Ex Parte Walker et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 20, 2016

13184936 (P.T.A.B. May. 20, 2016)

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.
13/184,936 07/18/2011 Casey Walker 8185P120 1383
76073 7590 05/23/2016
InfoPrint Solutions/ Blakely
1279 Oakmead Parkway
Sunnyvale, CA 94085-4040
EXAMINER
KEMATHE, LILY K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2853
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/23/2016 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte CASEY WALKER, CARL BILDSTEIN, and
TIMOTHY BRADLEY
____________________

Appeal 2014-008780
Application 13/184,936
Technology Center 2800
____________________

Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, CATHERINE Q. TIMM, and
JAMES C. HOUSEL, Administrative Patent Judges.

PER CURIAM.

DECISION ON APPEAL1
Appellants2 filed an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s decision finally rejecting claims 1, 3, 4, 11, 13, and 14 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Matsumoto3 and rejecting claims 5–
10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of

1 Our decision refers to Appellants’ Specification (Spec.) filed April 23,
2013, the Final Office Action (Final Act.) mailed July 31, 2013, Appellants’
Appeal Brief (Appeal Br.) filed January 7, 2014, the Examiner’s Answer
(Ans.) mailed June 11, 2014, and Appellants’ Reply Brief (Reply Br.) filed
August 12, 2014.
2 Appellants identify the real party in interest as InfoPrint Solutions
Company, LLC. App. Br. 3.
3 Matsumoto, US 7,367,663 B2, issued May 6, 2008 (“Matsumoto”).
Appeal 2014-008780
Application 13/184,936

2
Matsumoto and Sumida.4 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The subject matter on appeal relates to printers and ink delivery
systems (see, e.g., claims 1 and 11). Appellants disclose inks including
suspended solids used in ink jet printers may settle, which results in clogs or
coagulated solids within the ink delivery system of a printer. Spec ¶ 3.
Appellants disclose that a mechanism to prevent ink particles from settling is
desired. Spec. ¶ 4. In view of this, Appellants disclose an ink delivery
system including an agitation unit to provide a vibration to one or more
subtanks storing the ink to prevent ink particles from settling. Spec. ¶ 5. In
one embodiment, Appellants disclose an agitation unit having a vibration
unit to provide vibrations by using air received from an air pressure input.
Spec. ¶ 6.
Independent claim 1, reproduced below from the Claims Appendix to
Appellants’ Appeal Brief, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal. The
limitations at issue are italicized.
1. A printer comprising:
an ink jet print head having a plurality of nozzles to mark
a printable recording medium with ink; and
an ink delivery system, including:
one or more subtanks to store ink for delivery to the print
head; and
an agitation system coupled to each of the one or more
subtanks to prevent ink particles from settling in the subtank, the
agitation system including:
an agitation unit mounted on each of the one or more

4 Sumida et al., US 2011/0074893 A1, published Mar. 31, 2011 (“Sumida”).
Appeal 2014-008780
Application 13/184,936

3
subtanks;
an air pressure input; and
a vibration unit to vibrate a subtank via air received at the
air pressure input.

Appeal Br. Claims Appendix i.

ANALYSIS
The dispositive issue on appeal is whether Appellants have shown
reversible error in the Examiner’s finding that Matsumoto discloses a
vibration unit to vibrate a subtank via air, as recited in claim 1.
As an initial matter, we interpret the language “vibrate” of claim 1.
During prosecution before the Examiner, the claim language should be given
its broadest reasonable meaning as it would be understood by one of
ordinary skill in the art, taking into account any definitions or enlightenment
contained in the written description of Appellants’ Specification. See In re
Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Here, Appellants have not
directed our attention to any disclosure in Appellants’ Specification that
indicates Appellants intended to give the term, “vibrate,” a meaning
different from the ordinary meaning. “Without evidence in the patent
specification of an express intent to impart a novel meaning to a claim term,
the term takes on its ordinary meaning.” Optical Disc Corp. v. Del Mar
Avionics, 208 F.3d 1324, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
Also, Appellants have not asserted an ordinary meaning for the term
“vibrate.” The Examiner offered the definition for “vibration” as “the
oscillating, reciprocating, or other periodic motion of a rigid or elastic body
or medium forced from a position or state of equilibrium.” Ans. 3.
Appellants do not challenge the Examiner’s definition, instead arguing that
Appeal 2014-008780
Application 13/184,936

4
Matsumoto’s action involves compression rather than vibration. Therefore,
we interpret “vibrate” as meaning “the periodic motion of a body forced
from equilibrium.”
Turning to the rejection on appeal, the Examiner finds Matsumoto
discloses a printer having an agitation system including an air pressure unit
and a vibration unit to vibrate an ink subtank via air received at the air
pressure unit. Final Act. 2–3. Specifically, the Examiner cites an air supply
passage 28 of Matsumoto as the air pressure input and a stirring chamber 27
of Matsumoto as the vibration unit. Final Act. 3. Matsumoto discloses a
pressurizing pump 109 supplies air through air supply passage 28 to expand
the stirring chamber 27, which presses against a flexible pouch 16 of ink and
causes the ink within the pouch 16 to stir. Matsumoto col. 7, ll. 25–33.
Indeed, Matsumoto discloses its device can prevent the uneven distribution
of ingredients, such as the settling of ink pigment particles. Matsumoto col.
1, ll. 62–66 and col. 2, ll. 26–32.
Appellants assert Matsumoto does not disclose a vibration unit that
vibrates a subtank via air received at an air pressure unit because the stirring
chamber 27 of Matsumoto uses air to compress and deform a flexible pouch
of an ink bag. Appeal Br. 7–8 and Reply Br. 2–3. Appellants contend the
stirring chamber 27 “cannot reasonably [be] considered equivalent to a
vibration unit that vibrates a subtank.” Appeal Br. 8.5
Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive of reversible error. As

5 Appellants further argue Matsumoto teaches away from vibrating a
subtank. Appeal Br. 8. However, “the question whether a reference
‘teaches away’ from the invention is inapplicable to an anticipation
analysis.” Celeritas Techs. Ltd. v. Rockwell Int’l Corp., 150 F.3d 1354,
1361 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (citation omitted).
Appeal 2014-008780
Application 13/184,936

5
discussed above, we interpret “vibrate” as meaning “the periodic motion of a
body forced from equilibrium.” Moreover, claim 1 does not require a
particular frequency for vibrations created by the vibration unit or how
quickly the vibrations occur. The Examiner found Matsumoto discloses the
“an expandable-and-contractile stirring chamber 27.” Final Act. 2–3.
Matsumoto discloses the pressurizing pump 109 can alternately perform
discharging or suction of air “to make the stirring chamber 27 perform
expansion and contraction alternatively.” Matsumoto col. 7, ll. 60–63
(emphasis added). In other words, the stirring chamber is capable of
periodic motion when force is applied by the air as the stirring chamber 27 is
alternately expanded and contracted. As a result, the record supports the
Examiner’s finding that the stirring chamber 27 of Matsumoto vibrates a
subtank as recited in claim 1 due to air supplied from the pressurizing pump
109 via the air supply passage 28 to make the stirring chamber 27 alternately
expand and contract. Therefore, Appellants have not shown reversible error
in the Examiner’s finding in this regard.
For the reasons discussed above and for the reasons expressed in the
Answer, Appellants have not identified reversible error in the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 1. Appellants have not advanced separate arguments for
any of claims 3, 4, 11, 13, and 14 or for claims 5–10 and 15–18, which are
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of
Matsumoto and Sumida. Appeal Br. 8. Therefore, the § 102 rejection of
claims 1, 3, 4, 11, 13, and 14 and the § 103 rejection of claims 5–10 and 15–
18 are sustained.

Appeal 2014-008780
Application 13/184,936

6
DECISION
On the record before us and for the reasons in the Examiner’s Answer
and above, we affirm the Examiner’s rejections.
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