Ex Parte ARUGA et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardOct 25, 2018

13534520 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 25, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/534,520 06/27/2012 27572 7590 10/29/2018 HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. P.O. BOX 828 BLOOMFIELD HILLS, MI 48303 UNITED ST A TES OF AMERICA FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Tomohiro ARUGA 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. 9319S-003455 7403 EXAMINER VALENCIA, ALEJANDRO ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2853 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/29/2018 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): troymailroom@hdp.com sto-ptomail@hdp.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte TOMOHIRO ARUGA and DAISUKE ISHIHARA Appeal 2018-002164 Application 13/534,520 Technology Center 2800 Before KAREN M. HASTINGS, JAMES C. HOUSEL, and JEFFREY R. SNAY, Administrative Patent Judges. SNAY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL 1 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants2 filed an appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 3, 4, and 20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We AFFIRM. 1 Our Decision refers to the Specification filed June 27, 2012 ("Spec."); the Final Office Action dated May 11, 2017 ("Final Act."); Appellants' Appeal Brief filed August 21, 201 7 ("Appeal Br."), the Examiner's Answer dated October 20, 2017 ("Ans."), and the Appellants' Reply Brief filed December 19, 2017 ("Reply Br."). 2 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Seiko Epson Corporation. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal2018-002164 Application 13/534,520 The subject matter on appeal relates to a liquid droplet discharge apparatus (see, e.g., claim 4). The Inventors state that pigment ink and dye ink can be mixed when they are both used during image recording and this can lead to pigment aggregation and diminished pigment dispersibility. Spec. ,r,r 4, 6. According to the Inventors, cleaning nozzle surfaces via a wiping member has been used in some cases but pigment aggregation can still lead to blockage of nozzle holes. Id. ,r 4. The Inventors disclose a liquid droplet discharge apparatus that provides discharge stability even when pigment ink and dye ink are mixed. Id. ,r 7. Specifically, the Inventors state that when the limiting equivalent conductivity of metallic ions generated from a dye is higher than the average limiting equivalent conductivity of metallic ions generated from a pigment, the conductivity of the periphery of pigment particles is increased when a pigment ink and dye ink are mixed and aggregation occurs. Id. ,r 45. Conversely, the Inventors state the conductivity of the periphery of pigment particles is difficult to increase when the limiting equivalent conductivity of metallic ions for a dye is lower than the limiting equivalent conductivity of the metallic ions for a pigment. Id. ,r 46. In view of this, the Inventors disclose wiping a liquid droplet discharge apparatus such that pigment ink nozzle arrays are wiped first and dye ink nozzle arrays are wiped in order of ascending conductivity. Id. ,r,r 126-127. Independent claim 4 is illustrative and is reproduced below from the Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief. Limitations at issue are italicized. 4. A liquid droplet discharge apparatus comprising: a head, the head being provided with a nozzle surface; a plurality of nozzle arrays including a first nozzle array and a plurality of second nozzle arrays arranged on the nozzle 2 Appeal2018-002164 Application 13/534,520 surface, each of the first and second nozzle arrays having a plurality of nozzle holes which are arranged in a predetermined pattern, the first nozzle array operable to discharge a pigment ink which contains water and a pigment, and the second nozzle arrays each operable to discharge a dye ink which contains water and a dye; and a wiper for wiping the nozzle surface, wherein the pigment of the pigment ink and the dye of the dye ink each include metallic salt structures, and a limiting equivalent conductivity of metallic ions generated from the pigment is greater than a limiting equivalent conductivity of metallic ions generated from the dye, wherein a conductivity [E1 (mS/cm)] of the pigment ink is in the range of 1.0 to 2.0 mS/cm, and a conductivity [E2 (mS/cm)] of the dye ink is in the range of 2.0 to 5.0 mS/cm, wherein a relationship between the conductivity [E 1 (mS/cm)] of the pigment ink and the conductivity [E2 (mS/cm)] of the dye ink is expressed by the formula O<(E2-E1):S3, wherein the first and each of the second nozzle arrays are wiped in an order based on an ascending conductivity of the inks discharged therefrom, and after a printing operation, the first nozzle array is wiped by the wiper before each of the second nozzle arrays. REJECTIONS ON APPEAL I. Claims 3 and 4 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over Ichizawa3 in view ofMalhotra,4 Goto, 5 and Morikoshi; 6 and 3 Ichizawa et al., US 2004/0257420 Al, published December 23, 2004 ("Ichizawa"). 4 Malhotra et al., US 5,709,737 A, issued January 20, 1998 ("Malhotra"). 5 Goto et al., US 7,281,789 B2, issued October 16, 2007 ("Goto"). 6 Morikoshi, US 2005/0190215 Al, published September 1, 2005 ("Morikoshi"). 3 Appeal2018-002164 Application 13/534,520 II. Claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ichizawa in view of Malhotra, Goto, and Morikoshi and further in view of Arai. 7 DISCUSSION Rejection I Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ichizawa in view of Malhotra, Goto, and Morikoshi. The Examiner finds Ichizawa discloses a liquid droplet discharge apparatus including a head having a nozzle surface, a first nozzle array operable to discharge a pigment ink, and a plurality of second nozzle arrays operable to discharge dye inks. Final Act. 2-3. The Examiner finds Ichizawa does not disclose a single head including the recited nozzle arrays or the recited wiper but finds Morikoshi discloses these limitations. Id. at 5. The Examiner concludes it would have been obvious to modify Ichizawa's device in view of Morikoshi as a matter of combining prior art elements according to known methods, because a wiper was known to maintain the condition of a print head, and because Morikoshi' s single head construction would have reduced the footprint of a printer carriage, reduced the space needed for reciprocation, and reduced the overall footprint of a printer. Id. at 5---6. Appellants do not dispute these findings or conclusions, which address the basic structures recited in claim 4. Appeal Br. 6-14. Appellants contend the combination of the applied references does not disclose or 7 Arai et al., US 5,381,169 A, issued JanuarylO, 1995 ("Arai"). 4 Appeal2018-002164 Application 13/534,520 suggest wiping nozzle arrays in an order of ascending conductivity of inks discharged from the nozzles and, after a printing operation, wiping a first nozzle array before each of the second nozzle arrays, as recited in claim 4, and that there would not have been a reason to combine the applied references to meet these recitations. Id.; Reply Br. 4--7. The Examiner replies by concluding the disputed recitations of claim 4 ( directed to the wiping order of the nozzles) regard the manner of operating the claimed device, which do not structurally distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. Ans. 3. Appellants respond to the Examiner as follows: Appellants respectfully submit, however, that in order for the first nozzle array and each of the second nozzle arrays to be wiped in an order that is based on an ascending conductivity of the inks discharged therefrom, the nozzle lines must be arranged in a specific structural order that is not disclosed by the combination of prior art references. Reply Br. 4. Appellants' arguments are unpersuasive. The recited wiping sequence stems from the order in which the various inks are supplied to the nozzle arrays. As indicated by the embodiment depicted in Appellants' Figures 1 and 2, such a sequence can be accomplished, for example, via an ink cartridge 3 having independent ink cartridges 3a-3d for a pigment ink and dye inks that are in communication with separate nozzle arrays 16A-16D. See Spec. ,r,r 104, 111. Claim 4 does not recite ink sources. Rather, the structure recited in claim 4 regards the recited wiper and nozzle arrays which, in use, dispense inks. 5 Appeal2018-002164 Application 13/534,520 Appellants do not dispute that the apparatus suggested by the combined teachings of Ichizawa and Morikoshi would have been capable of accommodating different inks or ink cartridges in an arrangement that, in use, would have satisfied the wiping sequence recited in claim 4. Indeed, Ichizawa discloses that its method is not limited to a particular printing machine configuration (i.e., a particular order for ink heads or nozzles) (Ichizawa ,r 120). Although Morikoshi discloses a particular order for its inks (Morikoshi ,r 134), we do not view Morikoshi's disclosure as teaching away from other arrangements of ink. Also, Goto discloses that an ink cartridge containing a black ink (i.e., a pigment ink) and ink cartridges respectively containing a yellow ink, a magenta ink, and a cyan ink (i.e., dye inks) are installed on a print carriage for a print head. Goto 11: 15-22. In other words, the prior art demonstrates it was known to use replaceable ink cartridges with a print head, such as cartridges having inks in various orders. In light of the foregoing, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner's determination that the apparatus suggested by Ichizawa and Morkoshi would have been capable of performing the recited wiping sequence. Appellants do not argue claim 3 separately from claim 4. Appeal Br. 14. For these reasons and those set forth in the Examiner's Answer, we sustain the Examiner'sÂ§ 103(a) rejection of claims 3 and 4. Rejection II Appellants do not present separate arguments for claim 20. As discussed above, Appellants have not identified a reversible error in the 6 Appeal2018-002164 Application 13/534,520 rejection of claim 4. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner'sÂ§ I03(a) rejection of claim 20. 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. Â§ 1.136(a). AFFIRMED 7