Ex Parte Trudeau et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 13, 201512955190 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 13, 2015) Copy Citation 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. 12/955,190 11/29/2010 Bradford John Trudeau 6003.1010DIV 7031 23280 7590 02/13/2015 Davidson, Davidson & Kappel, LLC 485 7th Avenue 14th Floor New York, NY 10018 EXAMINER CULLER, JILL E ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2854 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/13/2015 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 BRADFORD JOHN TRUDEAU,1 Brian Joseph Gentle, and Bryan Charles Dustin ________________ Appeal 2013-001070 Application 12/955,190 Technology Center 2800 ________________ Before MARK NAGUMO, JAMES C. HOUSEL, and GEORGE C. BEST, Administrative Patent Judges. NAGUMO, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Bradford John Trudeau, Brian Joseph Gentle, and Bryan Charles Dustin (“Trudeau”) timely appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection2 of claims 1–15. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. We affirm. 1 The real party in interest is listed as Goss International Americas, Inc. (Appeal Brief, filed 18 July 2012 (“Br.”), 2.) 2 Office Action mailed 19 October 2012 (“Final Rejection). Appeal 2013-001070 Application 12/955,190 2 OPINION A. Introduction3 The subject matter on appeal relates to offset web printing presses having separable blankets. (Spec. 1 [0002].) According to the ʼ190 Specification, such offset printing presses can include a “tucker bar” for tucking and holding printing plates on the plate cylinder. (Id. at [0004].) An offset printing press is shown schematically in Fig. 1: {Fig. 1 shows an offset printing press} Offset printing units comprise a plate cylinder (42, 48) that bears an inkable image on a plate secured (“tucked”) to the cylinder. The inked plate cylinder transfers the image to a blanket cylinder (44, 46), which in turn transfers the image to web 30 (e.g., paper) to be printed. Figure 1 shows 3 Application 12/955,190, Web offset printing press with articulated tucker, filed 29 November 2010 as a DIV of 11/388,602, filed 24 March 2006, now U.S. Patent No. 7,849,796. We refer to the “’190 Specification,” which we cite as “Spec.” Appeal 2013-001070 Application 12/955,190 3 offset printing units 10, 12, 14, and 16 in position to print both sides of web 32.4 Printing units 18, 20, 22, and 24 are shown in positions “thrown off” from the printing web by a distance D. Printing units 22 and 24 are shown with the plate cylinders 42 and 48 separated from blanket cylinders 44 and 46, respectively. In the separated position, the distance between the cylinders allows the plate[s] on the plate cylinder to be changed. The distance [when not tucking] between a traditional tucker and the plate cylinder is said to be 30 mm. (Id. at [0008].) However, a smaller gap of 6 mm is said to be “preferable to prevent fingers from being caught between the plate and the blanket for example.” (Id.) In the words of the Specification, “[b]y providing an articulating tucker, the plate-to-blanket nip of an auto-transfer print unit is guarded throughout the entire motion of the print cylinders.” (Spec. 2 [0009]). Claim 1 is representative of the dispositive issues and reads: An offset web print unit comprising: a plate cylinder; a blanket cylinder; the plate cylinder being movable during a throw-off operation; and a tucker bar for tucking plates into the plate cylinder, the tucker bar having an axis movable with respect to the plate cylinder axis for reducing a gap between the plate cylinder and tucker bar during the throw-off operation. (Br., Claims App. 1 (emphasis and some paragraphing added).) 4 Throughout this Opinion, for clarity, labels to elements in Figures are presented in bold font, regardless of their original presentation. Appeal 2013-001070 Application 12/955,190 4 Claim 11, the other independent claim, is similar to claim 1, the sole difference being that the purpose of the movable axis of the tucker bar is recited to be “for maintaining a constant gap between the plate cylinder and tucker bar during the throw-off operation.” (Br., Claims App. 2.) The Examiner maintains the following grounds of rejection:5 A. Claims 1, 3, 6, 7 and 11–15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) in view of Saito.6 A1. Claims 2, 5, and 8–10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of the combined teachings of Saito and Dowling.7 A2. Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of the combined teachings of Saito and Guaraldi.8 B. Discussion Findings of fact throughout this Opinion are supported by a preponderance of the evidence of record. Initially, we find that Trudeau presents arguments based solely on the failure, in Trudeau’s view, of Saito to disclose a tucker bar having the required properties. (Br. 4, ll. 22–24.) According to Trudeau, neither Dowling nor Guaraldi disclose the limitations of claims 1 that are not 5 Examiner’s Answer mailed 15 August 2012 (“Ans.”). 6 Shigehisa Saito, Automatically mounting method for press plate, JP 6-270393 (1994). 7 John Joseph Dowling et al., Printing unit with automatically moveable tail tucker bar, U.S. Patent No. 6,595,135 B2 (2003). 8 Glenn A. Guaraldi et al., Printing unit with axially removable printing sleeves, U.S. Patent No. 6,109,180 (2000). Appeal 2013-001070 Application 12/955,190 5 present in Saito. (Br. 8.) All the claims subject to Rejections A1 and A2 therefore stand or fall with claims 1 and 11. The tenor of Trudeau’s argument is that the terms “tucker bar” and “throw-off operation” are terms of art; and that roll 6 of Saito is not a tucker bar, and does not have an axis movable with respect to the plate cylinder axis that would permit the gap between the plate cylinder and tucker bar to be reduced (claim 1) or maintained constant (claim 11) during the throwing- off operation. The difficulty with Trudeau’s argument is that Trudeau does not direct our attention to a definition in the record of the term “tucker bar,” or, indeed, of the term “throw-off operation.” On review of the Specification, we find little enlightenment as to either term. For at least two reasons, we decline in the first instance to scour the prior art of record for evidence on these issues, which are central to the disputed rejections. First, the Appellant has that burden, and we decline to act as an advocate. Second, we are not experts in the field, such that we can discern from the limited record what the ordinarily skilled artisan would have thought about these matters. When a term is not defined in the Specification, the Examiner, properly, relies on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term, based on the common meaning of the term, as long as that interpretation is consistent with the supporting disclosure. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Here, the Examiner found that roll 6 performs a function similar to a tucker bar in securing a printing plate to a plate cylinder. Trudeau, who apparently disagrees with the Examiner’s finding that the recited tucker bar reads on roll 6 in the Saito printing press, has the burden to come forward Appeal 2013-001070 Application 12/955,190 6 with evidence of an art-accepted meaning of this term, and to show that a person having ordinary skill in the art would not have considered roll 6 to be a tucker bar. It is also evident—and we do not understand Trudeau to deny—that roll 6 has an axis that is parallel to the axis of the plate cylinder, the two axes being kept parallel, and that the distance between the axes can be varied. Thus, Trudeau also has the burden of demonstrating that the term “throw-off operation” was understood by the ordinary worker to exclude motion of roll 6 towards the plate cylinder before contact was made, or away from the cylinder after the printing plate had been attached but before the printing press was again in printing mode. Although Trudeau urges that roll 6 is not a tucker bar, and that the distance conditions are not met because roll 6 is in contact with the plate on the cylinder, Trudeau has not come forward with evidence indicating with sufficient exactness that a tucker bar is defined by those skilled in the art in a way that excludes roll 6. The “throwing-off operation” reasonably includes all operations from the time a worker determines that a plate needs to be changed until the printing press is back in full operation. During that period, the gap between the plate cylinder axis and the tucker bar will be reduced when the tucker bar approaches the plate cylinder. Claim 1 requires no more. During that “throwing-off operation,” the gap between the tucker bar and the plate cylinder will be constant when the tucker bar is not moving towards or away from the plate cylinder. Claim 11 requires no more. On the present record, we are not persuaded of harmful error in the appealed rejections. Appeal 2013-001070 Application 12/955,190 7 C. Order We affirm the rejections of claims 1–15. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). AFFIRMED bar Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation