HP SCITEX LTD.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 2, 2020

2020000211 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 2, 2020)

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.
15/938,128 03/28/2018 Alex Veis 84936399 1856
22879 7590 12/02/2020
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
12/02/2020 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 2020-000211
Application 15/938,128
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before JEFFREY T. SMITH, MICHAEL G. MCMANUS, 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 2020-000211
Application 15/938,128

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claim 1 illustrates the subject matter on appeal and is reproduced
below:
1. A method comprising irradiating a substrate
bearing a solvent-based printing substance comprising a
colorant with radiation to cause evaporation of solvent fluid
therefrom, comprising irradiating the printing substance with a
non-laser Light Emitting Diode (LED), wherein a waveband of
the radiation is such that heating of the solvent fluid is
substantially due to heat transfer from the colorant.

Appeal Br. 19, Claims Appendix.
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) is presented for our
review.
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 method comprising irradiating a
substrate bearing a solvent-based printing substance comprising a colorant
with radiation to cause evaporation of solvent fluid therefrom. (Final Act. 2;

2 We limit our discussion to independent claim 1. Our analysis also applies
to independent claims 11 and 16.
3 The complete statement of this rejection on appeal appears in the Final
Office Action. (Final Act. 2–6)
Appeal 2020-000211
Application 15/938,128

3
Pitz ¶ 9.) The Examiner finds 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 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.)
We agree with Appellant that there is reversible error in the
Examiner’s determination of obviousness.
Pitz’s invention is directed to printing presses 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.
Appeal 2020-000211
Application 15/938,128

4
Amao’s ultraviolet ray irradiation zone cures the polymerizable
compound in the ink composition and does not dry ink or evaporate solvent.
(Amao, ¶ 194). 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.

Appeal 2020-000211
Application 15/938,128

5
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:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–20 103 Pitz, Amao 1–20
Overall
Outcome
1–20

REVERSED