Ex Parte Vanbrocklin et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 28, 2017

14123799 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 28, 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.
14/123,799 06/06/2014 Andrew L. Vanbrocklin 83734410 8211
22879
HP Tnr
7590 08/30/2017 EXAMINER
3390 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 35
RICHMOND, SCOTT A.
FORT COLLINS, CO 80528-9544 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2853
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/30/2017 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 ANDREW L. VANBROCKLIN, MARK HUNTER,
PETER FRICKE, ADAM L. GHOZEIL, and
JAMES MICHAEL GARDNER
Appeal 2016-008096
Application 14/123,7991
Technology Center 2800
Before DONNA M. PRAISS, MONTE T. SQUIRE, and
MICHAEL G. McMANUS, Administrative Patent Judges.
PRAISS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35U.S.C. § 134 from the final rejection of
claims 1—11 and 16—24. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.
We AFFIRM.
Hewlett-Packard Development Company, LP is identified as the real party
in interest. App. Br. 2.
2 This opinion makes reference to the Specification filed Dec. 4, 2013
(“Spec.”), the Final Office Action dated Nov. 25, 2015 (“Final Act.”), the
Appeal Brief filed Mar. 23, 2016 (“App. Br.”), the Examiner’s Answer dated
July 18, 2016 (“Ans.”), and Appellants’ Reply Brief filed Aug. 17, 2016
(“Reply Br.”).
Appeal 2016-008096
Application 14/123,799
The subject matter of this appeal relates to inkjet printheads and, more
particularly, inkjet printheads that use thermal sense resistors to regulate
heating of the printheads. Spec. 11. Claim 1 is illustrative (disputed
elements italicized):
1. An apparatus comprising:
an analog memory containing a reference voltage
corresponding to a predetermined temperature of a printhead;
a temperature sensor to measure a thermal voltage of at
least one of a plurality of local areas of the printhead;
a comparator to obtain a comparison result by comparing
the reference voltage to the thermal voltage; and
a pulse circuit to selectively transmit a series of warming
pulses to the at least one of a plurality of nozzles grouped within
the at least one of the plurality of local areas of the printhead
based on the comparison result.
App. Br. 21 (Claims Appendix).
Claims 7 and 16 are also independent and are directed to a printhead.
Like claim 1, claims 7 and 16 also require a temperature sensor to measure a
thermal voltage; claim 7 recites “a local temperature sensor to measure a
thermal voltage representing an actual temperature of the first local area of
the printhead” and claim 16 recites “a local temperature sensor to measure a
temperature of the unique local area and output a voltage proportional to the
measured temperature.” Id. at 22, 23 (Claims Appendix). Claims 7 and 16
also require an analog memory, a comparator, and a pulse circuit, however,
they recite “a local analog memory”, “a local temperature sensor,” “a local
comparator” and “a global [warming] pulse circuit.” Id. at 22, 23—24
(Claims Appendix).
The Examiner maintains, and Appellants appeal, the rejection of
claims 1—11 and 16—24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
2
Appeal 2016-008096
Application 14/123,799
Widder3 alone or together with an additional reference.4 Ans. 3; App. Br. 9.
Appellants argue the subject matter of independent claims 1, 7, and 16 and
rely on those same arguments for patentability of claims 2, 3, 5, 8, 9, 17, and
19—24. App. Br. 11—18. In accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv),
and in view of the lack of arguments over the subsidiary rejection (App. Br.
19), claims 2—6 will stand or fall together with claim 1, claims 8—11 will
stand or fall together with claim 7, and claims 17, 18, and 19—24 will stand
or fall together with claim 16.
OPINION
The dispositive issues for this appeal are:
1. Whether the Examiner erred in determining that it would have
been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to measure either
the temperature or the voltage in order to skip a conversion or comparison
step in view of Widder’s disclosure of a thermal sensor which generates a
thermal voltage indicative of the measured printhead temperature.
2. Whether the Examiner erred in determining that Widder’s
disclosure of a thermal sensor that generates a voltage indicative of the
measured printhead temperature is a measurement of at least one local area
of a printhead, particularly in view of Widder’s disclosure that multiple
sensors can be employed to measure more localized temperatures of various
regions of the printhead.
3 Widder et al., US 5,475,405, issued Dec. 12, 1995 (“Widder”).
4 The rejection of claims 8, 9, and 18 under 35U.S.C. § 112 12 stands
withdrawn and is not part of this appeal. Ans. 3.
3
Appeal 2016-008096
Application 14/123,799
3. Whether the Examiner erred in determining that it would have
been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
invention to utilize the comparator in order to determine whether or not to
institute warming pulses to a localized region of the printhead, if not
inherent from Widder’s disclosure that multiple sensors can be employed to
measure more localized temperatures of various regions of the printhead.
After review of the arguments and evidence presented by both
Appellants and the Examiner, we affirm the stated rejection.
Claim 1
It is the Examiner’s position that Widder discloses or suggests the
subject matter of claim 1 for the reasons stated on page 4 of the Final
Action.
In the Appeal Brief, Appellants argue that Widder fails to disclose the
temperature sensor required by claim 1 because Widder’s sensor (1)
measures a temperature and not a thermal voltage, (2) measures temperature
of the entire printhead and not individual local areas, and (3) fails to disclose
outputting warming pulses from a temperature level detector from the
individual local areas rather than the temperature level from the entire
printhead. App. Br. 11—13. According to Appellants, a thermal voltage is
not the same as a temperature because ‘“the thermal voltage ... is
proportional to the temperature’ . . . but is not the temperature.” Id. at 12
(quoting Spec. 111). Appellants also argue that this distinction over Widder
means that “an additional element [is] used to sense a thermal voltage where
Widder merely measures a temperature and sends signals to represent that
temperature.” Id. at 13 (quoting from Spec. 115 the additional element
described as a thermal voltage “measured across a set of forward biased
4
Appeal 2016-008096
Application 14/123,799
silicon diodes 32 in the at least one of the plurality of local areas.”).
Regarding Widder’s alternative embodiment of employing multiple thermal
sensors to measure more localized temperatures of various regions of the
printhead, Appellants argue that Widder does not further disclose a
comparison result of a reference voltage and a thermal voltage of a local area
of the printhead based on which a pulse circuit transmits a series of warming
pulses to nozzles within at least one of the plurality of local areas of the
printhead. Id. at 12—13.
The Examiner responds that “Widder discloses where the measured
temperature and thermal voltage are in relation and both are disclosed and
used in the subsequent comparator for determining the distribution of
warming pulses.” Ans. 5 (citing Widder 2:66—3:4). The Examiner also
finds that “[e]ven though the (thermal) voltage is measured and obtained by
the thermal sensor . . . , it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
in the art to measure either the temperature or the voltage, in order to skip a
conversion or comparison step.” Id. (citing Widder 2:66-3:4). The
Examiner further finds that Widder’s disclosure of multiple sensors being
employed to measure more localized temperatures of various regions of the
printhead (Widder 4:17—19) inherently discloses, or at least it would have
been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
invention, “that each of the measured localized temperature regions of the
print head would indeed also utilize the comparator, in order to determine
whether or not to institute warming pulses to that localized region of the
printhead, based on the comparison between [their] measured temperature of
that region and the threshold temperature of that region or head as a whole.”
Id. at 4—5.
5
Appeal 2016-008096
Application 14/123,799
In the Reply Brief, Appellants contend that Widder specifies that
“thermal sensor 32 is preferably a thermal sensing resistor.” Reply Br. 4
(quoting Widder 4:8—9). As such, the sensor of Widder is to “measure a
temperature of the print head.” Id. (quoting Widder 4:6—7). According to
Appellants, “a resistor in and of itself cannot provide a temperature and
instead must, themselves, have their temperature measured.” Id. Appellants
contend that Widder’s sensor therefore “comprise[s] some other element
above and beyond that of claim 1: ‘temperature sensor to measure a thermal
voltage’” whereas Appellants’ “‘forward biased silicon diodes []’ actually
measures the thermal voltage with nothing more.” Id. at 4—5 (parentheses
omitted).
Regarding Widder’s disclosure of a comparator and warming pulses,
Appellants assert that Widder’s disclosure only encompasses temperatures
being measured at the printhead. Id. at 6. Appellants argue that “it would
not be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply this concept to
smaller portions of the printhead because such an adjustment would require
additional features and elements not contemplated in Widder.” Id. Because
Widder does not describe “how the temperature indicated by the temperature
sensor at each of the plurality of local areas of the printhead may be
compared to a reference voltage” Appellants conclude “it appears that the
mere inclusion of ‘multiple sensors [being] employed to measure more
localized temps of various regions of the print head’ is not enough
information to support a conclusion that a person skilled in the art could
apply multiple sensors in order to build the apparatus of claim 1.” Id.
We are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1
over Widder for the reasons stated by the Examiner in the Final Action and
6
Appeal 2016-008096
Application 14/123,799
Answer. Ans. 2—5; Final Act. 2—3. We add the following primarily for
emphasis.
Appellants do not dispute that Widder discloses an analog memory, a
thermal sensor, a comparator, and a pulse circuit that interact for the purpose
of warming nozzles on a printhead. Final Act. 4; Widder 4:20—60.
Appellants also do not dispute that Widder discloses an alternative
embodiment having multiple sensors for the purpose of measuring more
localized temperatures of various regions of the printhead. Final Act. 4;
Widder 4:17—19. Appellants also do not dispute the Examiner’s finding that
“it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to measure
either the temperature or the voltage, in order to skip a conversion or
comparison step.” Ans. 5. Essentially, there is no factual dispute
concerning what Widder explicitly discloses. Instead, Appellants’
arguments focus on what Widder does not explicitly disclose. The problem
with Appellants’ arguments, however, is that they do not adequately rebut
the Examiner’s findings as to what a person having ordinary skill in the art
would understand from Widder’s disclosures (Ans. 4—5).
Appellants do not adequately rebut the Examiner’s findings as to what
one of ordinary skill would understand about the interchangeability of using
temperature or voltage for a thermal sensor and the corresponding benefit of
skipping a conversion or comparison step (Ans. 5). Appellants’ argument
that Widder’s preferred resistor cannot measure temperature whereas the
forward biased silicon dioxides disclosed in Appellants’ Specification can
(Reply Br. 4) is also unpersuasive because prior art disclosures are not
limited to preferred embodiments. In a determination of obviousness, a
reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested
7
Appeal 2016-008096
Application 14/123,799
to one having ordinary skill in the art. Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Labs., 874
F.2d 804, 807 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (“That the [prior art] patent discloses a
multitude of effective combinations does not render any particular
formulation less obvious.”). Moreover, Widder additionally discloses an
alternative construction to the thermal sensing resistor, namely, diodes.
Widder 4:10-12.
Nor do Appellants adequately rebut the Examiner’s findings as to
what one of ordinary skill would understand from Widder’s disclosure of an
alternative embodiment having multiple sensors for measuring more
localized temperatures of various regions of the printhead (Ans. 4—5). It is
not clear from Appellants’ argument why an ordinarily skilled artisan
following Widder’s disclosure of using multiple sensors for measuring more
localized temperatures of various regions of the printhead would be
compelled to implement the comparator and pulse circuit by slavishly
following Widder’s disclosure as it pertains to a different embodiment. The
teachings of Widder are evaluated from the perspective of a person having
ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, including all inferences
that the skilled artisan would reasonably be expected to make. In re Preda,
401 F.2d 825, 826—27 (CCPA 1968) (“[I]n considering the disclosure of a
reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the
reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would
reasonably be expected to draw therefrom.”); KSR Int’l. Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (“[Ajnalysis [of whether the subject matter of a
claim would have been obvious under § 103] need not seek out precise
teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for
a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of
8
Appeal 2016-008096
Application 14/123,799
ordinary skill in the art would employ.”) Appellants’ assertion that it would
not have been obvious because such a modification “would require
additional features and elements not contemplated by Widder” (Reply Br. 6)
does not address whether those additional features and elements would have
been within the level of skill in the art.
In sum, Appellants do not persuade us of reversible error in the
rejection of claim 1 as obvious over Widder.
Claims 7 and 16
The Examiner finds that Widder discloses or suggests the subject
matter of claims 7 and 16 for the reasons stated on pages 5—7 and 8—9 of the
Final Action, respectively.
Appellants contend that the Examiner reversibly erred in rejecting
claims 7 and 16 over Widder because “Widder fails to describe or suggest an
‘analog memory,’ a ‘temperature sensor,’ and a ‘comparator’ that are ‘local'
to ‘first of a plurality of local areas along the printhead’” with a “global
reference voltage” as required by claim 7 (App. Br. 14) or “unique [to a]
local area of a plurality of local areas of the printhead” with “a global pulse
circuit” as required by claim 16 (App. Br. 17; italics omitted). Claim 7
additionally requires that the temperature sensor “measure a thermal voltage
representing an actual temperature of the first local areas of the printhead”
and Appellants assert the same argument presented with respect to claim 1,
namely, that Widder’s thermal sensor measures a temperature and not a
thermal voltage (App. Br. 15).
The Examiner responds to Appellants’ arguments concerning claims 7
and 16 that Widder discloses that multiple sensors can be employed to
measure more localized temperatures of various regions of the printhead;
9
Appeal 2016-008096
Application 14/123,799
and, for the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1, “it would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention
was made that each of the measured localized temperature regions of the
print head would indeed also utilize the comparator, in order to determine
whether or not to institute warming pulses to that localized region of the
print head, based on the comparison between [the] measured temperature of
that region and the threshold temperature of that region or head as a whole.”
Ans. 6 (citing Widder 4:17—19). Regarding the thermal voltage argument,
the Examiner references the discussion of this argument with respect to
claim 1. Ans. 6.
In the Reply Brief, Appellants make the same argument that the mere
inclusion of multiple sensors disclosed by Widder “is not enough
information to support a conclusion that a person skilled in the art could
apply multiple sensors in order to build the apparatus of claim 7” (Reply Br.
7) and the same arguments apply similarly to claim 16 (Reply Br. 9). The
thermal voltage argument asserted with respect to claim 1 is said to apply
similarly to claim 7. Reply Br. 8.
The Examiner’s findings are supported by a preponderance of the
evidence of record cited on appeal. Appellants do not direct us to any
evidence that would rebut the Examiner’s determinations that claims 7 and
16 would have been obvious in view of Widder’s disclosures of a thermal
sensor and an alternative embodiment with multiple sensors to measure
more localized temps of various regions of the printhead. Specifically,
Appellants do not direct us to any evidence in this record that it would have
been outside of the skill of an ordinarily skilled artisan to measure the
thermal voltage instead of the temperature in Widder’s apparatus. In
10
Appeal 2016-008096
Application 14/123,799
addition, Appellants do not direct us to any evidence in this record that an
ordinarily skilled artisan would not understand from Widder that the
alternative embodiment of multiple sensors for measuring localized areas
would be implemented on a localized area basis. That is, the alternative
embodiment of Widder would also include a comparator that compares the
temperature of the localized area of the printhead to a reference temperature
such that the pulse circuit would transmit a series of warming pulses to the
local areas of the printhead rather than to the entire printhead. Therefore,
Appellants have not identified reversible error in the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 7 and 16 over Widder.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 1—11 and 16—24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(v).
AFFIRMED
11