Ex Parte Zlatin et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 11, 2016

12622214 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 11, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/622,214 11/19/2009
23280 7590 04/13/2016
Davidson, Davidson & Kappel, LLC
589 8th A venue
16th Floor
New York, NY 10018
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Lev Zlatin
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.
6003.1201 3907
EXAMINER
CULLER, JILL E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2854
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/13/2016 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):
ddk@ddkpatent.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte LEV ZLATIN, MARK BERNARD DUMAIS, and
MICHAEL ROBERT LEMELIN
Appeal2014-002203
Application 12/622,214
Technology Center 2800
Before KAL YANK. DESHPANDE, DAVID M. KOHUT, and
JUSTIN T. ARBES, Administrative Patent Judges.
ARBES, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 1-20, the only claims pending in the application on appeal. We have
jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). 1
We reverse.
1 Our decision will make reference to Appellants' Appeal Brief ("App. Br.,"
filed August 22, 2013) and Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed December 4,
2013), and the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed October 4, 2013) and
Final Office Action ("Final Act.," mailed November 21, 2012).
Appeal2014-002203
Application 12/ 622,214
The claims are directed to a variable cutoff cylinder alignment
apparatus for a printing press, method of aligning printing cylinders during
a cutoff change, and variable cutoff offset printing press. See Spec. i-fi-1 2---6.
Claims 1 and 2 are exemplary:
1. A variable cutoff cylinder alignment apparatus
compnsmg:
a plate cylinder support box for supporting an
exchangeable variable cutoff plate cylinder, the plate cylinder
support box including an exchangeable plate cam;
a blanket cylinder support box for supporting an
exchangeable variable cutoff blanket cylinder, the blanket
cylinder support box including an exchangeable blanket cam;
and
an alignment stop for aligning the variable cutoff blanket
cylinder and the variable cutoff plate cylinder, the exchangeable
plate cam capable of contacting the stop and the exchangeable
blanket cam capable of contacting the plate support box to align
the variable cutoff blanket cylinder and the variable cutoff plate
cylinder for different sized cutoffs.
2. A method of aligning printing cylinders during a cutoff
change comprising:
removing a first plate cylinder and a first plate cam from a
plate cylinder support box and removing a first blanket cylinder
and a first blanket cam from a blanket cylinder support box;
mounting a second plate cylinder and a second plate cam
on the plate cylinder support box and mounting a second blanket
cylinder and a second blanket cam on the blanket cylinder
support box; and
aligning the second plate cylinder and the second blanket
cylinder by contacting an alignment stop with the second plate
cam and contacting the plate cylinder support box with the
second blank et cam.
2
Appeal2014-002203
Application 12/ 622,214
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Pasquinelli
Guaraldi
us 3,323,452
us 5,301,609
REJECTION
June 6, 1967
Apr. 12, 1994
Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Guaraldi and Pasquinelli. Final Act. 2-7.
ISSUES
Appellants argue that the Examiner's prior art rejection of claims
1-20 is in error. App. Br. 5-12; Reply Br. 2-3. These arguments present us
with the following issues:
( 1) Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of
Guaraldi and Pasquinelli teaches "an alignment stop for
aligning the variable cutoff blanket cylinder and the
variable cutoff plate cylinder, the exchangeable plate cam
capable of contacting the stop and the exchangeable
blanket cam capable of contacting the plate support box to
align the variable cutoff blanket cylinder and the variable
cutoff plate cylinder for different sized cutoffs," as recited
in claim 1 and similarly recited in claim 3?
(2) Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of
Guaraldi and Pasquinelli teaches "removing a first plate
cylinder and a first plate cam from a plate cylinder support
box and removing a first blanket cylinder and a first
blanket cam from a blanket cylinder support box," as
recited in claim 2?
3
Appeal2014-002203
Application 12/ 622,214
ANALYSIS
Claims 1 and 3-18
Appellants argue that Guaraldi and Pasquinelli fail to teach "an
alignment stop for aligning the variable cutoff blanket cylinder and the
variable cutoff plate cylinder, the exchangeable plate cam capable of
contacting the stop and the exchangeable blanket cam capable of contacting
the plate support box to align the variable cutoff blanket cylinder and the
variable cutoff plate cylinder for different sized cutoffs" (the "alignment
limitation"), as recited in independent claim 1 and similarly recited in
independent claim 3. App. Br. 7-8, 11-12. The Examiner finds that
Guaraldi teaches a "plate cylinder support box" (third bracket 54 in Figure 2
of Guaraldi) for supporting a "plate cylinder" (lower plate cylinder 18), the
plate cylinder support box including a "plate cam" (unspecified), and a
"blanket cylinder support box" (fourth bracket 56) for supporting a "blanket
cylinder" (lower blanket cylinder 20), the blanket cylinder support box
including a "blanket cam" (wedge 122). Final Act. 2. The Examiner
acknowledges that Guaraldi does not disclose that the plate and blanket
cylinders are "exchangeable" with "variable cutoff' and corresponding
"exchangeable" cams, as required by the claims, and relies on Pasquinelli for
these limitations. Id. at 2-3. Specifically, the Examiner cites Pasquinelli's
disclosure of "interchangeable, unitary modules, each having a plate and
blanket cylinder ... which are adapted to be quickly inserted into and
removed from an operative position in the main frames." Pasquinelli, col. 3,
1. 68---col. 4, 1. 4; see Final Act. 2-3.
The Examiner further finds that Pasquinelli teaches an "alignment
stop" (wedge shaped projection 53 in Figure 2) that aligns blanket and plate
4
Appeal2014-002203
Application 12/ 622,214
cylinders. Final Act. 3. The Examiner determines that it would have been
obvious to combine the teachings of Pasquinelli with those of Guaraldi to
achieve the alignment limitation. Ans. 3--4.
We disagree with the Examiner. The Examiner's explanation for how
the alignment limitation allegedly is taught by the combination of Guaraldi
and Pasquinelli is not sufficient to sustain the rejection. The limitation
requires a particular arrangement of an alignment stop, plate cam, and
blanket cam, i.e., the plate cam contacts the alignment stop and the blanket
cam contacts the plate support box "to align the variable cutoff blanket
cylinder and the variable cutoff plate cylinder for different sized cutoffs."
Appellants correctly point out that the Examiner does not identify a plate
cam in the references, and incorrectly identifies wedge 122 in Guaraldi as a
blanket cam. App. Br. 7-8. Wedge 122 in Guaraldi is not a blanket cam,
but rather is used only to "control the surface pressure at the nip 46"
between lower printing plate 38 and lower printing blanket 36. Id.; see
Guaraldi, col. 6, 11. 1--4 ("the surface pressures at the nips 44 and 46 can be
adjusted by adjusting the horizontal positions of the second and third wedges
88 and 122"). Indeed, Guaraldi does not disclose cams at all.
To the extent the Examiner is relying on Pasquinelli for a teaching of
cams in the claimed arrangement, we do not agree. The Examiner finds that
Pasquinelli "teaches that an alignment stop is useful for contacting the plate
cylinder, which then contacts the blanket cylinder for alignment of the
cylinders during operation," and determines that it would have been obvious
to incorporate the teachings of Pasquinelli into the apparatus of Guaraldi "to
align the cylinders having alignment cams taught by Guaraldi ... into an
appropriate location, as taught by Pasquinelli." Ans. 3--4. Even assuming,
5
Appeal2014-002203
Application 12/ 622,214
however, that the cylinders in the combined device of Guaraldi and
Pasquinelli would be aligned in the recited manner (by virtue of wedge
shaped projection 53), the Examiner's explanation says nothing about cams.
The Examiner does not cite any particular structure in Pasquinelli as a plate
cam or blanket cam, and does not explain sufficiently how cams would be
positioned based on the combined teachings of the references. Again, the
limitation requires "[an] exchangeable plate cam capable of contacting the
stop and [an] exchangeable blanket cam capable of contacting the plate
support box to align the variable cutoff blanket cylinder and the variable
cutoff plate cylinder for different sized cutoffs." Accordingly, we cannot
sustain the rejection of independent claims 1 and 3, or claims 4--18
depending from claim 1. This issue is dispositive of the appeal before us
and, accordingly, we need not reach Appellants' remaining arguments.
Claims 2, 19, and 20
Appellants argue that the combination of Guaraldi and Pasquinelli
fails to teach "removing a first plate cylinder and a first plate cam from a
plate cylinder support box and removing a first blanket cylinder and a first
blanket cam from a blanket cylinder support box," as recited in claim 2.
App. Br. 8-9. Appellants contend that the Examiner's analysis ignores the
specific language of the claim and fails to provide a factual basis for how the
limitation is taught by the cited references. Id.; Reply Br. 2-3.
We agree with Appellants. "' [R ]ejections on obviousness grounds
cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be
some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the
legal conclusion of obviousness."' KSR Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.
6
Appeal2014-002203
Application 12/ 622,214
398, 418 (2007) (quoting In re Kahn, 441F.3d977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).
The Examiner finds that "although [the] exact method steps are not spelled
out by the references, it would [have been] obvious to one having ordinary
skill in the art that these steps must take place in order for the apparatus to
be assembled as claimed" and "none of [the claimed] steps suggest any
procedure which would not be obvious to try or which would produce any
unexpected results." Ans. 4. The Examiner's rejection is based on the
conclusory statement that it would have been obvious to perform the steps of
method claim 2 "for the apparatus to be assembled as claimed," and lacks
articulated reasoning with rational underpinning that explains why the
claimed method steps must take place to align printing cylinders during a
cutoff change. See id. Accordingly, we cannot sustain the Examiner's
rejection of independent claim 2, or dependent claims 19 and 20.
CONCLUSION
Appellants have persuaded us of error in the Examiner's decision to
reject claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-20
is reversed.
REVERSED
7