Ex Parte Whitelaw et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 11, 2016

11612592 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 11, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
111612,592 12/19/2006 Gordon Whitelaw
7590 05/12/2016
Robert C Faber
OSTROLENK FABER LLP
1180 A venue of the Americas
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.
P/5508-2 6390
EXAMINER
CULLER, JILL E
New York, NY 10036-8403 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2854
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
05/12/2016 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
Exparte GUSTAV GORAN MATTIAS SUDOW,
ULF PETER LINDQVIST, and ANDRAS ROBERT JUHASZ
Appeal2014-007578
Application 11/612,592
Technology Center 2800
Before BEYERL YA. FRANKLIN, N. WHITNEY WILSON, and
CHRISTOPHER L. OGDEN, Administrative Patent Judges.
WILSON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
November 5, 2013 decision finally rejecting claims 1-12, 14, 17-21, and 44--46
("Final Act."). We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify the Real Party in Interest as Bobst Bielefeld GmbH,
(Appeal Br. 1 ).
Appeal2014-007578
Application 11/612,592
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellants' invention is directed to a method for adjusting a printing
cylinder and an anilox roller in a rotary printing press (Abstract, Spec. 13). The
method requires scanning of the peripheral surfaces of the printing cylinder and
the anilox roller to detect the precise topography of each one, and adjusting their
positions in view of the data obtained prior to initiating a printing run. Details of
the claimed method are set forth in representative claim 1, which is reproduced
below from the Claims Appendix:
1. A method of adjusting a printing cylinder and an anilox roller in
a rotary printing press, comprising the steps of:
a) mounting the printing cylinder in a preparation rack so as
to be rotatably supported therein,
b) scanning the peripheral surface of the printing cylinder,
thereby to detect a topography of the printing cylinder surface,
positions on the surface of the printing cylinder being designated
by coordinates, and the topography taking the form of a map that
assigns a specific height value to each coordinate position on the
surface of the printing cylinder and thereby reflects a distribution
of elevated and depressed surface portions on the entire surface of
the printing cylinder,
c) deriving set data for the adjustment of printing cylinder
based on the detected topography of the printing cylinder, and
storing the set data, the set data for the adjustment of the printing
cylinder including data for determining force or pressure with
which the printing cylinder is pressed against a back pressure
cylinder in the rotary printing press,
d) mounting the anilox roller in a preparation rack so as to
be rotatably supported therein,
e) scanning the peripheral surface of the anilox roller,
thereby to detect a topography of the anilox roller surface,
t) deriving set data for the adjustment of the anilox roller
relative to the printing cylinder based on the detected topographies
of the printing cylinder and the anilox roller, and storing the set
2
Appeal2014-007578
Application 11/612,592
data, the set data for the adjustment of the anilox roller including
data for determining the force or pressure with which the anilox
roller is pressed against the printing cylinder,
g) mounting the printing cylinder and the anilox roller in the
printing press, and
h) adjusting a position of the printing cylinder relative to the
back pressure cylinder and adjusting a position of the anilox roller
in accordance with the set data prior to initiating a printing run.
REJECTIONS
I. Claims 1, 3, 9-12, 20, 21, 45, and 46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Poetter2 in view of Langemeyer3 and de
Groot. 4
II. Claims 2, 5, 6, and 44 are rejected under 35U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Poetter in view of Langemeyer and de Groot, and
further in view of Ireton. 5
III. Claims 4 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Poetter in view of Langemeyer and de Groot, and further in
view of Thoma. 6
IV. Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Poetter in view of Langemeyer and de Groot, and further
in view of Dolves. 7
2 Poetter et al., U.S. Patent No. 6,634,297 B2, issued October 21, 2003.
3 Langemeyer, GB 2 259 052 A, published March 3, 1993.
4 De Groot, U.S. Patent No. 5,398,113, issued March 14, 1995.
5 Ireton, U.S. Patent No. 5,676,058, issued October 14, 1997.
6 Thoma, U.S. Patent Pub. 2006/0225594 Al, published October 12, 2006.
7 Dolves, U.S. Patent No. 6,282,019 Bl, issued September 4, 2001.
3
Appeal2014-007578
Application 11/612,592
V. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Poetter in view of Langemeyer and de Groot, and further
in view of Sekizawa. 8
DISCUSSION
Appellants do not offer separate arguments with respect to Rejections
II-V (Appeal Br. 13-14). Moreover, in connection with Rejection I,
Appellants offer arguments only with respect to claim 1 (see Appeal Br. 5-
13). Accordingly, our discussion will focus on the rejection of claim 1 over
Poetter in view of Langemeyer and de Groot.
The Examiner finds that Poetter teaches a method of adjusting a
printing cylinder, comprising the steps of mounting the printing cylinder and
the anilox roller in a printing press and adjusting them in accordance with
data regarding the geometric dimensions of the rollers (Final Act. 2, citing
Poetter; Fig. 1; 2:6-12; 4:23-35; and 8:59-67). The Examiner further finds
that Poetter does not disclose (a) mounting the printing cylinder and the
anilox roller in a preparation rack, or (b) scanning the peripheral surfaces of
the printing cylinder and the anilox roller to detect a topography of the
surfaces using the methods specified in the claim, ( c) deriving set data for
the adjustment of the printing cylinder and the anilox roller based on the
detected topographies, or ( d) the set data including data for determining
force or pressure with which the cylinders are pressed against one another
(id.).
8 Sekizawa et al., U.S. Patent No. 4,510,866, issued April 16, 1985.
4
Appeal2014-007578
Application 11/612,592
The Examiner also finds that, except inasmuch as Langemeyer does
not disclose producing a topography map that assigns a specific height value
to each point on the peripheral surface and thereby reflects a distribution of
elevated and depressed surface portions on the entire surface, Langemeyer
teaches each of the steps not taught by Poetter (Final Act. 3--4, citing
Langemeyer, Abstract, FIG. 2). The Examiner determines that it would have
been obvious to modify Poetter' s method to include the method steps taught
by Langemeyer to provide improved printing accuracy by consistently
controlling the pressure between the cylinders in the printing press (Final
Act. 3).
The Examiner further finds that de Groot teaches scanning a
peripheral surface to detect a topography of the surface, the topography
taking the form of a map that assigns a specific height value to each point on
the peripheral surface and thereby reflects a distribution of elevated and
depressed surface portions on the entire surface, and concludes that using
this methodology would have been obvious to more accurately adjust for the
variations in pressure caused by the variations in surface height (Final Act.
3--4, citing de Groot, Abstract, 6:5-38).
Having reviewed the arguments and evidence articulated in the
Appeal Brief and the Reply Brief, we affirm the rejection of claim 1,
essentially for the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Final Action and
the Answer. We add the following for emphasis.
Appellants argue that none of the cited references discloses "scanning
the peripheral surface of the anilox roller, thereby to detect the topography
of the anilox roller surface" (Appeal Br. 6). The Examiner bears the initial
burden, on review of the prior art or on any other ground, of presenting a
5
Appeal2014-007578
Application 11/612,592
prima facie case ofunpatentability. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445
(Fed. Cir. 1992). If the Examiner meets that burden, the applicant bears the
burden of coming forward with evidence or argument. Id.
In this instance, as explained by the Examiner (Ans. 2), Poetter states:
"it is advantageous to provide a control program that knows the geometric
dimensions of the rollers involved in the printing and inking process and that
may or may not set tentatively (for example, in the case of long regulating
distances or after a roller change) the position of these rollers relative to each
other by means of signals to the actuating drives" (Poetter, 2:6-12). Thus,
Poetter explicitly teaches that it is advantageous to know the precise
geometric dimensions of the printing and inking (i.e. anilox) rollers in order
to adjust their positions to optimize the print quality (see also Poetter, 1 :66-
2:5).
Therefore, as explained by the Examiner (Ans. 3), although Poetter
does not provide further details on measuring the rollers, Langemeyer
teaches measuring the "the printing nip pressure is maintained constant
during printing by programmed movement of the printing unit in response to
stored measurements of the geometrical irregularities of the impression
cylinder with its rotational position" (Langemeyer, Abstract). As found by
the Examiner, De Groot provides additional teachings to improve the
accuracy of the measurements sought by Poetter.
Thus, in view of the record on appeal, Appellants have not
demonstrated reversible error in the Examiner's prima facie case of
obviousness.
Appellants contend that the Rule 132 Declaration of Mr. Gordon
Whitelaw ("Declaration") overcomes the prima face case of obviousness
6
Appeal2014-007578
Application 11/612,592
(Appeal Br. 6-7). Appellants assert that the Declaration shows that better
printing results are obtained when the topographies of both the printing
cylinder and the anilox rollers are obtained, rather than only the topography
of the printing cylinder (id.). However, as explained by the Examiner,
Appellants have not demonstrated that the results described in the
Declaration (better printing results when both the printing cylinder and
anilox roller are measured/mapped as set forth in the claims as opposed to
only measuring/mapping the printing cylinder) are unexpected, because
logically more accurate measurements, which would be obtained by
combining the references as suggested, would provide better results.
Accordingly, for the reasons expressed above and in the Answer,
Appellants have not shown reversible error in the rejection of claim 1.
Because none of the other claims and rejections are argued separately, we
also affirm those rejections.
CONCLUSION
We AFFIRM the rejection of claims 1, 3, 9-12, 20, 21, 45, and 46
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Poetter in view of
Langemeyer and de Groot.
We AFFIRM the rejection of claims 2, 5, 6, and 44 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Poetter in view of Langemeyer
and de Groot, and further in view of Ireton.
We AFFIRM the rejection of claims 4 and 17-19 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Poetter in view of Langemeyer
and de Groot, and further in view of Thoma.
7
Appeal2014-007578
Application 11/612,592
We AFFIRivI the rejection of claims 7 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Poetter in view of Langemeyer and de Groot, and
further in view of Dolves.
We AFFIRM the rejection of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Poetter in view of Langemeyer and de Groot, and
further in view of Sekizawa.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
8