Ex Parte Kaya et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 25, 2017

14096260 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 25, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
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.
14/096,260 12/04/2013 Mehmet Oktay Kaya 6003.1272 6353
23280 7590 08/29/2017
Davidson, Davidson & Kappel, LLC
589 8th Avenue
16th Floor
New York, NY 10018
EXAMINER
HINZE, LEO T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2854
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/29/2017 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):
ddk @ ddkpatent .com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MEHMET OKTAY KAYA,
BRIAN ROBERT ELKINSON,
and GLENN ALAN GUARALDI1
Appeal 2016-005629
Application 14/096,260
Technology Center 2800
Before JEFFREY T. SMITH, JEFFREY B. ROBERTSON,
and JANE E. INGLESE, Administrative Patent Judges.
SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the final rejection of
claims 1—17. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.
Appellants’ invention relates generally to printing presses and more
particularly to delivery of ultraviolet and electron beam inks in a printing
1 According to the Appeal Brief, the Real Party in Interest is Goss
International Americas, Inc. (App. Br. 2.)
Appeal 2016-005629
Application 14/096,260
unit. (Spec 12). Claims 1 and 10 are illustrative and are reproduced from
the appendix to the principal brief below:
1. An ink delivery system comprising:
a closed or closable ink container holding an ink supply,
the ink container having an inlet and outlet, the inlet and outlet
arranged in the ink container to hold pressurized air when the
ink container is closed and partially filled with ink;
an air delivery system supplying pressurized air to the ink
container via the inlet;
a pump connected to the outlet of the ink container, the
pump receiving ink from the ink container;
an ink fountain receiving ink from the pump.
10. A method for delivering ink comprising the steps of:
supplying ultraviolet or electron beam ink in a closed
container, the closed container having an outlet below a level of
the ink in the container, the closed container having a
pressurized air inlet above the level of the ink;
pressurizing air in the closed container via the inlet so the
ink flows into a pump; and pumping the ink into an ink
fountain.
Appellants request review of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
of claims 1—7, 10-14, and 17 as unpatentable over the combination of
Deneka, (US 2006/0081141 Al, published Apr. 20, 2006) (Deneka), in view
of Johnson, (US 3,090,302, issued May 21, 1963) (Johnson); and claims 8,
9, 15, and 16 over the combination of Deneka, Johnson and further in view
ofDedman, (US 2012/0285341 Al, published Nov. 15, 2012) (Dedman)
(App. Br. 3.).
2
Appeal 2016-005629
Application 14/096,260
OPINION2
The Examiner found Deneka teaches an ink delivery system
comprising “a closed or closable ink container holding an ink supply, the ink
container having an inlet and outlet” an ink supply in holding container
having an inlet and outlet. (Final Act. 5). The Examiner found Deneka does
not teach an air delivery system supplying pressurized air to the ink
container via the inlet. (Id.). The Examiner found Johnson teaches an air
delivery system supplying pressurized air to an ink container via an inlet.
(Id.). The Examiner further found Johnson teaches a closed container
having a pressurized air inlet above the level of the ink and pressurizing air
in the closed container via the inlet. (Id. at 6). The Examiner determined:
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art
at the time the invention was made to modify Deneka to use an air
delivery system supplying pressurized air to the ink container via the
inlet as taught by Johnson, because this combination of known
elements would provide the predictable result of a pressure boost to
help remove ink from the reservoir. (Id. at 5.)
Appellants argue the combination of Deneka and Johnson, alone or in
combination would not lead to a container as required by the claimed
invention. (App. Br. 5). Appellants argue Deneka figure 3 depicts an open
container that is not closed or closable. (Id.). Appellants argue Deneka’s
teaching that a pressurized container may not allow air to escape from the
2 Appellants in the principal brief have not presented substantive arguments
addressing the limitations of claims 2—17. (App. Br. 5—12.) Appellants have
limited their arguments to independent claims 1 and 10. We will limit our
discussion to independent claims 1 and 10 which are representative of the
subject matter on appeal.
3
Appeal 2016-005629
Application 14/096,260
ink, which will accelerate the process of forming microfoam and viscosity
build, would lead away from the claimed invention. {Id. at 5—6; citing
Deneka 1 35).
Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive of reversible error. It has
not been disputed that the utilization of a pressurized container with electron
beam ink compositions was known to persons of ordinary skill in the art. As
correctly noted by the Examiner, Answer 8, Deneka teaches that it is
desirable that the ink in the system is kept at an increased pressure relative to
ambient pressure and moving at all times. (Deneka 1 8). Contrary to
Appellants’ argument, Deneka paragraph 35 does not indicate that a
pressurized container cannot be utilized. This paragraph indicates that a
person of ordinary skill in the art must exercise caution when utilizing a
pressurized container. The discussion expressly states what “may” occur
when utilizing a pressurized container. Certainly, a preference for not using
a pressurized container also provides a teaching that a pressurized container
may be used while accompanied by certain disadvantages, such as the
increase possibility that microfoam and viscosity build may occur. The
noted potential disadvantages do not negate the express teaching in Deneka
of a pressurized container as part of its invention. It is well settled that the
use of non-preferred embodiments of the prior art are a matter of
obviousness for one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Burckel, 592 F.2d
1175, 1179 (CCPA 1979); In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1200 (Fed. Cir.
2004) (“[T]he question is whether there is something in the prior art as a
whole to suggest the desirability, and thus the obviousness, of making the
combination,” not whether there is something in the prior art as a whole to
suggest that the combination is the most desirable combination available.).
4
Appeal 2016-005629
Application 14/096,260
Appellants argue the combination of Deneka and Johnson does not
show or disclose a closed container having a pressurized air inlet above the
level of the ink as recited in claim 10. (App. Br. 9). Appellants’ arguments
are not persuasive of reversible error. As discussed above, Deneka discloses
the suitability of utilizing a pressurized container. Johnson describes a
pressurized container wherein the air inlet is above the liquid ink level to
provide a suitable and predetermined pressure. (See col. 2,11. 52—63; Fig. 1).
The utilization of known arrangements for pressurizing a container would
have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. Appellants have
not directed us to evidence that the location of the air inlet produces
unobvious or unexpected results.
Accordingly, on this record, for the foregoing reasons and those
presented by the Examiner we sustain the appealed rejections under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION
The rejections of claims 1—17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are affirmed.
TIME PERIOD
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
5