Ex Parte Tanner et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 18, 2017

13255063 (P.T.A.B. May. 18, 2017)

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
13/255,063 09/06/2011 Christopher
22879 7590 05/22/2017
HP Inc.
3390 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 35
FORT COLLINS, CO 80528-9544
INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
S. Tanner 82821870 3282
EXAMINER
WILLIAMS, MIYA J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2676
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/22/2017 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):
ipa.mail@hp.com
barbl@hp.com
y vonne.bailey @ hp. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CHRISTOPHER S. TANNER, JAMES PINGEL, and
DAVID OTIS
Appeal 2016-008509
Application 13/255,063
Technology Center 2600
Before JEFFREY S. SMITH, AMBER L. HAGY, and
PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
HAGY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1—4, 6, 7, 9-12, and 15,2 which are all of the
pending claims. We have jurisdiction over these claims under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Hewlett-Packard
Development Company, LP. (App. Br. 1.)
2 Claims 5, 8, 13, and 14 were canceled in an Amendment dated February
25,2015.
Appeal 2016-008509
Application 13/255,063
Introduction
The claims are directed to providing ink from one or more remote
sources to a printer. (Spec. 18.)
Exemplary Claim
Claims 1 and 15, reproduced below with the disputed limitations
italicized, are exemplary of the claimed subject matter:
1. An apparatus, comprising:
a connecting head configured to be mechanically coupled
to an output ink supply conduit that supplies ink to a printhead
in a printer and configured to be coupled to an input ink supply
conduit that receives ink from a remote supply of ink, the
connecting head including a check valve and a pump
comprising a flexible diaphragm, the pump configured to cause
a flow of the ink from the remote supply of ink to the printhead
via the input ink supply conduit and the output ink supply
conduit by way of multiple reciprocations of the flexible
diaphragm between distended and collapsed states while the
printhead is printing, the check valve configured to prevent the
ink from flowing from the pump back to the remote supply of
ink, the flexible diaphragm shifting from the distended state to
the collapsed state under influence of an actuator that is part of
the printer and distinct from the connecting head;
a sensor configured to generate signals indicative of the
multiple reciprocations of the flexible diaphragm between the
distended and collapsed states by sensing movement or lack of
movement of the actuator; and
controller configured to receive the signals generated by
the sensor, detect a failure of the flexible diaphragm to
reciprocate based on the received signals, interpret the detection
of the failure of the flexible diaphragm to reciprocate as
indicative of the remote supply of ink being in an out-of-ink
condition, and halt normal printing operation of the printer in
response to the interpretation of the failure of the flexible
2
Appeal 2016-008509
Application 13/255,063
diaphragm to reciprocate as indicative of the remote supply of
ink being in an out-of-ink condition.
15. A method, comprising:
imparting, by a printer actuator, at least one force pulse
upon a flexible diaphragm of a pump comprising a pump
chamber, each force pulse urging the flexible diaphragm to
transition from a distended state to a collapsed state to force
ink from the pump chamber through an output fluid conduit to a
printhead;
urging the flexible diaphragm from the collapsed state to
the distended state to draw ink from a remote ink supply into
the pump chamber through an input fluid conduit,
detecting a failure of the flexible diaphragm to
reciprocate between the collapsed state and the distended state
by sensing movement or lack of movement of the actuator;
providing a signal in response to the detecting the failure
by way of a printer sensor;
interpreting the signal as indicative of the remote supply
of ink being in an out-of-ink condition of a remote ink supply
coupled to the printer, the interpreting performed by way of a
printer controller; and
in response to the interpretation of the failure of the
flexible diaphragm to reciprocate as indicative of the remote
supply of ink being in an out-of-ink condition, issuing a user
notification of the out-of-ink condition by way of the printer
controller.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Kimura et al. (“Kimura”)
Michele et al. (“Michele”)
Childs et al. (“Childs”)
Akermalm
US 2002/0024543 Al
US 6,386,693 B1
US 2003/0202057 Al
US 2004/0125182 Al
Feb. 28, 2002
May 14, 2002
Oct. 30, 2003
July 1, 2004
3
Appeal 2016-008509
Application 13/255,063
Aldrich US 2005/0206698 A1 Sept. 22,2005
Igarashi et al. (“Igarashi”) US 2006/0071965 A1 Apr. 6, 2006
Perez US 2006/0164472 Al July 27, 2006
REJECTIONS
Claims 1—3, 7, and 11—12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Akermalm, Michele, Kimura, Aldrich, and Igarashi.
(Final Act. 3—14.)
Claims 4, 6, and 9-10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Akermalm, Michele, Kimura, Aldrich, Igarashi, and
Childs. (Final Act. 14—18.)
Claim 15 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Childs, Kimura, Perez, and Igarashi. (Final Act. 18—21.)
ISSUES3
(1) Whether the Examiner erred in finding Akermalm teaches or
suggests
the pump configured to cause a flow of the ink from the remote
supply of ink to the printhead via the input ink supply conduit
and the output ink supply conduit by way of multiple
reciprocations of the flexible diaphragm between distended and
collapsed states while the printhead is printing,
as recited in independent claim 1 and commensurately recited in
independent claim 7?
(2) Whether the Examiner erred in finding Childs teaches or
suggests “each force pulse urging the flexible diaphragm to transition from a
3 Separate patentability is not argued for claims 2—4, 6, 7, or 9—12. (App. Br.
5, 7.) Except for our ultimate decision, the Examiner’s rejection of these
claims is not discussed further herein
4
Appeal 2016-008509
Application 13/255,063
distended state to a collapsed state to force ink from the pump chamber
through an output fluid conduit to a printhead,” as recited in independent
claim 15?
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants’
conclusions and we adopt as our own: (1) the findings and reasons set forth
by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 3—
21) and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer
in response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief. (Ans. 2—25.) We concur with the
conclusions reached by the Examiner, and we highlight the following for
emphasis.4
A. Claims 1—4, 6, 7, and 9—12
The Examiner relies on Akermalm in combination with Michele,
Kimura, Aldrich and Igarashi as teaching or suggesting the limitations of
independent claim 1. (Final Act. 3—8; Ans. 22—23.) In arguing the
Examiner’s rejection is in error, Appellants focus on the Examiner’s findings
regarding Akermalm. (App. Br. 6—7.) In particular, Appellants argue
Akermalm’s pump “does not cause ink to flow from a remote supply of ink
to a printhead,” but “[rjather, the pump causes a mixture of air bubbles and
ink to flow from a supply of ink to a collection container.” (App. Br. 6.)
4 Only those arguments made by Appellants have been considered in this
decision. Arguments Appellants did not make have not been considered and
are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
5
Appeal 2016-008509
Application 13/255,063
We disagree. As the Examiner finds, and we agree,
Akermalm’s “letting air escape during the fill process” [par
0039] corresponds to pressurizing the system by removing air
employing forced movement of the ink from remote ink bag
through the fluid conduit to existing ink cartridge while forcing
a mixture of air bubbles and ink from existing ink cartridge
through effluent tubing to remote ink bag where the air can be
removed by a valve mechanism inside pump channel.
(Ans. 22.) Contrary to Appellants’ argument that Akermalm’s pump “just
causes ink to flow from the ink supply bag to the collection container”
(Reply Br. 2), Akermalm teaches the same pump mechanism in the print
cartridge that is used to allow air escape, as depicted in Figure 8, is also used
to pump ink to the printhead. In particular, Akermalm teaches “[i]nk
supplies for inkjet printers with separate printheads generally consist of a
cartridge equipped with a pump and a septum to intermittently supply a
separate printhead via fluid conduit to a printhead filling station typically
located at one end of the printer carriage’s maximum stroke.” (Akermalm
14 (emphases added).) Akermalm then teaches a “method to remove air
from the system [that] makes use of the cartridge pump and septum.” (Id.
Ill (emphasis added); see also 118 and Fig. 6.) Thus, the diaphragm pump
in the ink cartridge depicted in Figure 8 of Akermalm is not, as Appellants
argue, used only for pumping bubbles and ink for collection and air removal,
but is also used for pumping ink to the print head.
For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded of error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, and we, therefore, sustain that rejection,
along with the rejection of claims 2-4, 6, 7, and 9-12, which Appellants do
not argue separately. (App. Br. 5,7.)
6
Appeal 2016-008509
Application 13/255,063
B. Claim 15
The Examiner relies on Childs in combination with Kimura, Perez,
and Igarashi as teaching or suggesting the limitations of independent claim
15. (Final Act. 18—21.) In arguing the Examiner’s rejection is in error,
Appellants focus on the Examiner’s findings regarding Childs. (App. Br. 7—
9.) In particular, Appellants argue Childs does not teach the claimed
invention when the “flexible diaphragm transitions from a distended state to
a collapsed state” because:
In the claimed invention, ink is forced from (1) the pump
chamber through (2) an output fluid conduit to (3) a printhead.
In the applied art, ink is forced from (1) the pump chamber 102
into (2) another chamber 104, then through (3) channel 88, then
through (4) channel 82, then into (5) a capillary chamber 60 that
has a foam body 62, then into (6) channel 84, then into (7) fluid
plenum 58, and finally to (8) the printhead 56.
(App. Br. 8.) Appellants make a similar argument “with respect to the
flexible diaphragm transition[ed] from a collapsed state to a distended state.”
(App. Br. 9.)
The Examiner responds by concluding “claim 15 does not recite
‘forcing ink from the pump chamber through an output fluid conduit directly
to a print head’.” (Ans. 23.) The Examiner then finds:
Thus, although Childs forces ink from the pump chamber 102
into another chamber 104, then through channel 88, then
through channel 82, then into a capillary chamber 60 that has a
foam body 62, then into channel 84, then into fluid plenum 58
and finally to print head 56, the ink is still forced from the
chamber 104 to the printhead.
{Id. (emphasis added).) In Reply, Appellants argue:
The Examiner appears to have failed to appreciate that the
claim language recites a force pulse forces ink to a printhead
ultimately. In the applied art, at best, a force pulse forces ink to
7
Appeal 2016-008509
Application 13/255,063
a capillary chamber. Ink then travels downwards, per FIG. 1 of
Childs, to a plenum adjacent to the printhead. The applied art’s
force pulse does not force ink to the printhead. It is this
distinction that the Examiner has not considered.
(Reply Br. 4 (emphases added).)
Appellants’ argument, thus, appears to rest on the contention that
Child teaches only forcing ink to a capillary chamber, after which it merely
“travels downwards” to a plenum and then to the printhead, but is not being
“forced by a forced pulse” to do so. (Reply Br. 3, 4 (emphasis omitted).)
We are not persuaded of error. First, we note this argument in Appellants’
Reply Brief contradicts Appellants’ arguments in their Appeal Brief,
wherein Appellants asserted Childs teaches “ink is forced from” the pump
chamber through various structures “and finally to . . . the printhead 56,”
thus agreeing Childs teaches forcing ink through the entire system ultimately
to the printhead. (App. Br. 8 (emphasis added).) In other words, the tenor
of Appellants’ original argument in the Appeal Brief, as the Examiner
correctly noted, was not that Childs failed to teach “forcing” ink through the
system between the pump chamber and the printhead, but that the ink
traveled through several intermediate structures between the output fluid
conduit and the printhead. (See Ans. 23—24.) The Examiner rebutted that
argument in the Answer by concluding, correctly, that claim 15 does not
require ink be forced through an output fluid conduit directly to a print head.
(Ans. 23.) We agree claim 15, which recites “[a] method, comprising,” does
not exclude intermediary structures between the recited “an output fluid
conduit” and “printhead.” See Genentech, Inc. v. Chiron Corp., 112 F.3d
495, 501 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (noting that “comprising” is a term of art used in
claim language that means that the named elements are essential, but other
8
Appeal 2016-008509
Application 13/255,063
elements may be added and still form a construct within the scope of the
claim).
To the extent Appellants change their argument in Reply to argue that
what is missing in Childs is a teaching or suggestion of forcing ink with “a
force pulse” through each intermediate component between the pump
chamber and the printhead: not only would such a new argument be
untimely,5 but it would also be unpersuasive as not commensurate with the
scope of claim 15. Contrary to Appellants’ arguments (Reply Br. 3), claim
15 does not require ink be “forced by a forced pulse” through each
component of the system. Rather, claim 15 recites “each force pulse urging
the flexible diaphragm to transition from a distended state to a collapsed
state.” (App. Br. 12 (Claims App’x).) Thus, as recited, the force pulse acts
on the diaphragm. Claim 15 then recites that the contraction of the
diaphragm “force[s] ink from the pump chamber through an output fluid
conduit to a printhead.” (Id. ) We agree with the Examiner that Childs
teaches a forced pulse on a flexible diaphragm, which forces ink from the
pump chamber through an output fluid conduit and ultimately to a printhead,
as required by claim 15. (Ans. 23—24.)
For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded of error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 15, and we, therefore, sustain that rejection.
5 Ex parte Borden, 93 USPQ2d 1473, 1473—74 (BPAI 2010) (informative
opinion) (absent a showing of good cause, the Board is not required to
address an argument newly presented in the reply brief that could have been
presented in the principal brief on appeal).
9
Appeal 2016-008509
Application 13/255,063
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—4, 6, 7, 9—
12, and 15 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)(iv).
AFFIRMED
10