HP SCITEX LTD.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 23, 2021

2020002843 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 23, 2021)

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.
15/938,164 03/28/2018 Alex Veis 84936403 9936
22879 7590 03/23/2021
HP Inc.
3390 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 35
Fort Collins, CO 80528-9544
EXAMINER
ZIMMERMAN, JOSHUA D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2853
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/23/2021 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
jessica.pazdan@hp.com
yvonne.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 2020-002843
Application 15/938,164
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before JEFFREY T. SMITH, MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, and
MERRELL C. CASHION, JR., Administrative Patent Judges.

SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–20. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as HP Scitex
Ltd., an indirectly and wholly owned subsidiary of HP Inc. (Appeal Br. 2.)
Appeal 2020-002843
Application 15/938,164

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claim 1 illustrates the subject matter on appeal and is reproduced
below:
1. A printer ink dryer system comprising:
disposed with a print apparatus, at least one non-laser,
ultraviolet light emitting diode (LED) as a light source
configured to dry a printer ink layer formed by the print
apparatus, the LED configured to dry the printer ink layer
by causing evaporation of a solvent fluid therefrom.

Appeal Br. 20, Claims Appendix.

Appellant appeals the rejection of claims 1–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over Pitz (US 2004/0200370 A1; published Oct. 14, 2004) in
view of Amao (US 2014/0132685 A1; published May 15, 2014).
OPINION2, 3
After review of the respective positions Appellant and the Examiner
provide, we reverse the Examiner’s prior art rejection under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103.
Claims 1–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Pitz in view of Amao.
The Examiner finds Pitz discloses a printer ink dryer system that
differs from the claimed invention in that Pitz fails to disclose that the light
source is at least one ultraviolet light emitting diode (LED), but instead
discloses that the source is a laser diode (LD). (Final Act. 2; Pitz ¶ 21.) The

2 We limit our discussion to independent claim 1. Our analysis also applies
to independent claim 12.
3 The complete statement of this rejection on appeal appears in the Final
Office Action mailed August 6, 2019 (“Final Act.”). (Final Act. 2–6)
Appeal 2020-002843
Application 15/938,164

3
Examiner finds Amao discloses UV-LEDs and UV-LDs are equivalent light
sources for providing UV active rays when a UV light source is required.
(Final Act. 2; Amao ¶ 198.) The Examiner determines it would have been
obvious to use an LED instead of the LD in Pitz’s method because they have
been shown to be equivalents for the purpose of providing UV active rays.
(Final Act. 2–3.)
Appellant argues neither Pitz nor Amao teach or suggest the idea of
irradiating the printing substance with a non-laser LED to cause evaporation
of solvent fluid therefrom. (Appeal Br. 9–10; Reply Br. 5–6.) Appellant
argues Pitz and Amao are not using UV light for the same purpose. (Appeal
Br. 6.) Appellant argues Amao describes an air blower, entirely separate
from the UV photo-polymerization, for drying an ink composition. (Appeal
Br. 10; Reply Br. 6.)
We agree with Appellant that there is reversible error in the
Examiner’s determination of obviousness.
Pitz’s invention is directed to a printing press having the advantages
of a laser light source. (Pitz ¶ 2.) Pitz is directed to a method for drying
printing ink in a printing press using light from a narrow-band radiant
energy source. (Pitz ¶ 11.) Pitz discloses the light source is preferably a
laser light source, preferably a semiconductor laser diode (LD). (Pitz ¶ 21.)
Pitz discloses advantages of the laser light source include tuneability of the
laser output wavelength and regulation of the energy input at various
positions of the printing substrate. (Pitz ¶¶ 21, 23.) Pitz does not disclose
an ultraviolet light emitting diode (LED) is a suitable light source.
Amao’s ultraviolet ray irradiation zone cures the polymerizable
compound in the ink composition and does not dry ink or evaporate solvent.
Appeal 2020-002843
Application 15/938,164

4
(Amao, ¶ 194.) Amao teaches an ink drying zone that is separate from the
ultraviolet ray irradiation zone. (Amao ¶ 278.) The Examiner has not
identified teachings in Amao that disclose ultraviolet light emitting diode
(LED) is capable of operating under conditions to achieve the advantages of
a laser light source as required by Pitz.
Thus, the Examiner has not provided an adequate technical
explanation with the requisite rational underpinning of why or how one
skilled in the art, absent impermissible hindsight, would have arrived at
the claimed printer ink dryer unit comprising at least one ultraviolet light
emitting diode (LED) as a light source to dry a printer ink layer, as required
by independent claim 1, from the teachings of the cited art.
For these reasons, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of 1–20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 over Pitz and Amao.

CONCLUSION
In summary:

Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–20 103 Pitz, Amao 1–20

REVERSED