10607892 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 7, 2012)

Ex Parte Thiessen et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 7, 2012

10607892 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 7, 2012)

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. 10/607,892 06/27/2003 Kurt Thiessen 100110947-1 7238 7590 11/08/2012 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY Intellectual Property Administration P.O. Box 272400 Fort Collins, CO 80527-2400 EXAMINER LIANG, LEONARD S ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2853 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/08/2012 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ________________ Ex parte KURT THIESSEN, MARIUS BUIBAS, and JOSEP-MARIA SERRA ________________ Appeal 2010-003101 Application 10/607,892 Technology Center 2800 ________________ Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, BRUCE R. WINSOR, and STANLEY M. WEINBERG, Administrative Patent Judges. WEINBERG, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-3, 7-15, 19-27, 29-38, 42-46, 48, and 49.1 Claims 1-3, 7-15, and 19-24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Bradshaw (US 6,264,295 B1; July 24, 2001). 1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Appeal Brief filed November 14, 2005; and (2) the Examiner’s Answer mailed October 28, 2008. Appeal 2010-003101 Application 10/607,892 2 Claims 25-27, 29-38, 42-46, 48, and 49 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Bradshaw in view of Yuji (JP 0631906; Feb. 8, 1994).2 We reverse. STATEMENT OF CASE Appellants’ method and system includes positioning a printhead having at least one column of nozzles above a print media on which a pattern is to be printed. The column of nozzles is oriented substantially perpendicular to a radius of the print media. The printhead and the print media are moved relative to each other while the media is rotated so that an arcuate print pattern is printed on the media. The print pattern is substantially perpendicular to the radius of the print media. See Abstract; Spec. 6:26-28; 7:15-18, 25-27; Figs. 1, 4. Independent claim 1 is illustrative with certain disputed limitations emphasized: 1. A method of printing within a circular area of a media, the method comprising: positioning a printhead including at least one column of nozzles above the circular area of the media, including orienting the at least one column of nozzles substantially perpendicular to a radius of the circular area extended below the printhead; rotating the media relative to the printhead; and 2 Although Appellants’ Claims Appendix and Appellants’ Status of Claims state that claims 29 and 30 have been withdrawn (Br. 3:12-13), the Answer states a rejection of claims 29 and 30 (Ans. 6), and Appellants’ Notice of Appeal, Status of Claims, and Argument state that claims 29 and 30 are on appeal and request reversal of the rejection of those claims. Br. 3:18-19; 8:6-7; 10:16-18. Contra Br. 11:4-6. On balance, we conclude that claims 29 and 30 are on appeal. Appeal 2010-003101 Application 10/607,892 3 printing at least one arcuate print pattern within the circular area of the media with the printhead while rotating the media, including printing substantially perpendicular to the radius of the circular area of the media. ISSUE Under § 102, has the Examiner erred by finding Bradshaw discloses printing substantially perpendicular to the radius of the circular area of the media? FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Appellants’ printhead assembly 12 includes one or more printheads which eject ink through a plurality of nozzles 13 arranged in one or more columns. Ink drops are directed to a medium 19 so as to print on the medium. Column 30 of nozzles 13 is oriented substantially perpendicular to a radius 261 of medium 19. Consequently, an arcuate print pattern is created substantially perpendicular to a radius of the medium. Spec. 3:16-23, 26-27; 6:26-30; 7:15-18; Figs. 1, 4. 2. Bradshaw’s system has a printhead 210 including at least one column of nozzles as part of a nozzle array 304 above medium 201 that can print on the medium as the medium 201 rotates underneath nozzle array 304 in the direction of arrow 214. Col. 5, ll. 7-10, 57-59; Figs. 2, 3. 3. In one embodiment, Bradshaw’s nozzle array 304 covers only a portion of the radial dimension between the inner diameter (ID) and outer diameter (OD) of the medium 201 and the printhead 210 moves radially as the medium 201 rotates. Col. 7, ll. 57-61; Fig. 3. In another embodiment, Bradshaw’s nozzle array 304 covers the entire radial dimension between the ID and OD. Col. 7, ll. 62-65. In each embodiment, the nozzle array 304 Appeal 2010-003101 Application 10/607,892 4 prints along a radius of the medium. Col. 4, ll. 58-67; col. 8, ll. 63-64. In the first embodiment, printing is effected by moving the print head along a radial line. Col. 4, ll. 66-67. In the other embodiment, the head assembly prints along an entire radius of the medium even though the head assembly does not move. Col. 8, ll. 7-14. ANALYSIS Claims 1-3, 7-15, and 19-24 The Examiner finds that Bradshaw shows printing along line 214 and that line 214 is perpendicular to the radius to the circular area of Bradshaw’s medium. Ans. 4:13-17; 9:13-16. Appellants contend that by printing along a radial line, Bradshaw’s device only prints radially, and that Bradshaw does not teach or suggest printing perpendicular to a radius of the medium. Br. 6:25–7:8; 9:24–10:2. Appellants also contend that line 214 illustrates only the direction in which Bradshaw’s medium rotates and not the direction in which Bradshaw’s head assembly prints. Br. 7:3-4. We agree with Appellants. While both Bradshaw’s device and Appellants’ invention include a printhead with a plurality of nozzles for printing on a rotating medium (compare FF1 with FF 2 and 3), Appellants claimed device requires printing substantially perpendicular to a radius of the medium (FF 1), while Bradshaw’s device prints along a radius of the device (FF 3). The Examiner has not established that Bradshaw prints substantially perpendicular to a radius of the medium as the cited portion of Bradshaw proffered by the Examiner expressly states that “the media 220 rotates in a circular direction 214” (Bradshaw, col. 5, ll. 57-58), not that printing is done Appeal 2010-003101 Application 10/607,892 5 in the direction 214. Instead, Bradshaw expressly states that “[t]he print head may be configured to incrementally move and print along a radial line with respect to the rotating media as the media rotates” (Bradshaw, col. 4, l. 66, to col. 5, l. 1). More specifically, Bradshaw only discloses that reference number 214 indicates the circular direction of rotation of medium 220, whether clockwise or counterclockwise. Col. 5, ll. 57-59, 63-64. Contrary to the Examiner’s findings, Bradshaw does not disclose that its device prints along line 214. It discloses only that its medium moves in the direction of line 214. FF 3. We find that the claimed “printing substantially perpendicular to the radius” is distinguishable from Bradshaw’s “printing along a radius.” We are therefore constrained by the record before us to find that the Examiner erred in rejecting (1) illustrative independent claim 1; (2) independent claim 13 for similar reasons; and (3) dependent claims 2, 3, 7- 12, 14, 15, and 19-24 for similar reasons. Claims 25-27, 29-38, 42-46, 48, and 49 We are also constrained by the record before us to find that the Examiner erred in rejecting (1) independent claims 25, 36, and 48 for similar reasons; and (2) dependent claims 26, 27, 29-35, 37, 38, 42-46, and 49 for similar reasons and because the Examiner has not shown that Yuji makes up for the deficiencies of Bradshaw noted above. We are therefore persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting (1) independent claims 25, 36, and 48; and (2) claims 26, 27, 29-35, 37, 38, 42- 46, and 49 not separately argued. Appeal 2010-003101 Application 10/607,892 6 CONCLUSION Under § 102, the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-3, 7-15, and 19- 24. Under § 103, the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 25-27, 29-38, 42- 46, 48, and 49. DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-3, 7-15, 19-27, 29-38, 42- 46, 48, and 49 is reversed. REVERSED babc