Ex Parte Suzuki

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 23, 2018

14619192 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 23, 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.
14/619,192 02/11/2015 Masato SUZUKI S1202.10478US01 8386
97149 7590 02/27/2018
Masiohnff Rre.nnan
EXAMINER
1389 Center Drive, Suite 300 ZIMMERMANN, JOHN P
Park City, UT 84098
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2853
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/27/2018 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):
docket @ mabr. com
info@mabr.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MASATO SUZUKI
Appeal 2017-007790
Application 14/619,192
Technology Center 2800
Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, AVELYN M. ROSS, and
JANE E. INGLESE, Administrative Patent Judges.
INGLESE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 requests our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-8. We have jurisdiction over this
appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant claims a print control apparatus (independent claim 1), a
print control method (independent claim 7), and a non-transitory computer
1 Appellant is the Applicant, Seiko Epson Corporation, which, according to
the Appeal Brief, is the real party in interest. Appeal Brief filed November
10, 2016 (“App Br”), 4.
Appeal 2017-007790
Application 14/619,192
readable storage medium storing computer program (independent claim 8).
App. Br. 13, 15-16. Claim 1 illustrates the subject matter on appeal and is
reproduced below:
1. A print control apparatus which controls ejection of fluid
from a nozzle array in which a plurality of nozzles are arranged
in lines, and movement of the nozzle array in a direction
intersecting a direction in which the nozzles are arranged in
lines,
wherein a first determining section determines whether a
number of the nozzles used to eject ink in one nozzle group,
which consists of a predetermined number of continuously
arranged nozzles in the nozzle-array which continuously eject
fluid, exceeds a first predetermined threshold value during one
ejection of the nozzle-array in a single scanning pass,
wherein a second determining section determines, when
the first determining section has determined that the number of
nozzles used to eject ink in the one nozzle group exceeds the
first predetermined threshold value, whether an ejection amount
of the fluid ejected from the one nozzle group to an ejection
region in the single scanning pass exceeds a second
predetermined threshold value,
wherein when the ejection amount of the fluid ejected in
the one nozzle group exceeds a second predetermined threshold
value, the ejection of the fluid from the nozzle-array to the
ejection region is performed in multiple scanning passes,
wherein a number of passes of the multiple scanning passes is
more than a number of passes originally required.
App. Br. 13 (Claims Appendix) (emphasis added).
Independent claim 7 recites a print control method that comprises,
inter alia, determining whether a number of nozzles used to eject ink in one
nozzle group consisting of nozzles in a nozzle array exceeds a first
predetermined threshold value during one ejection of the nozzle-array in a
single scanning pass, and determining whether an ejection amount of the
2
Appeal 2017-007790
Application 14/619,192
fluid ejected from the one nozzle group in a single scanning pass exceeds a
second predetermined threshold value. Independent claim 8 recites a non-
transitory computer readable storage medium storing computer program that
causes a print control apparatus to perform, inter alia, determining whether a
number of nozzles used to eject ink in one nozzle group consisting of
nozzles in a nozzle array exceeds a first predetermined threshold value
during one ejection of the nozzle array in a single scanning pass, and
determining whether an ejection amount of the fluid ejected from the one
nozzle group in a single scanning pass exceeds a second predetermined
threshold value.
The Examiner sets forth the following rejections in the Office Action
entered August 10, 2016 (“Office Act.”), and maintains the rejections in the
Answer entered February 27, 2017 (“Ans.”):
I. Claims 1 and 5-7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Kato et al. (US 6,371,608 B; issued April 16, 2002) in view of Takahashi
(US 5,984,454; issued November 16, 1999);
II. Claims 2 and 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Kato in view of Takahashi and Otsuka (US 6,283,569 Bl; issued September
4, 2001);
III. Claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Kato in
view of Takahashi and Mizutani (US 2009/0153606 Al; published June 18,
2009); and
IV. Claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Kato in
view of Takahashi and Takahashi II (US 6,966,621 B2; issued November
22, 2005).
3
Appeal 2017-007790
Application 14/619,192
DISCUSSION
Upon consideration of the evidence relied upon in this appeal and
each of Appellant’s contentions, we reverse the Examiner’s rejections of
claims 1-8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for the reasons set forth below.
We need only consider independent claims 1, 7, and 8 because the
remaining claims depend from claim 1.
The Examiner finds that Kato discloses a print control apparatus that
controls ejection of fluid from a nozzle array. Office Act. 3 (citing Kato col.
4,11. 30-33; Fig. 6A). The Examiner finds that Kato discloses determining
if the duty threshold (predetermined threshold) has been exceeded, and the
Examiner determines that Kato therefore teaches determining whether a
number of nozzles used to eject ink in one nozzle group exceeds a first
predetermined threshold value. Office Act. 3, 8, 13 (citing Kato col. 3,11.
44-50, col. 4,11. 33-63, col. 9,11. 20-55, and Fig. 11). The Examiner further
finds that Kato discloses determining whether an ejection amount of fluid
ejected from the one nozzle group exceeds a second predetermined threshold
value. Office Act. 4, 8-9, 13-14 (citing Kato col. 3,11. 44-50, col. 4,11. 33-
63, col. 9,11. 20-55, and Fig. 11). The Examiner thus finds that “Kato []
teaches the determining section and determining steps” recited in claims 1,
7, and 8. Ans. 4.
Appellant points out that Kato defines printing duty as “a ratio of a
number of actual ejections for each color during the single scanning
operation to a maximum number of ejections which can be executed for each
color during the single scanning operation.” App. Br. 10; Kato col. 9,11. 24-
28. Appellant argues that the printing duty disclosed in Kato is thus a
percentage of actual ejections to maximum possible ejections for each color,
4
Appeal 2017-007790
Application 14/619,192
and is not the number of ejection nozzles engaged in an ejection process
during a single pass as recited in claims 1, 7, and 8. App. Br. 10.
In response, the Examiner asserts that in order for one of ordinary
skill in the art to determine the ratio of actual ejections to maximum possible
ejections (the duty) “one of ordinary skill in the art would be required to
know the number of nozzles capable of ejecting [i.e. maximum possible
ejections] and the number of nozzles used to eject ink [i.e. actual ejections].”
Ans. 2. Thus, the Examiner determines that the number of nozzles used to
eject ink corresponds to the number of actual ejections, and the number of
nozzles capable of ejecting ink corresponds to the maximum number of
possible ejections. However, the Examiner does not identify any disclosure
in Kato, or provide any other objective evidence, supporting this
determination. Specifically, the Examiner does not identify any disclosure
in Kato establishing that the number of actual ejections for each color during
a single scanning operation, and/or the maximum number of ejections that
can be executed for each color during the single scanning operation, are
indicative of, or correspond to, the number of nozzles used to eject ink in
one nozzle group during a single pass, as recited in claims 1, 7, and 8.
Accordingly, the Examiner does not establish that Kato discloses or would
have suggested determining whether a number of nozzles used to eject ink in
one nozzle group exceeds a first predetermined threshold value during one
ejection of a nozzle array in a single scanning pass, as required by claims 1,
7 and 8. Nor does the Examiner establish that the apparatus disclosed in
Kato would be capable of determining whether a number of nozzles used to
eject ink in one nozzle group exceeds a first predetermined threshold value
during one ejection of a nozzle array in a single scanning pass, as required
5
Appeal 2017-007790
Application 14/619,192
by the functional language of claim 1. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473,
1477-79 (Fed. Cir. 1997)(“Schreiber’s contention that his structure will be
used to dispense popcorn does not have patentable weight if the structure is
already known” and “the Board [correctly] found that the Harz dispenser
[for dispensing lubricating oil] would be capable of dispensing popcorn in
the manner set forth in claim 1 of Schreiber’s application.”).
In addition, although the Examiner asserts that Kato discloses
determining whether an ejection amount of fluid ejected from one nozzle
group exceeds a second predetermined threshold value, the Examiner does
not explain how the portions of Kato cited by the Examiner in support of this
finding actually disclose, or would have suggested, this subject matter.
Office Act. 4, 8-9, 13-14. Notably, as set forth above, the Examiner relies
on the same portions of Kato for supposedly disclosing both determining
whether a number of nozzles used to eject ink in one nozzle group exceeds a
first predetermined threshold value during one ejection of a nozzle array in a
single scanning pass, and determining whether an ejection amount of fluid
ejected from one nozzle group exceeds a second predetermined threshold
value. However, the Examiner does not explain with particularity which of
the cited disclosures correspond to each separate element of claims 1, 7, and
8. Office Act. 3—4, 8-9, 13-14. Accordingly, the Examiner does not
articulate reasoning having rational underpinning as to why one of ordinary
skill in the art would have understood Kato to disclose or suggest
determining whether an ejection amount of fluid ejected from one nozzle
group exceeds a second predetermined threshold value, as required by
claims 1, 7, and 8. KSRInt’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007)
(“[R]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere
6
Appeal 2017-007790
Application 14/619,192
conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning
with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness.”) Nor does the Examiner establish that the apparatus disclosed
in Kato would be capable of determining whether an ejection amount of
fluid ejected from one nozzle group exceeds a second predetermined
threshold value, as required by the functional language of claim 1.
Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1477-79.
Although it appears that the Examiner may rely on Takahashi alone or
in combination with Kato for disclosing or suggesting determining whether
an ejection amount of fluid ejected from one nozzle group exceeds a second
predetermined threshold value, the Examiner again does not explain how the
portions of Takahashi cited by the Examiner alone or in combination with
the relied-upon portions of Kato actually disclose, or would have suggested,
this subject matter recited in claims 1, 7, and 8. Office Act. 5-7, 8-9, 13-
14. Accordingly, the Examiner does not articulate reasoning having rational
underpinning as to why one of ordinary skill in the art would have
understood Takahashi alone or in combination with Kato to disclose or
suggest determining whether an ejection amount of fluid ejected from one
nozzle group exceeds a second predetermined threshold value, as required
by claims 1, 7, and 8. KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. Nor does the Examiner
establish that an apparatus disclosed or suggested by Takahashi alone or in
combination with Kato would be capable of determining whether an ejection
amount of fluid ejected from one nozzle group exceeds a second
predetermined threshold value, as required by the functional language of
claim 1. Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1477-79.
7
Appeal 2017-007790
Application 14/619,192
We accordingly do not sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1-
8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1-8 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103.
REVERSED
8