Ex Parte Vives et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 27, 2011

10686909 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 27, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte JUAN C. VIVES, JOSEP MARIA SERRA,
and KURT EUGENE THIESSEN
____________

Appeal 2009-010752
Application 10/686,909
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, MARC S. HOFF, and
CARLA M. KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judges.

KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 43-52 and 55-58. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

Appeal 2009-010752
Application 10/686,909

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ claimed invention is a system for simultaneously printing
on two or more media surfaces (Spec. ¶¶ [0001], [00011]).
Independent claim 43, reproduced below, is representative of the
subject matter on appeal.
43. A system for simultaneously printing on two or more
media surfaces, comprising:

at least one printing unit disposed on a closed printhead
path; and

a print medium feed unit adapted to feed at least one print
medium through said closed printhead path, said at least one
print medium including two or more print surfaces; and

means for electrically communicating with a print
controller as said printing unit travels along said closed
printhead path, said means for electrically communicating
includes conductive brushes extending from said printing unit,
said brushes being adapted to communicate with a conductive
bus positioned around said closed printhead path;

wherein said printing unit is adapted to travel along said
closed printhead path to print on at least two print surfaces.

REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 43-51 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based
upon the teachings of Wright (US 5,456,539; Oct. 10, 1995) and Burikov
(US 6,341,839 B1; Jan. 29, 2002).
The Examiner rejected claim 52 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon
the teachings of Wright, Burikov, and Inoue (JP 04310770 A; Nov. 2, 1992).
Appeal 2009-010752
Application 10/686,909

3
The Examiner rejected claims 55-57 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based
upon the teachings of Wright, Burikov, and Shen (US 6,623,105 B1; Sep.
23, 2003).

ANALYSIS
Appellants contend it would not be obvious to modify Wright based
on Burikov because neither Wright not Burikov, alone or in combination,
discloses conductive brushes that communicate with a print controller, as
claimed (App. Br. 7; Reply Br. 2).
Burikov discloses using brushes to apply electric current to a power
supply of a carriage and to other power consuming devices. An ink feeding
mechanism includes, among other things, an electric drive control unit and
an electronic controller that communicates with a control unit over a radio
channel (col. 4, ll. 10-20). Further, the controller puts information onto a
substrate by operating the jet elements (col. 4, ll. 53-57).
Appellants assert page 12, lines 23-26, of their Specification supports
the claimed limitation “means for electrically communicating with a print
controller . . . , said brushes being adapted to communicate with a
conductive bus positioned around said closed printhead path” (emphasis
added). However, page 12 of Appellants’ Specification merely states “the
printing unit 404 may be electrically connected to drive circuitry (not
shown) via brushes 502 . . . . [t]he brushes . . . coupled to power bus lines
518 that provide power for firing selected resistors to cause ink ejection
from associated nozzles within the printing unit 404” (App. Br. 3) (emphasis
added). Thus, there is nothing in Appellants’ Specification supporting
Appeal 2009-010752
Application 10/686,909

4
Appellants’ definition of brushes communicating with a conductive bus, as
alleged.
In both Burikov’s and Appellants’ inventions, there is electrical
communication that controls the operation of the ink jets (see Burikov, col.
4, ll. 53-54). That is, in Burikov, the brushes supply power to the carriage
that contains the inkjets, as does Appellants’ claimed invention. Thus, we
agree with the Examiner that Burikov teaches means for electrically
communicating with a print controller by passing power from a bus to a print
controller using brushes (see Ans. 8-10). Appellants have not contested
Wright’s teaching a system using dual print means to print on two sides
simultaneously. Therefore, the combination of Wright and Burikov renders
obvious Appellants’ recited structure in claim 43, and dependent claims 44-
51 (Ans. 8).
With respect to the remaining claims, Appellants’ arguments rely on
those presented with respect to claim 43, further alleging the additional
references do not cure the deficiencies of Wright and Burikov (App. Br. 9,
10). Thus, for the reasons presented above with respect to claim 43, claims
52 and 55-57 are obvious over the collective teachings of the cited
references.
With respect to claim 58, this claim was not argued by Appellants.
Thus, this claim is pro forma obvious over the cited references.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 43-52 and 55-58 is
affirmed.
Appeal 2009-010752
Application 10/686,909

5
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv)(2010).

AFFIRMED

babc