Ex Parte Flint et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 30, 201410986491 (P.T.A.B. May. 30, 2014) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE 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. 10/986,491 11/10/2004 W. Toriran Flint DAY 0812 PA/40195.897 5649 7590 05/30/2014 DINSMORE & SHOHL LLP One Dayton Centre Suite 1300 One South Main Street Dayton, OH 45402-2023 EXAMINER MARINI, MATTHEW G ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2854 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/30/2014 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 ______________ Ex parte W. TORIRAN FLINT and RICHARD CZERNER ________________ Appeal 2012-002818 Application 10/986,491 Technology Center 2800 ________________ Before, CHUNG K. PAK, LINDA M. GAUDETTE, and DONNA M. PRAISS, Administrative Patent Judges. PAK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1, 4, 5, 10, 11, 14 through 16, 20 through 24, 27, 28, 30, and 34 through 36,1 all of the claims pending in the above-identified application. 2 We have jurisdiction pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6. 1 Although both the Examiner and Appellants identify claims 37 through 46 as part of this appeal, they do not refer to any rejection directed to such claims in the Answer and the Appeal Brief. (See Appeal Brief filed June 13, 2011 (“App. Br.”) at 2 and 7 and the Examiner’s Answer mailed August 30, 2011 (“Ans.”) at 3, 4, and 9.) No such claims were mentioned in the Final Office action mailed on January 19, 2011 as well. 2 “The real party in interest . . . is Day International, Inc.” (See App. Br. 1.) Appeal 2012-002818 Application 10/986,491 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The subject matter on appeal is directed to in general to a printing blanket construction, and more particularly, to an improved printing blanket which reduces printing gap, which reduces the impact forces on the leading edge of the blanket, and which prevents the penetration of ink, solvents, moisture and the like into the blanket plies during use. (Spec. 1, ll. 9-12.) Figures 1, 3, and 4, which are embodiments embraced by the appealed subject matter, are reproduced below: Figures 1, 3, and 4 are “a cross-sectional view of a printing blanket construction [10] having a contoured leading edge[,]” “a cross-sectional view of the printing blanket construction [10] mounted on a blanket cylinder [32] in an offset printing operation[,]” and “a cross sectional view of a printing blanket construction [having a stair-stepped leading edge with an optional sealant,]” respectively. (Id. at 5, ll. 25-29, 6, ll. 1-4 and 8, ll. 15-19.) The printing blanket construction includes printing blanket 12 comprising leading and trailing edges 14 and 16 defined by top, intermediate, and bottom plies 18, 20, and 22 directly attached to non-extensible backing ply 24. (Id. at 6, ll. 11-25 and Figs. 1 and 3.) According to Appellants: Appeal 2012-002818 Application 10/986,491 3 By “leading edge,” we mean that edge of the blanket which, when mounted on a rotating blanket cylinder, is the edge that first enters the nip between the blanket cylinder and printing cylinder. By “trailing edge,” we mean the edge of the blanket opposite the leading edge. [(Spec. 6, ll. 13-16.)] Printing blanket 12 has a printing gap. “By ‘printing gap’ it is meant the distance between the leading and trailing edges when mounted on a blanket cylinder.” (Spec. 7, ll. 10-11.) Details of the appealed subject matter are recited in illustrative independent claims 1, 20, and 34 reproduced below from the Claims Appendix to the Appeal Brief (emphasis added): 1. In combination, a printing blanket construction mounted on a blanket cylinder which includes a gap; said printing blanket construction comprising: a printing blanket comprising at least a top ply, a bottom ply and a non-extensible backing ply; said blanket having leading and trailing edges which face one another across a printing gap on said blanket cylinder, said leading and trailing edges including said top and bottom plies; wherein at least a portion of said leading edge of said top ply has been removed or molded across the width of said printing blanket to form a stair-stepped edge, a beveled edge, or a combination stair-stepped and beveled edge; wherein the leading edge of said bottom ply extends beyond the bevel or stair-step of the leading edge of said top ply; and wherein said modified leading edge reduces impact forces on said leading edge during printing. 20. A method of making a printing blanket construction comprising: providing a printing blanket comprising at least a top ply and a bottom ply; said blanket having leading and trailing edges which are adapted to face one another across a printing gap when said printing blanket is mounted onto a blanket cylinder; adhering at least said leading and trailing edges of said printing blanket directly to a non-extensible backing ply; and Appeal 2012-002818 Application 10/986,491 4 removing or molding at least a portion of said leading edge of said top ply or said top and bottom plies across the width of said printing blanket to form a curved contoured edge, a stair-stepped edge, a beveled edge, or a combination stair-stepped and beveled edge such that the leading edge of said bottom ply extends beyond the beginning of the contour, stair-step or bevel of the leading edge of said top ply; and wherein said modified leading edge reduces impact forces on said leading edge during printing. 34. In combination, a printing blanket construction mounted on a blanket cylinder which includes a gap, said printing blanket construction comprising: a printing blanket comprising at least a top ply, a bottom ply and a non-extensible backing ply; said blanket having leading and trailing edges, said leading and trailing edges including said top and bottom plies; wherein at least a portion of said leading edge of said top ply has been removed or molded to form a curved contoured edge such that the leading edge of said bottom ply extends beyond the beginning of the contour of the leading edge of said top ply; wherein the angle formed by said contoured leading edge is from about 15 to about 45 degrees from horizontal and wherein the distance between said contoured leading edge and the beginning of the contour is from about 0.20 mm to about 0.80 mm. The following grounds of rejection maintained by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer are before us on appeal: 1) Claims 1, 4, 5, 10, 11, 14, 15, and 34 through 36 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(e) as unpatentable over Puschnerat ’630 3 in view of Puschnerat ’194;4 and 3 U.S. Patent 5,732,630 issued to Puschnerat et al. on March 31, 1998 (“Puschnerat ’630”). 4 U.S. Patent 5,934,194 issued to Puschnerat et al. on August 10, 1999 (“Puschnerat ’194”). Appeal 2012-002818 Application 10/986,491 5 2) Claims 16, 20 through 24, 27, 28, and 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Puschnerat ’630 in view of Puschnerat ’194 and Castelli.5 DISCUSSION Upon consideration of the evidence and arguments in this record, we determine that the preponderance of evidence only supports the Examiner’s conclusion that the subject matter defined by claims 1, 10, 14 through 16, 20 through 24, 27, 28, 30, and 35 is unpatentable over the combination of the applied prior art references. Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s § 103(a) rejections of claims 1, 10, 14 through 16, 20 through 24, 27, 28, 30, and 35 for the reasons set forth in the Answer, but reverse the Examiner’s § 103(a) rejection of claims 4, 5, 11, 34, and 36 for the reasons set forth at page 13 of the Appeal Brief. We add the following primarily for emphasis and completeness. As evidence of obviousness of the subject matter defined by claims 1, 10, 14 through 16, 20 through 24, 27, 28, 30, and 35, the Examiner relies upon Puschnerate ‘630 to show a printing blanket construction mounted on a blanket cylinder and a method of making the same. Figures 6 and 7 of Puschnerat ’630 referred to by the Examiner and Appellants are reproduced below: 5 U.S. Patent 5,749,298 issued to Castelli et al. on May 12, 1998 (“Castelli”). Appeal 2012-002818 Application 10/986,491 6 Figures 6 and 7 of Puschnerat ’630 are side sectional and top plan views of the same rubber blanket unit on a blanket cylinder. (See Puschnerat ’630, col. 3, ll. 4-12 and col. 6, ll. 57-58 and Ans. 5.) This rubber printing blanket unit, according to Puschnerat ’630, has leading and trailing ends 7 and 8 having a combination of stair-stepped and reversed stair-stepped edges across the width of the blanket in the form of an interlocking arrangement, with a gap6 between the edges of the leading end 7 6 In one of its embodiments, Puschnerat ’630 teaches the presence of a gap between the leading and trailing ends 7 and 8 by stating that “[i]t is also possible to keep the amount ‘f’ for the tapper of the edges 44 of the tongues 42 less, in order to reduce a gap formation between the two edges 43 and 44 of the recesses and tongues, as seen in FIG. 7,” in addition to a gap illustrated in Figures 6 and 7. (Puschnerat ’630, col. 6, ll. 46-50; see App. Br. 13.) The Puschnerat ’630 disclosure of forming a reduced printing gap to no printing gap is suggestive of a printing gap of less than 3.5 mm as recited in claim 35 on appeal. Although Puschnerat ’630 further teaches that a VELCRO® or adhesive layer may be advantageously used in the gap, the claims on appeal, by virtue of using the transitional term “comprising,” do not also preclude the presence or usage of an adhesive or VELCRO® in the gap. In re Baxter, 656 F.2d 679, 686-87 (CCPA 1981) (When a claim employs the transitional term “comprising,” it is interpreted as not precluding the presence of additional ingredients and/or steps, which are not recited.) Appeal 2012-002818 Application 10/986,491 7 and the trailing end 8.7 (See Ans. 5 with Puschnerat ’630, col. 6, ll. 26-60 and Figs. 6 and 7.) The Examiner finds, and Appellants do not specifically dispute, that the combination of stair-stepped and reversed stair-stepped edges for the leading end 7 illustrated in Figures 6 and 7 of Puschnerat ’630 includes a combination of the stair-stepped and beveled8 edges formed from removing or molding at least a portion of the leading edge as recited in claims 1 and 20.9 (Compare Ans. 5 with App. Br. 7-11 and 14-15.) Although Figures 6 and 7 of Puschnerat ’630 illustrate a single layer rubber blanket having leading and trailing ends directly adhered to a support plate 2 corresponding to the non-extensible backing ply recited in claims 1 and 20, Puschnerat ’630 is not limited to such single layer rubber blanket. As correctly found by the Examiner, Puschnerat ’630 teaches that its rubber blanket having leading and trailing ends also can be made with multiple layers, e.g., two or more layers, to form a combination of stair-stepped and beveled edges of leading and trailing ends, with the bottom portion, inclusive of at least a portion of the bottom layer, extending beyond the top portion of a stair-stepped or beveled edges as shown by Figures 4 through 6 and required by claims 1 and 20 of the instant application. (Ans. 5 and 7 As indicated by the Examiner at pages 5 and 16 of the Answer, the Puschnerat ’630 disclosure of making its rubber blanket comprising leading and trailing ends having desired shapes implies that the rubber blanket is shaped via conventional techniques, e.g., molding, cutting and/or removing at least a portion of a rubber. 8 According to page 169 of WEBSTER’S II New Riverside University Dictionary, Houghton Mifflin Company (1994), the term “beveled” is defined as “[t]o cut at an inclination that forms an angle other than a right angle[.]” 9 Claims 1 and 20, by virtue of reciting the transitional term “comprising,” do not preclude additional shapes within the width of the rubber blanket. Baxter, 656 F.2d at 686-87. Appeal 2012-002818 Application 10/986,491 8 Puschnerat ’630, col. 7, ll. 51-53.) Thus, the Examiner’s further reliance on Puschnerat ’194 to show a multiple layer printer blanket design is redundant and unnecessary. Appellants separately contend that there is no apparent reason to employ a sealant on at least one of the leading and trailing edges of the rubber blanket taught by Puschnerat ’630 as recited in claims 16 and 27. We do not agree. As correctly found by the Examiner, Castelli teaches employing a sealant when more than one layer is used to construct a printing blanket to prevent various printing fluids, such as ink, water, or solvent from penetrating the adhesively attached multiple layers of the printing blanket. (Ans. 9 and Castelli, col. 7, ll. 59-67.) In other words, Castelli recognizes that an adhesive material, inclusive of the adhesive used in the gap of Puschnerat ’630, does not prevent the penetration of fluid, such as ink and solvent. Thus, we concur with the Examiner that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to employ the sealant taught by Castelli in forming the multilayered printing blanket suggested by Puschnerat ’630, with a reasonable expectation of further preventing ink, water, or solvent from penetrating the adhesively attached multiple layers. Appellants also separately contend that there is no apparent reason to grind a portion of the leading and trailing edges of the rubber printing blanket suggested by Puschnerat ’630 as required by claims 21 through 24, 28, and 30. We do not agree. As correctly found by the Examiner, Castelli teaches after attaching the blanket to the base plate, the leading and trailing edges of the blanket are ground down through at least part of the adhesive that binds blanket to the base plate to form a desired surface profile shown in its Figure 2 or buffing (grinding) an elastomeric printing face of the printing Appeal 2012-002818 Application 10/986,491 9 blanket to obtain a desired surface roughness profile to improve print quality and to facilitate release of the web. (See col. 5, ll. 30-42 and col. 7, ll. 5-16.) Thus, we concur with the Examiner that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to employ grinding to form the desired edge profiles or desired surface roughness for the multilayered leading and trailing ends of the rubber blanket suggested by Puschnerat ’630. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 420 (2007) (“[F]amiliar items may have obvious uses beyond their primary purposes, and in many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle.”). Accordingly, Appellants have not identified any reversible error in the Examiner’s determination that the subject matter recited in claims 1, 10, 14 through 16, 20 through 24, 27, 28, 30, and 35 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of the applied prior art. However, the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 4, 5, 11, 34, and 36 stands on different footing. Claim 34 and its dependent claims 4, 5, 11, and 36, unlike the other claims on appeal, require the limitation “wherein the angle formed by said contoured leading edge is from about 15 to about 45 degrees from horizontal and wherein the distance between said contoured leading edge and the beginning of the contour is from about 0.20 mm to about 0.80 mm.” Appellants contend that the Examiner has not demonstrated that Puschnerat ’630 and/or ’194 teach or would have suggested such claimed angle and length of the contour of the contoured leading edge. (App. Br. 13.) Although the Examiner attempts to derive the angle and length of the contour of the leading edge recited in claims 4, 5, 11, 34, and 36 from the Appeal 2012-002818 Application 10/986,491 10 rubber blanket depicted in Figure 1 of Puschnerat ’630, with or without its disclosure of a thickness of 5 mm, the Examiner does not identify any disclosure in Puschnerat ’630 which indicates that the rubber blanket depicted in Figure 1 of Puschnerat ’630 is drawn to a precise scale. (Ans. 7- 8.) “[I]t is well established that patent drawings do not define the precise proportions of the elements and may not be relied on to show particular sizes if the specification is completely silent on the issue.” Hockerson- Halberstadt, Inc. v. Avia Group Int'l, Inc., 222 F.3d 951, 956 (Fed. Cir. 2000); In re Olson, 212 F.2d 590, 592 (CCPA 1954) (“Ordinarily drawings which accompany an application for a patent are merely illustrative of the principles embodied in the alleged invention claimed therein and do not define the precise proportions of elements relied upon to endow the claims with patentability.”) In other words, the Examiner has not shown that Puschnerat ‘630 teaches or would have suggested the limitation “wherein the angle formed by said contoured leading edge is from about 15 to about 45 degrees from horizontal and wherein the distance between said contoured leading edge and the beginning of the contour is from about 0.20 mm to about 0.80 mm” in claims 4, 5, 11, 34, and 36. Accordingly, Appellants have identified reversible error in the Examiner’s determination that the subject matter recited in claims 4, 5, 11, 34, and 36 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of the applied prior art. ORDER In view of the foregoing, we affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 10, 14 through 16, 20 through 24, 27, 28, 30, and 35 under Appeal 2012-002818 Application 10/986,491 11 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), and reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 4, 5, 11, 34, and 36 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1). AFFIRMED-IN-PART bar Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation