Ex Parte VeisDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 20, 201613806502 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 20, 2016) 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. 13/806,502 12/21/2012 Alex Veis 83143766 6689 22879 HP Tnr 7590 12/22/2016 EXAMINER 3390 E. Harmony Road Mail Stop 35 THIES, BRADLEY W FORT COLLINS, CO 80528-9544 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2853 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/22/2016 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): 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 ALEX VEIS Appeal 2015-007560 Application 13/806,502 Technology Center 2800 Before JEFFREY T. SMITH, LINDA M. GAUDETTE, and WESLEY B. DERRICK, Administrative Patent Judges. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF CASE Appellant appeals under 35U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s decision to finally reject claims 1, 3—12, and 14. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Appeal 2015-007560 Application 13/806,502 Appellant’s invention is directed toward a method of making an inkjet printing apparatus and a method of printing an ultraviolet (UV) curable ink without the need for providing an inert atmosphere during the curing process by preventing oxygen from reaching the UV curable ink during the curing process; wherein after printing and pinning the UV curable ink, a liquid is deposited over the printed and pinned UV curable ink and wherein after the curing process is completed, the liquid is removed. See Spec. 2,11. 11—19. Independent claims 1,11, and 14 represent the subject matter on appeal. Claim 1 is reproduced below: 1. An inkjet printing apparatus for printing ultraviolet (UV) curable ink, comprising: a printhead assembly for printing the UV curable ink on a substrate a UV radiation source for pinning the UV curable ink when printed on the surface of the substrate; a liquid coating unit for dispensing a liquid coating on the printed and pinned UV curable ink, the liquid coating preventing contact between atmospheric oxygen and the printed and pinned UV curable ink, wherein the liquid of the liquid coating is transparent to UV radiation so that the printed and pinned UV curable ink lying thereunder can be fully cured while the liquid coating remains coated on the UV curable ink; an ink curing unit for fully curing the printed, pinned, and coated UV curable ink; and a liquid removal unit for removing the liquid coating from the printed and pinned UV curable ink. Appellant requests review of the following rejections from the Examiner’s Final Office Action of November 20, 2014: I. Claims 1,3,4, 7—12, and 14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Konno et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2007/0024684 Al published Feb. 1, 2007) (hereinafter referred 2 Appeal 2015-007560 Application 13/806,502 to as “Konno”) in view of Ikeda et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2010/0156971 Al published June 24, 2010) (hereinafter referred to as “Ikeda”). II. Claims 5 and 6 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Konno and Ikeda in view of Hoshino (U.S. Pub. No. US 2005/0093952 Al published May 5, 2005). OPINION1 The dispositive issues on appeal are: Did the Examiner err in determining Konno discloses a “liquid removal unit for removing the liquid coating from the printed and pinned UV curable ink” as recited in independent claims 1 and 14 and removing a liquid coating, by a liquid removal unit as recited in independent 11 ?2 After review of the respective positions provided by Appellant and the Examiner, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner did not establish that the combination of Konno discloses a “liquid removal unit for removing the liquid coating from the printed and pinned UV curable ink.”3 The Examiner has asserted that Konno’s belt cleaning unit 36 (Fig. 1) and cleaning member 102 (Figs. 5 and 7) is the liquid removal unit required by the claimed invention. (Final Act. 4). The Examiner contends that it is 1 We limit our discussion to independent claims 1,11, and 14. 2 The Examiner cited Ikeda and Hoshino to address limitations of the claim that are not related to our dispositive issue. Consequently, discussion of Ikeda and Hoshino is unnecessary for the disposition of the present appeal. 3 The statement of the rejections on appeal appear in the November 20, 2014, Final Office Action. 3 Appeal 2015-007560 Application 13/806,502 inherent in Konno that when the main curing light source is curing the liquids some of the liquid is going to evaporate and be removed. (Ans. 4). Appellant correctly argues Konno discloses the belt-cleaning unit 36 is not associated with a printed substrate and is located on a portion of the belt opposite the printing process, that is, the belt-cleaning unit 36 is disposed in a position outside the printing area on the exterior side of the belt 33. (App. Br. 11; Konno | 67). Further contrary to the Examiner’s position, Konno discloses the cleaning member 102 removes “[d]irt and residual post-treatment liquid (SB) attached to the coating roller 12SB, and waste liquid such as post-treatment liquid (SB) that has become solidified on the surface of the coating roller 12SB.” (Konno 196). An inherent characteristic must be inevitable, and not merely a possibility or probability. See In re Oelrich, 666 F.2d 578, 581 (CCPA 1981). The Examiner has not established that Konno’s belt-cleaning unit is removing a liquid. The fact that “some of the liquid is going to evaporate” does not indicate the belt-cleaning unit was capable of removing the liquid. Thus, the Examiner erred in determining Konno discloses a “liquid removal unit for removing the liquid coating from the printed and pinned UV curable ink” as recited in independent claims 1 and 14. Claim 11 is directed to a method of printing that requires “removing the liquid coating, by a liquid removal unit, from the printed and pinned UV curable ink.” The Examiner relied on Konno’s belt cleaning unit 36 and cleaning member 102 for the removal of a liquid. As discussed above, Konno fails to describe a liquid removal unit as required by the present invention. Thus, the Examiner erred in determining Konno discloses 4 Appeal 2015-007560 Application 13/806,502 removing a liquid coating, by a liquid removal unit as recited in independent 11. Thus, the Examiner has not established that the relied-upon disclosures are sufficient to support obviousness of the Appellant’s claimed invention. See In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967) (“A rejection based on section 103 clearly must rest on a factual basis, and these facts must be interpreted without hindsight reconstruction of the invention from the prior art”). Accordingly, we reverse the rejection. ORDER The Examiner’s prior art rejections of claims 1, 3—12, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are reversed. REVERSED 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation