Ex Parte Albertin et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 8, 2016

13516597 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 8, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/516,597 06/15/2012 7055 7590 06/10/2016 GREENBLUM & BERNSTEIN, PLC 1950 ROLAND CLARKE PLACE RESTON, VA 20191 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Alberto Albertin 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. P45002 9361 EXAMINER KONCZAL, MICHAEL THOMAS ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2853 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/10/2016 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): gbpatent@gbpatent.com greenblum.bernsteinplc@gmail.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Exparte ALBERTO ALBERTIN and SILVANO TORI Appeal2014-009180 Application 13/516,597 Technology Center 2800 Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., HUNG H. BUI, and DANIEL N. FISHMAN, Administrative Patent Judges. BUI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants 1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1-18. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We AFFIRM.2 1 According to Appellants, the Real Party in Interest is SICP A HOLDING SA. App. Br. 2. 2 Our Decision refers to Appellants' Appeal Brief filed May 7, 2014 ("App. Br."); Reply Brief filed August 20, 2014 ("Reply Br."); Examiner's Answer mailed June 20, 2014 ("Ans."); Final Office Action mailed December 10, 2013 ("Final Act."); and original Specification filed June 15, 2012 ("Spec."). Appeal2014-009180 Application 13/516,597 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants' Invention Appellants' invention relates to a protection device for ink-jet printheads. Spec. 1 :5---6; Abstract. Claim 1 is independent and is illustrative of Appellants' invention, as reproduced below: 1. A protection device for ink-jet printheads comprising: a tank confining a cavity and having a mouth to receive at least one nozzle of an ink-jet printhead; a hydrogel composition confined in said cavity and comprising a hydrophilic composition and a humidifYing liquid; a seal disposed around the mouth to sealingly engage the printhead around said at least one nozzle; and a mechanism integrated into the tank to open and close said mouth to selectively bring said mouth into fluid communication with the cavity. App. Br. 21 (Claims App'x) (disputed limitations in italics). Examiner's Rejection Claims 1-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mun et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2010/0171789 Al; issued July 8, 2010) ("Mun") and Long (U.S. Patent 6,820,970 B2; issued Nov. 23, 2004). Final Act. 2---6. Issue on Appeal Based on Appellants' arguments, the dispositive issue on appeal is whether the combination of Mun and Long teaches all limitations of Appellants' independent claim 1, including: (1) "a mouth to receive at least one nozzle of an ink-jet printhead" and (2) "a hydrogel composition 2 Appeal2014-009180 Application 13/516,597 confined in said cavity and comprising a hydrophilic composition and a humidifying liquid." App. Br. 8-19; Reply Br. 2-13. ANALYSIS With respect to independent claim 1, the Examiner finds Mun discloses a protection device for ink-jet print heads, shown in Figures 3A and 3B, provided with all the claimed structure including: a tank (12) confining a cavity and having a mouth (shown at periphery of cap 11) to receive at least one nozzle of an ink-jet printhead (21; FIGS. 1, 3B). Final Act. 2-3 (citing Mun i-fi-132-35, Figs. 1, 3A-3B) (emphasis added). Mun's Figure 3B is reproduced below with additional markings, inserted in red, for illustration. FIG. 3B I \ / i ,Â·lb 'l "'<~ .. / Mun's Figure 3B shows a protection device 10 for an ink-jet print head 20. 3 Appeal2014-009180 Application 13/516,597 The Examiner acknowledges Mun does not teach "a hydrogel composition confined in [said] cavity and comprising a hydrophilic composition and a humidifying liquid." Id. at 2. The Examiner then relies on Long for teaching this feature in order to support the conclusion of obviousness, i.e., "to incorporate the hydrogel and hydrophilic compositions taught by Long into the structure taught by Mun in order to take advantage of the moisture-retaining properties of the material in a predictable way to maintain humidity in the protection device." Id. at 2-3 (citing Long 5:35- 54, 5:66-6:11; Fig. 2B). Appellants dispute the Examiner's factual findings regarding Mun and Long. First, Appellants argue Mun does not disclose "a mouth [included in a tank or storage unit] to receive at least one nozzle of an ink-jet printhead" as recited in Appellants' independent claim 1. App. Br. 10-13; Reply Br. 2- 7. According to Appellants, the cap 11, as shown in Mun's Figure 3B and allegedly relied on by the Examiner, does not correspond to Appellants' claimed "mouth [included in a tank or storage unit] to receive at least one nozzle of an ink-jet printhead" because "the cap 11 of MUM is separated from storage unit 12" and "MUN fails to suggest that cap 11 forms the mouth of storage unit 12, which stores the liquid to supply the humidity to the space between cap 11 and printer head 20." App. Br. 12; Reply Br. 5-7. Similarly, Appellants argue "no other structure disclosed by MUN" including "connection holes I la, 12a" shown in Mun's Figure 3B, corresponds to Appellants' claimed "mouth [included in a tank or storage unit] to receive at least one nozzle of an ink-jet printhead" because none of these structures including Mun' s "connection holes 11 a, 12a" "receive at 4 Appeal2014-009180 Application 13/516,597 least one nozzle of an ink-jet printhead" as recited in Appellants' independent claim 1. App. Br. 11-12; Reply Br. 2---6. Second, Appellants acknowledge Long teaches the use of "hydrophilic foam and gel of pullulan as alternatives for forming absorbent material 41 within ink removal channel 40." App. Br. 15. However, Appellants argue ( 1) "the Examiner has not identified ... both hydrophilic foam and gel of pullulan are used together" (id.) and (2) Long's accumulated ink 46 is not Appellants' claimed "humidifying liquid." App. Br. 15-16; Reply Br. 7-11. Appellants' arguments are unpersuasive. At the outset, we agree that Mun's cap 11 alone, as shown in Mun's Figure 3B, does not correspond to Appellants' claimed "mouth [included in a tank or storage unit] to receive at least one nozzle of an ink-jet printhead," as Appellants argue. App. Br. 12; Reply Br. 6-7. However, the Examiner does not rely on Mun's cap 11 alone for teaching that feature. Rather, the Examiner relies on the "periphery of cap 11" as shown in Mun's Figure 3B, including connection holes I la, 12b, which create an opening to a tank or storage unit 12, and those connection holes I la, 12a (i.e., openings) are arranged to receive a nozzle chip 21 of an ink-jet printhead 20, via a pin valve 14, shown in Mun's Figure 3B. Final Act. 2 (citing Mun's Figs. 1, 3B) (emphasis added). During examination, we note claim terms are given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The term "humidifying liquid" is not expressly defined and is only described as "water for example, possibly added with chemical bactericidal, fungicidal and the like agents" (Spec. 11:8-10) and, as such, can be broadly construed to 5 Appeal2014-009180 Application 13/516,597 encompass Mun's "accumulated ink" including water. Similarly, the term "mouth" in the context of Appellants' claimed invention is nothing more than an opening to a tank or storage unit (see Appellants' Figs. 3---6) and, as such, can be broadly construed to encompass an opening created by connection holes I la, 12a and supported by pin valve 14, to receive a nozzle chip 21 of an ink-jet printhead 20, as shown in Mun's Figure 3B. Moreover, and contrary to Appellants' arguments, the Examiner finds, and we agree, that Long expressly teaches the use of "hydrophilic form" and "gel of pullulan" both in the alternative and in combination for forming absorbent material. Ans. 10 (citing Long 5:35---6:35). As also recognized by the Examiner, "gel of pullulan" is a hydro gel composition and hydrocolloid polymers are hydrophilic polymers. Id. For the reasons set forth above, Appellants have not demonstrated the Examiner erred. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of claim 1 and its dependent claims 2-18 not separately argued with particularity. App. Br. 17. Appellants also argue for the first time in the Reply Brief separate patentability of dependent claims 2, 4, and 6. Reply Br. 12-13. However, these arguments are untimely and will not be considered in the absence of any good faith showing why it could not have been timely presented in Appellants' Appeal Brief. 37 C.F.R. Â§ 41.41(b)(2) (2013); see also Ex parte Borden, 93 USPQ2d 1473, 1473-74 (BPAI 2010) (informative) (absent a showing of good cause, the Board is not required to address argument in Reply Brief that could have been presented in the principal Appeal Brief). 6 Appeal2014-009180 Application 13/516,597 CONCLUSION On the record before us, we conclude Appellants have demonstrated the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-18 under 3 5 U.S. C. Â§ 1 0 3 (a). No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 7