Ex Parte Perez Gellida et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 30, 2017

14130452 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 30, 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.
14/130,452 08/25/2014 Francisco Javier Perez Gellida 83778530 7687
22879
HP Tnr
7590 09/01/2017 EXAMINER
3390 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 35
ZIMMERMANN, JOHN P
FORT COLLINS, CO 80528-9544 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2853
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/01/2017 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):
ipa.mail@hp.com
barbl@hp.com
y vonne.bailey @ hp. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL
AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte FCO JAVIER PEREZ GELLIDA,
LUIS FERNANDO MARTINEZ NIETO, and
FRANCISCO JAVIER RODRIGUEZ ESCANUELA1
Appeal 2017-000596
Application 14/130,452
Technology Center 2800
Before BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, DONNA M. PRAISS, and
BRAIN D. RANGE, Administrative Patent Judges.
BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
1 Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Hewlett-Packard
Development Company, L.P.
Appeal 2017-000596
Application 14/130,452
Appellants request our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—9 and 12—15. Claims 10 and 11
have been canceled and claims 16—19 stand withdrawn. We have
jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse for
essentially the reasons provided by Appellants in the record and add the
following for emphasis.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claim 8 is illustrative of Appellants’ subject matter on appeal and is
set forth below (with key limitation in bold for emphasis):
8. An image forming apparatus, comprising:
a print head to apply a marking agent to a print substrate
comprising a substrate width and traveling in a substrate travel
path;
a curing assembly positioned after the print head in a
direction of travel of the print substrate, the curing assembly to
move along the print substrate width and cease moving at
an outer edge of the substrate defining the width,
a carriage to reciprocate a curing unit of the curing
assembly across the width of the print substrate,
wherein the carriage is to move the curing unit at a
first rate within a central region of the print substrate and
move the curing unit at a second rate within at least one
edge region of the print substrate, the second rate being
slower than the first rate.
The Examiner relies on the following prior art references as evidence
of unpatentability:
Bar et al. US 2003/0020795 A1 Jan. 30, 2003
(hereinafter “Bar”)
2
Appeal 2017-000596
Application 14/130,452
Yamamoto US 6,857,734 B2 Feb. 22,2005
(hereinafter “Yamamoto”)
Wetjens et al. US 2007/0058020 A1 Mar. 15,2007
(hereinafter “Wetjens”)
THE REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1—9 and 13—15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Yamamoto in view of Bar.
2. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Yamamoto, in view of Bar, and Wetjens.
ANALYSIS
Appellants submit that both Yamamoto and Bar fail to describe the
carriage moving “the curing unit at a first rate within a central region of the
print substrate” and moving “the curing unit at a second rate within at least
one edge region of the print substrate”. It is the Examiner’s position that the
gradual slowing down and speeding up of the unit of Yamamoto meets this
aspect of the claims. Final Act. 6; Ans. 3.
However, Appellants make a valid point that even if, arguendo, the
change in speed between the “mean shifting speed HI” and a speed of zero
when the unit of Yamamoto is not moving can be considered two different
rates of speed, Yamamoto fails to describe moving the curing unit at a
first rate within a central region of the print substrate, and moving the curing
unit at a second rate within at least one edge region of the print substrate,
because the gradual slowing down and speeding up as envisioned by the
Examiner’s position is a continuous acceleration rather than a defined rate of
3
Appeal 2017-000596
Application 14/130,452
speed throughout any particular portion of the print substrate. We
agree.Reply Br. 5—6.
Appellants’ Specification at paragraph 19 discusses moving the curing
unit at different rates of speed when the unit is in different regions, and,
given this context, we construe “rate” as recited in claim 8 as referring to a
defined and constant velocity. Rate in this context is not the same as the
speed at a given instant when the unit is accelerating or decelerating.
The Examiner’s reliance upon Bar does not cure the aforementioned
deficiency of Yamamoto for the following reasons. The Examiner relies
upon Bar for teaching the concept that one of ordinary skill in the art would
adjust irradiation based on the specific image. Bar || 22, 23, and 28. On
page 6 of the Final Office Action, the Examiner states
[m]eanwhile, Bar et al. specifically mentions measuring the physical
parameters to control the irradiation and using sensors to control the
curing time as required. One of the ways Bar et al. could [emphasis
added] control the curing time would be to adjust the speed
of movement of the curing unit based on the sensor readings used to
ensure fully cured/irradiated images (Bar et al. - Description, Page 3,
Paragraph 28).
Appellants argue that the Examiner’s reliance upon Bar in this manner
is not proper because it is not reliance upon actual teachings of Bar, rather it
is a reliance upon conjecture. Appeal Br. 12—13; Reply Br. 8—9. Appellants
explain that Bar does not discuss changing a rate of movement as it relates to
controlling the amount of irradiation or adjusting the wavelength region of
an applied near-infrared region (NIR) radiation. Appeal Br. 12. We agree,
and add that the Examiner does not dispute this specific argument made by
4
Appeal 2017-000596
Application 14/130,452
Appellants. See Answer generally. Rather, the Examiner states that one
skilled in the art would have understood that speed can be correlated to
radiation exposure. Ans. 4—5. In reply, Appellants persuasively argue that
this concept of adjustment of irradiation based on a specific image that the
Examiner believes Bar represents is irrelevant to teaching the adjustment of
speeds at one portion of the print substrate relative to another, including
distinguishing between “a central region of the print substrate” and “at least
one edge region of the print substrate” as recited in claim 8. Reply Br. 8.
Appellants reiterate that the finding that Bar “could” control the curing time
by adjusting speed of the curing assembly to impart more radiation or
increase the time of irradiation is conjecture, and not actual teachings
according to Bar. Reply Br. 8—9. We are persuaded by such argument.
In view of the above, we reverse Rejection 1. Because the Examiner
does not rely upon Wetjens (additionally applied in Rejection 2) to cure the
issues addressed above, we also reverse Rejection 2 for similar reasons.
DECISION
Each rejection is reversed.
REVERSED
5