Ex Parte Ganapathiappan et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 29, 2016

12693326 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/693,326 01125/2010 22879 7590 03/02/2016 HP Inc, 3390 E. Harmony Road Mail Stop 35 FORT COLLINS, CO 80528-9544 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Sivapackia Ganapathiappan 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. 82260806 3828 EXAMINER LEE,DORISL ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1764 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/02/2016 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): ipa.mail@hp.com barbl@hp.com yvonne.bailey@hp.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Exparte SIVAPACKIA GANAPATHIAPPAN, HOUT. NG, and HOW ARD S. TOM Appeal2014-009659 Application 12/693,326 Technology Center 1700 Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, CATHERINE Q. TIMM, and JENNIFER R. GUPTA, Administrative Patent Judges. GUPTA, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal2014-009659 Application 12/693,326 Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134, Appellants 1 appeal from the Examiner's decision2 finally rejecting claims 1-3, 5-8, 17, 18, and 20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We AFFIRM. The appealed claims are directed to a polymer-coated pigment composition (independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2, 3, 5-8) and an ink composition (independent claim 17 and dependent claims 18 and 20). Claim 1 is illustrative: 1. A polymer-coated pigment composition comprising: (a) at least one organic pigment selected from the group consisting of perylenes, phthalo green, phthalo blue, nitroso pigments, monoazo pigments, diazo pigments, diazo condensation pigments, basic dye pigments, alkali blue pigments, blue lake pigments, phloxin pigments, quinacridone pigments, lake pigments of acid yellow 1 and 3, carbazole dioxazine violet pigments, alizarine lake pigments, vat pigments, phthaloxy amine pigments, carmine lake pigments, tetrachloroisoindolinone pigments, anthraquinones, phthalocyanine blues; phthalocyanine greens; pyranthrones; heterocyclic yellows, bisindolidione pigments, and (thio )indigoid pigments, wherein the heterocyclic yellows are selected from the group consisting of Pigment Yell ow 1, Pigment Yell ow 3, Pigment Yellow 12, Pigment Yellow 13, Pigment Yellow 14, Pigment Yellow 17, Pigment Yellow 65, Pigment Yellow 73, Pigment Yellow 7 4, Pigment Yellow 151, Pigment Yell ow 117, Pigment Yellow 128, and Pigment Yellow 138; and (b) a coating layer non-covalently attached to an outer surface of the organic pigment, wherein the coating layer comprises at least one metal oxide or metalloid oxide and a polymer covalently attached to an outer surface of the metal oxide or the metalloid 1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Hewlett-Packard Development Company, LP. Appeal Brief filed December 10, 2013 ("App. Br."), 3. 2 Final Office Action mailed September 9, 2013 ("Final"). 2 Appeal2014-009659 Application 12/693,326 oxide, the polymer having a UV absorber or light stabilizing dispersed therein. App. Br. 18 (Claims Appendix). Claims 1-3, 5-8, 17, 18, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Ganapathiappan (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0250971 Al, published October 16, 2008) in view oflchizawa et al. ("Ichizawa") (U.S. Patent No. 6,368,397 Bl, issued April 9, 2002), and Dyllick-Brenzinger et al. ("Dyllick-Brenzinger") (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0058430 Al, published March 16, 2006). Final 2. Appellants do not present separate arguments in support of patentability of claim 17 or any of the dependent claims. See App. Br. 11- 16. Accordingly, independent claim 17, and dependent claims 2, 3, 5-8, 18, and 20 stand or fall with independent claim 1. We sustain the above rejection for the reasons well stated by the Examiner in the Answer with the following comments added for emphasis. Appellants' argument that Ganapathiappan and Ichizawa contain no teaching or suggestion for the Examiner's proposed combination lacks convincing merit. See App. Br. 14--15. As the Examiner correctly finds, Ganapathiappan's ink composition is open to any pigment (Ganapathiappan i-f 7) and Ichizawa teaches typical pigments used in ink compositions (Ichizawa col. 6, 11. 55---60). Ans. 6. The findings support the Examiner's obviousness determination because the proposed combination of the Ganapathiappan and Ichizawa ingredients is nothing more than the predictable use of these ingredients according to their established functions. See KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007) (In assessing the obviousness of claims to a combination of prior art elements, the question to 3 Appeal2014-009659 Application 12/693,326 be asked is "whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions."). Appellants' argument that the Specification (i-fi-f 4, 6, 38) provides evidence that the claimed composition exhibits unexpected results (dispersion stability and light fastness) is not persuasive. See Reply Brief filed September 3, 2014 ("Reply Br."), 5---6. The disclosure in the Specification does not identify the results as unexpected. On the record before us, only the attorney who authored the Reply Brief states that the evidence in the Specification is unexpected. Attorney argument, however, is inadequate to establish unexpected results. See In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470-71 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (reiterating that unexpected results must be established by factual evidence and that an attorney's statement is insufficient to establish unexpected results). For the above reasons, we affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-3, 5-8, 17, 18, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(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). AFFIRMED 4