Ex Parte Tsugaru et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 24, 2016

12760143 (P.T.A.B. May. 24, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
121760,143 04/14/2010
61650 7590 05/26/2016
MYERS WOLIN, LLC
100 HEADQUARTERS PLAZA
North Tower, 6th Floor
MORRISTOWN, NJ 07960-6834
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Hiroyuki TSUGARU
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.
CTZN2072 8463
EXAMINER
MARINI, MATTHEW G
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2854
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/26/2016 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):
patent@myerswolin.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HIROYUKI TSUGARU, GEN MATSUSHIMA,
KATSUTOSHI MUKAIJIMA, and TETSUYA YAMAMOTO
Appeal2014-009052
Application 12/760,143
Technology Center 2800
Before TERRY J. OWENS, BEYERL YA. FRANKLIN, and
MICHELLE N. ANKENBRAND, Administrative Patent Judges.
OWENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1-8. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
The Invention
The Appellants claim a near-end-of-roll detecting apparatus and a
printer comprising the apparatus. Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A near-end of roll detecting apparatus for a roll of
recording medium, comprising:
a recording medium support unit that supports an outer
circumferential surface of the recording medium that is biased
downward in a vertical direction by the weight of the recording
medium, such that a position of a center of the recording
Appeal2014-009052
Application 12/760,143
medium moves on a straight-line trace, associated with
consumption of the recording medium;
a displacement sensing unit that is provided at a position
facing a predetermined position at a side face of the recording
medium and senses displacement per unit time at the
predetermined position at the side face of the recording medium
when the recording medium is rotated by being pulled out of
the recording medium support unit, associated with the
consumption of the recording medium, wherein the rotational
axis of the roll is perpendicular to the side face; and
a calculating unit that calculates based on the
displacement sensed by the displacement sensing unit, a radius
of the recording medium at the time the displacement sensing
unit senses the displacement.
Kamada
Chaussade
The References
us 5,566,906
US 2007/0091159 Al
The Rejections
Oct. 22, 1996
Apr. 26, 2007
Claims 1-8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Kamada in
view of Chaussade.
OPINION
We reverse the rejections.
The Appellants' claims require a roll for supporting a recording
medium which is wrapped around the roll and has a side face perpendicular
to the roll' s rotational axis, and a displacement sensing unit which is
positioned at a predetermined position at the side face and senses
displacement of the recording medium per unit time at the predetermined
position.
2
Appeal2014-009052
Application 12/760,143
Kamada discloses a paper decurling device comprising a decurling
roller (103) which, while paper dispensed from a roll is being transported
past it, bends the paper in the direction opposite to its curl direction, and a
controller (110) which, by temporarily interrupting the decurling
roller (103)'s rotation, straightens the paper (col. 4, 11. 10-12, 56-63). The
device includes a variable resistor (502) associated with the fulcrum of an
arm ( 501) which rests on the roll' s upper surface such that the arm ( 501)
changes in angular position as the roll' s diameter decreases due to paper
from the roll being consumed (col. 5, 11. 18-20; Fig. 5). As the arm (501)'s
angular position changes, the variable resistor (502)'s resistance changes and
is sent to the controller (110) which, in matching relation to the roll' s
decreasing diameter, controls the timing, frequency and duration of the
paper transport's disruption at the decurling roller (103) to provide the
proper degree of decurling for that roll diameter (col. 5, 11. 21-25, 45-53).
Chaussade discloses a device for printing on a strip of paper ( 100)
dispensed from a roll (101) which is on a spool (102) and rests on two
cylinders ( 6) (i-f l; Fig. 1 ). The device includes light ray-emitting
sensors (11) which face the side of the roll (101) at different vertical
positions along the roll (101 )' s radius between the spool (102) and the
cylinders ( 6) (i-fi-f 6, 24; Fig. 1 ). Each time the spool (102) reaches one of the
sensors (11) as the spool (102) moves downward due to paper from the
roll (101) being consumed, the light ray emitted by that sensor (11) passes
through the spool (102) to a facing receiver (1 lB) which, in response to the
light ray, sends an electrical signal to a control member (10) which causes
the paper strip (100)' s drive member (9) to operate at a higher speed (i-fi-f 24--
3
Appeal2014-009052
Application 12/760,143
25). "When the lowest sensor 11 detects the spool 102, the control
member 10 causes the drive member 9 to run at its highest speed and also
issues a warning signal, e.g., by means of an indicator lamp or an audible
signal, warning that the roll 101 is coming to its end and will need to be
changed" (i-f 26).
The Examiner interprets the Appellants' claim term "side face" as the
face receiving printing (Final Act. 2-3, 6).
In both Kamada's and Chaussade's devices the face receiving printing
is parallel to the roll' s rotational axis, not perpendicular to it as required by
the Appellants' claims (Kamada, Fig. 5; Chaussade, Fig. 1 ).
In apparent contradiction to the Examiner's claim interpretation, the
Examiner states that "Kamada et al. fails to teach the rotational axis of the
roll is perpendicular to the side face" (Final Act. 3) and asserts that
substituting Chaussade' s sensors ( 11) for Kamada' s variable
resistor (502)/arm (501) would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art to "reduce the mechanical elements of Kamada while providing an
accurate determination of a radius of the roll" (Final Act. 3).
Setting forth a prima facie case of obviousness requires establishing
that the applied prior art would have provided one of ordinary skill in the art
with an apparent reason to modify the prior art to arrive at the claimed
invention. See KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007).
The Examiner does not specify what mechanical elements of Kamada
the argued substitution would reduce. The Examiner apparently is referring
to Kamada's arm (501). The Examiner, however, has not established that
one of ordinary skill in the art would have considered Chaussade' s
4
Appeal2014-009052
Application 12/760,143
sensors ( 11) which detect the roll ( 101)' s diameter at discrete positions for
increasing the paper (100)' s drive member (9)' s speed (i-fi-f 24--26) to be a
suitable substitute for Kamada's variable resistor (502)/arm (501) which
senses the varying roll diameter to enable the proper degree of decurling to
be achieved at each roll diameter (col. 5, 11. 18-25, 45-53). Nor has the
Examiner established that Chaussade' s spaced apart sensors ( 11) provide the
alleged accurate determination of the radius of the roll.
Thus, the Examiner has not established a prima facie case of
obviousness of the Appellants' claimed invention.
DECISION/ORDER
The rejection of claims 1-8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Kamada in
view of Chaussade is reversed.
It is ordered that the Examiner's decision is reversed.
REVERSED
5