James A. Feinn et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 16, 2019

13634753 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Dec. 16, 2019)

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.
13/634,753 09/13/2012 James A. Feinn 83113650 1295
22879 7590 12/16/2019
HP Inc.
3390 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 35
FORT COLLINS, CO 80528-9544
EXAMINER
LIN, ERICA S Y
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2853
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/16/2019 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):
barbl@hp.com
ipa.mail@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 JAMES A. FEINN, DAVID P. MARKEL, ALBERT NAGAO,
PAUL A. RICHARDS, THOMAS R. STRAND, ERIK D. TORNIAINEN,
and LAWRENCE H. WHITE

Appeal 2019-001672
Application 13/634,753
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before JULIA HEANEY, MONTÉ T. SQUIRE, and
MICHAEL G. McMANUS, Administrative Patent Judges.

McMANUS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 seeks review of the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–3, 5–11, and 14–18. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.

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 Hewlett-
Packard Development Company, L.P. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2019-001672
Application 13/634,753

2

CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER

The present application, entitled “Noncircular Inkjet Nozzle,”
generally relates to inkjet printing. Spec. ¶ 1. More specifically, it describes
a nozzle for an inkjet printer having an aperture through which ink is
ejected. Id. ¶ 18. The aperture has a shape intended to “reduce velocity
differences within the ejected droplet and leverage viscous forces to prevent
the droplet from being torn apart.” Id. The Specification teaches to use
“inkjet nozzles which have a smooth profile with one or more protrusions
into the center of the nozzle aperture” to achieve such goal. Id.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal and is
reproduced below with certain limitations bolded for emphasis:
1. An inkjet nozzle comprising:
an aperture having a first segment defined by a first
polynomial equation that forms a first elliptical lobe, the
aperture further having a second segment defined by a second
polynomial equation that forms a second elliptical lobe, the
aperture having protrusions between the two elliptical lobes
extending inward to form a throat therebetween, wherein a
shape of the aperture is mathematically smooth.

Appeal Br. (Claims App. i) (emphasis added).

Appeal 2019-001672
Application 13/634,753

3
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art:
Name Reference Date
Murakami et al.
(“Murakami”)
US 7,506,962 B2 March 24, 2009
Koizumi et al.
(“Koizumi”)
US 7,967,413 B2 June 28, 2011

REJECTIONS
The Examiner maintains the following rejections:
1. Claims 1, 2, 5, and 7–10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)
(pre-AIA) as being anticipated by Koizumi. Final Act. 2–5.
2. Claims 3, 11, and 14–18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a)
(pre-AIA) as being unpatentable over Koizumi. Id. at 6–11.
3. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) (pre-AIA) as being
unpatentable over Koizumi and Murakami. Id. at 11.

DISCUSSION
Rejection 1. The Examiner rejects claims 1, 2, 5, and 7–10 as
anticipated by Koizumi. Id. at 2–5. In support of the rejection, the
Examiner finds that Koizumi teaches “an aperture having a first segment
defined by a first polynomial equation that forms a first elliptical lobe” and
“a second segment defined by a second polynomial equation that forms a
second elliptical lobe” as required by claim 1. Id. at 2–3. The Examiner
Appeal 2019-001672
Application 13/634,753

4
finds that Figure 3 of Koizumi, reproduced below, teaches elliptical lobes.
Id.

Figure 3 “shows details of the ejection opening 100.” Koizumi, 5:45.
Koizumi teaches that the figure includes a “pair of roughly semicircular
openings 15, or first areas, situated at both ends of the ejection opening
100.” Id. at 5:48–50.
The Examiner determines that one of skill in the art would have
construed “‘elliptical’ to mean an ellipse and all ellipse-like shapes in light
of the specification defining the shape of the apertures to be a fourth order
polynomial with geometries including poly-ellipses and poly-circles as
disclosed in [paragraph 28].” Final Act. 12.
Appellant argues that the rejection of claims 1, 2, and 5 is in error
because the openings shown by Figure 3 of Koizumi are semicircular, not
elliptical. Appeal Br. 4–9. Appellant similarly argues that the openings
taught by Koizumi are not defined by a polynomial equation. Id. We
consider Appellant’s latter argument first.
Appeal 2019-001672
Application 13/634,753

5
The Article submitted by Appellant, “Topic 10, Graphing
Polynomials,” (hereafter “Graphing Polynomials”) teaches that “[a]
polynomial is a monomial or sum or terms that are all monomials” and that
“[p]olynomials can be classified by degree, the highest exponent of any
individual term in the polynomial.” Graphing Polynomials 1. The
Specification teaches that segments of a circle may be defined by an
equation of the form X2 + Y2 = R2 (where R represents the radius of the
circle). Spec. ¶ 31; see also Reply Br. 4. Because this equation has multiple
terms, it is a polynomial equation. See Graphing Polynomials 1.
Accordingly, the roughly semicircular portions of the aperture of Koizumi
are segments “defined by a first [or second] polynomial equation” as
required by claim 1.
In addition to requiring that the segments be defined by polynomial
equations, claim 1 further requires that the aperture include first and second
“elliptical lobe[s].”
The Examiner determines that “the circle is a special case of the
ellipse and derived from the same equation when the constant A is zero, and
when the entire equation is squared.” Answer 6. Accordingly, the Examiner
determines that a semicircular lobe is elliptical for purposes of the claims.
Id. at 2–3.
Appellant argues that the Examiner’s finding is contrary to the
Specification which teaches, in reference to poly-circle 220 of Figure 2, that
elliptical shapes are defined by equations of the form (DX2 + CY2 + A2)2 -
4A2X2= B4 while circular shapes are defined by equations of the form X2 +
Y2 = R2. Reply Br. 3–4. A portion of Figure 2 showing poly-circle 220 is
reproduced below.
Appeal 2019-001672
Application 13/634,753

6

Element 220 of Figure 2 depicts an exemplary noncircular nozzle aperture
geometry. Spec. ¶ 28. Poly-circle 220 is discussed in the Specification as
follows:
The poly-circle shape (220) includes an upper-left quadrant
bounded by a first segment (222), an upper-right quadrant
bounded by a second segment (224), a lower-right quadrant
bounded by a third segment (226) and a lower-left quadrant
bounded by a fourth segment (228). The first segment (222) and
fourth segment (228) are each defined by a fourth degree
polynomial equation of the general form: (DX2 + CY2 + A2)2 -
4A2X2= B4, both segments being defined using the same set of
constants (A, B, C and D). The second segment (224) and third
segment (226) are each defined by an equation of the general
form: X2 + Y2 = R2 (where R is a constant representing the radius
of a circle). Poly-circle shape (220) thus is asymmetric about the
y-axis, and is symmetric about the x-axis.

Spec. ¶ 31. Appellant argues that this portion of the Specification indicates
that “segments 222, 228 are thus examples of elliptical lobes defined by a
polynomial equation” while “segments 224 and 226 are defined by an
equation used for defining a circle.” Reply Br. 4.
Appellant, however, has not cited (nor have we located) any portion
of the Specification that sets forth either a mathematical or textual
Appeal 2019-001672
Application 13/634,753

7
description of the term “elliptical.” Nor has Appellant shown that the fourth
order equation set forth in the Specification (see, e.g., ¶ 29) coincides with
the equation for an ellipse in common use. Appellant also has not shown
error in the Examiner’s determination “that the circle is a special case of the
ellipse.” In re Berg, 320 F.3d 1310, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (Absent legal
error or contrary factual evidence, an examiner’s findings may establish a
prima facie case of obviousness.). Accordingly, we determine that
Appellant has not shown error in the Examiner’s finding that Koizumi
teaches “a first segment defined by a first polynomial equation that forms a
first elliptical lobe” and “a second segment defined by a second polynomial
equation that forms a second elliptical lobe.”
Appellant additionally argues that the rejection of claim 7 is in error.
Appeal Br. 9–11. Claim 7 depends from claim 1 and further requires that
“the first polynomial equation that forms the first elliptical lobe is a fourth
degree order polynomial equation, and the second polynomial equation that
forms the second elliptical lobe is a fourth degree order polynomial
equation.” Id. (Claims App. i).
Appellant argues that the openings taught by Koizumi are not formed
using fourth degree polynomial equations. Id. at 9.
In the Answer, the Examiner reiterates that “[u]nder the condition
where the constant A is zero and D and C are equivalent, the equation can be
squared to produce a fourth degree polynomial which results in the same
shape as the shorthand equation for a circle of equivalent radius.” Answer 7.
In its Reply Brief, Appellant merely refers back to its arguments regarding
claims 1, 2, and 5. Reply Br. 13. Appellant has not shown specific error in
the Examiner’s finding.
Appeal 2019-001672
Application 13/634,753

8
Appellant additionally argues that the rejection of claims 8–10 is in
error. Appeal Br. 11–12. Claim 8 depends from claim 1 and further requires
that “the first polynomial equation has a general form of: (DX2 + CY2 +
A2)2 -4A2X2= B4, where A, B, C and D are constants which define a shape of
the first segment.” Id. (Claims App. ii). Appellant relies upon the same
arguments as set forth with regard to claims 1, 2, and 5 and claim 7. Id. at
12 (“the semicircular openings 15 of Koizumi are not elliptical lobes defined
by a fourth degree polynomial equation.”). As we have not found such
arguments to be persuasive, we determine that Appellant has not shown
error with regard to the rejection of claims 8–10.

Rejection 2. The Examiner rejects claims 3, 11, and 14–18 as
obvious over Koizumi. Final Act. 6–11. Appellant argues that the rejection
of claims 3, 11, and 16 should be reversed for the same reasons as set forth
with regard to claims 1 and 8. Appeal Br. 12. As we have not found such
arguments to be persuasive, we determine that Appellant has not shown
error with regard to the rejection of claims 3, 11, and 16.
Appellant further argues that the rejection of claims 14, 15, 17, and 18
should be reversed. Id. at 13–14. Claim 14 is an independent claim to a
“droplet generator” comprising a “first elliptical lobe having a first cross-
sectional area, a second elliptical lobe . . . having a second cross-sectional
area that is different than the first cross sectional area.” Id. (Claims App. ii).
Appellant argues that the rejection of claim 14 should be reversed for the
reasons stated with regard to prior claims and, additionally, because
Koizumi does not teach an aperture having lobes with different cross-
sectional area.
Appeal 2019-001672
Application 13/634,753

9
In the Answer, the Examiner determines that the claim, as drafted,
does not clearly define the term “lobe.” Answer 9. The Examiner
determines that “the entirety of the lobe is not necessarily defined by the
equation” and “the cross sectional areas which would be considered as ‘a
first cross-sectional area’ and ‘a second cross sectional area’ are not defined
by the equations nor limited by the same equations.” Id. As a result, the
Examiner determines, “any cross sectional area may be selected even if it
does not encompass an entire nozzle area.” Id. at 9–10.
The Examiner’s determination, however, is not consistent with the
Specification. In the context of Figure 3, the Specification teaches that
“[t]he noncircular aperture (302) has two elliptical lobes (325-1, 325-2).”
Spec. ¶ 39. Figure 3 is reproduced below.

Appeal 2019-001672
Application 13/634,753

10
The Specification teaches that “Fig. 3 is an illustrative diagram showing a
poly-ellipse nozzle (300).” Id. ¶ 36. Similarly, in the context of Figure 3A,
the Specification teaches that “each equation defines a segment of the
aperture perimeter corresponding to one of a pair of opposed aperture lobes
(425-1, 425-2).” Id. ¶ 45. The Specification further teaches as follows:
it is to be understood that the first and second equations may
define segments which do not correspond to lobes of the
aperture. For example, the first equation may be employed to
define a segment of the aperture perimeter that is on one side of
the major axis, and the second equation may be employed to
define a segment of the aperture perimeter that is on the other
side of the major axis. Similarly, the first equation may be
employed to define segments corresponding to one or more
quadrants of the aperture perimeter, and the second equation may
be employed to define the remaining quadrants of the aperture
perimeter.

Id. ¶ 49. The Specification additionally teaches that “[t]he noncircular
aperture (302) has two elliptical lobes (325-1, 325-2). Between the elliptical
lobes (325), two protrusions (310-1, 310-2) extend toward the center of the
nozzle (300) and create a constricted throat (320).” Id. ¶ 39.
Taking the foregoing as a whole, in conjunction with the claim
language, it is apparent that a segment may correspond to only a portion of a
lobe while a lobe is the portion of the aperture on either side of the
protrusions.
In view of our construction of the term “lobe,” we do not agree with
the Examiner’s finding that Koizumi teaches lobes with differing cross
sectional areas, which is unsupported by a preponderance of the evidence.
Accordingly, Appellant has shown error in the rejection of claim 14. As
Appeal 2019-001672
Application 13/634,753

11
claims 15, 17, and 18 depend from claim 14 and are rejected, in part, on the
same basis (Final Act. 8–10), the rejection of these claims is shown to be in
error.

CONCLUSION

The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–3, 5–11, and 16 are affirmed.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 14, 15, 17, and 18 is reversed.
In summary:

Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 5, 7–10 102(b)
(pre-AIA)
Koizumi 1, 2, 5, 7–10
3, 11, 14–18 103(a)
(pre-AIA)
Koizumi 3, 11, 16 14, 15, 17,
18
6 103(a)
(pre-AIA)
Koizumi,
Murakami
6
Overall
Outcome
1–3, 5–11,
16
14, 15, 17,
18

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

AFFIRMED-IN-PART