hp.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JORDI SENDER, ALEX ANDREA, RAMON VEGA, DAVID GASTON, JOAN JORBA, SIL VIA MIRAMANDA, SERGIO PUIGARDEU, MARTI RIUS, and ANGEL MARTINEZ Appeal2015-000555 Application 12/741,640 Technology Center 2800 Before BRUCE R. WINSOR, LINZY T. McCARTNEY, and NATHAN A. ENGELS, Administrative Patent Judges. ENGELS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of claims 1-18. The Examiner withdrew the rejection of claim 10 in the Examiner's Answer. Ans. 2. Accordingly, the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-9 and 11-18 are before us on appeal. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Hewlett-Packard Development Company, LP. App. Br. 3. Appeal2015-000555 Application 12/741,640 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Claims Appellants' claims 1, 11, and 1 7 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal: 1. A method of printing on a substrate in a printer, the method compnsmg: dispensing a first plurality of colors from a print head of the printer on the substrate as the substrate is moved through a printing zone of the printer in a first direction; and dispensing a second plurality of colors, different from the first plurality of colors, from the print head on the substrate as the substrate is moved through the printing zone in a second direction different from the first direction. App. Br. 19. The Examiners Rejections Claims 1-9 and 11-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over various combinations of Kanazawa, 2 Gardner, 3 Eveland, 4 Clark,5 and Arai6. See Final Act. 3-14. ANALYSIS Appellants argue neither Kanazawa nor Gardner teaches or suggests "dispensing a second plurality of colors, different from the first plurality of colors, from the print head on the substrate as the substrate is moved through 2 Kanazawa et al. (US 2002/0021323 Al; published Feb. 21, 2002) 3 Gardner et al. (US 7 ,240,988 B 1; issued July 10, 2007). 4 Eveland et al. (US 2004/0169888 Al; published Sept. 2, 2004). 5 Clark et al. (US 6,501,531 Al; issued Dec. 31, 2002). 6 Arai (US 7,244,021 B2; issued July 17, 2007). 2 Appeal2015-000555 Application 12/741,640 the printing zone in a second direction different from the first direction," as recited in independent claim 1. See App. Br. 8-9; Reply Br. 4---6. The Examiner finds the combination of Kanazawa and Gardner teaches or suggests the disputed limitation. See Ans. 3--4 (citing Gardner col. 5, 1. 65- col. 6, 1. 3; Fig. 3, items 308, 310); Final Act. 4 (citing Kanazawa Figs. 2(a}- (b); Gardner Fig. 3, items 308, 318, 310, 320). Having considered the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants' arguments and the evidence of record, we are unpersuaded of error and adopt as our own the Examiner's findings, conclusions, and reasoning. See Final Act. 3-14; Ans. 2---6. Consistent with the Examiner's findings, Kanazawa teaches a print head that includes a first and a second array of nozzles that dispense "mutually different colors" of ink (Kanazawa i-f 14) and dispensing ink with movements of the substrate in a first direction and with subsequent movements in a second direction (see Kanazawa i-fi-110-13, 33). Similarly, we agree with the Examiner that a person of ordinary skill would have understood Gardner to suggest, for example, printing dark colored inks in a first pass and different, lighter colored inks in a second pass. See Ans. 3--4 (citing Gardner Fig. 3, col. 5, 1. 56-col. 6, 1. 3 (describing dark inks as distinct from lighter inks); see also Gardner col 6, 11. 53-60 (describing Fig. 3; suggesting applying dark in "one or more" early pass and lighter ink in "one or more" later passes). Appellants' arguments are unpersuasive because the arguments attack each reference individually and fail to substantively address what a person of ordinary skill would have understood from the references' combined teachings. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981) ("one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where, as here, the 3 Appeal2015-000555 Application 12/741,640 rejections are based on combinations of references"). Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 1, as well as independent claims 11 and 17, and dependent claims 2-9, 12-16, and 18, which were not argued with particularity beyond those arguments advanced for claim 1. See App. Br. 10-17; Reply Br. 6-8. DECISION The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-9 and 11-18 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)(l ). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 4 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation