Ex Parte ShigetaDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 6, 201813639036 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 6, 2018) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/639,036 10/02/2012 23872 7590 08/06/2018 MCGLEW & TUTTLE, PC P.O. BOX 9227 SCARBOROUGH STATION SCARBOROUGH, NY 10510-9227 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Tatsuo Shigeta 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. 74314 3953 EXAMINER SA WDON, ALICIA JANE ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1781 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/06/2018 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 T ATSUO SHIGETA 1 Appeal2017-010671 Application 13/639,036 Technology Center 1700 Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, CHRISTOPHER C. KENNEDY, and MICHAEL G. McMANUS, Administrative Patent Judges. GARRIS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant appeals from the Examiner's rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 1-5, 11, and 16- 20 as unpatentable over Shigeta (US 2005/0155502 Al; July 21, 2005) in view of Mayer (US 7,350,461 B2; Apr. 1, 2008) and of claims 12-15 and 21-24 as unpatentable over these references in view of Honda (JP 2002- 172752 A; June 18, 2002, as translated). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We AFFIRM. 1 THINK LABORATORY CO. is identified as the real party in interest (App. Br. 1). Appeal2017-010671 Application 13/639,036 Appellant claims a gravure printing plate comprising FM screen cells and AM screen cells having respectively different depths (independent claims 1 and 16) as well as the printed product made thereby (remaining independent claim 11 ). A copy of representative claims 1 and 11, taken from the Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief, appears below. 1. A gravure printing plate, comprising: FM screen cells and AM screen cells which are concurrently formed in a plate surface thereof on each gray scale, wherein the FM screen cells and the AM screen cells are different in depth. 11. A product, which is obtained through printing with use of a gravure printing plate, the gravure printing plate comprising FM screen cells and AM screen cells which are concurrently formed in a plate surface thereof on each gray scale, wherein the FM screen cells and the AM screen cells are different in depth. We will sustain the Examiner's rejections for the well-stated reasons given in the Final Office Action and the Answer with the following comments added for emphasis and completeness. In rejecting the independent claims, the Examiner finds that Shigeta does not disclose the AM and FM screen cells as having the claimed feature of different depths (Final Action 3) but that Mayer teaches engraving different depths for screen cells in order to vary the perceived tone within a printed area (id. at 3--4). The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to provide Shigeta's AM and FM screen cells with differing depths in order to vary the perceived tone as taught by Mayer (id. at 4). 2 Appeal2017-010671 Application 13/639,036 Appellant argues that Shigeta teaches an engraving process cannot be used for obtaining an FM screen (App. Br. 8 (citing, e.g., Shigeta's discussion of prior art in ,r 16)) and accordingly that "the engraving process of Mayer [] only applies to the AM screen cells [ of Shigeta] and not the FM screen cells" (id. at 9). The Examiner's convincing response explains that Shigeta teaches the FM screen cannot be made by an electronic engraver but further teaches both the AM and FM screens may be formed by a laser engraving method ( Ans. 6 ( citing Shigeta ,r,r 49-50) ). The Examiner further explains that Mayer discloses using a laser engraving method for producing screen cells of differing depths such that the proposed combination of Shigeta and Mayor would have been obvious (id. at 6-7 (citing Mayer col. 4, 11. 9-16)). In reply, Appellant states "[ w ]hen Shigeta refers to a laser engraving method, Shigeta is referring to using the laser engraving method to form an AM screen since Shigeta clearly discloses that an electronic engraver cannot be used to make a[n] FM screen" (Reply Br. 2). Appellant fails to provide any support for the implicit proposition that an electronic engraver includes a laser engraving device of the type taught by Shigeta and Mayer. Moreover, Appellant's above quoted statement is contrary to Shigeta's explicit disclosure that the FM screen "is formed by ... etching or ... the laser engraving method" (Shigeta ,r 49, ,r 50 (emphasis added)). For the above-stated reasons and those given by the Examiner, Appellant's arguments do not reveal error in the independent claims 1, 11, and 16. 3 § 103(a) rejection of Appeal2017-010671 Application 13/639,036 With further regard to independent claim 11, we observe that the claimed product is defined solely as a product obtained through printing with use of a gravure printing plate having AM and FM screen cells of differing depths. Importantly, Appellant fails to argue the claimed product is distinguishable from the product of Shigeta even assuming Shigeta' s product is made using AM and FM screen cells having the same depth. Whether such a distinction exists is questionable because the different-depth recitation of claim 11 includes FM screen cells having a 10 µm depth and AM screen cells having an 11 µm depth (see, e.g., claim 5) which are very nearly the same depth dimension. Regarding dependent claims 2-5 and 17-20, the Examiner finds that Mayer's engraving method produces cells having different depths with the deeper cells having a larger surface area than the shallower cells such that the deeper and shallower cells may be construed as the claimed main cells and subcells (see, e.g., Final Action 4). Appellant argues that there is no teaching or suggestion in Mayer of providing a larger surface area to main cells when compared with a surface area of subcells (see, e.g., App. Br. 9). In response, the Examiner finds that Mayer does not explicitly define the deeper cells with a larger surface area as main cells and the shallower cells with a smaller surface area as subcells but that the structural limitations of the claimed cells are met by the deeper and shallower cells of Mayer (Ans. 7). We agree with the Examiner's finding and emphasize that Appellant does not dispute this finding in the Reply Brief. In rejecting dependent claims 12-15 and 21-24 over Shigeta, Mayer, and Honda, the Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to 4 Appeal2017-010671 Application 13/639,036 provide the Shigeta/Mayer combination with a reinforcement coating layer of the type taught by Honda to improve wear resistance (Final Action 7). Appellant contests this rejection by arguing that Honda contains no teaching or suggestion of AM and FM screen cells having main cells and subcells (see, e.g., App. Br. 22). The Examiner correctly explains that Appellant's argument is unpersuasive because it attacks Honda individually rather than the applied combination of references (Ans. 8 (citing In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1986))). As above, we emphasize that Appellant fails to challenge or even acknowledge the Examiner's explanation in the Reply Brief. Because Appellant does not show reversible error on the Examiner's part, we sustain the§ 103(a) rejections before us in this appeal. DECISION The decision of the Examiner is affirmed. 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 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation