Felip, Carlos et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 6, 2019

15304625 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Dec. 6, 2019)

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.
15/304,625 10/17/2016 Carlos Felip 84546227 7519
22879 7590 12/06/2019
HP Inc.
3390 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 35
FORT COLLINS, CO 80528-9544
EXAMINER
ZHANG, FAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2674
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/06/2019 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):
barbl@hp.com
ipa.mail@hp.com
yvonne.bailey@hp.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte CARLOS FELIP, XAVIER DOMINGO REGUANT,
and ORIOL MOLINER RAFA
____________________

Appeal 2018-008479
Application 15/304,625
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, HUNG H. BUI, and JON M. JURGOVAN,
Administrative Patent Judges.

DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1–11 and 13–16. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
The claims are directed to a system and method for “substrate
permeability assessment based on an image [of the substrate]” that enables
identification of substrate type and “determin[ing] whether voids are shown

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant(s)” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. The real party in interest is Hewlett-Packard Development
Company, LP. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2018-008479
Application 15/304,625

2
in [the] image of [the] substrate and whether there is a repeating pattern in
the image.” (Spec. ¶¶ 1, 20; Title (capitalization altered); Abstract.)
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A device for substrate permeability assessment
comprising:
an image capture device to capture an image of a
substrate;
a memory to store instructions; and
a processor to execute the instructions to perform
operations for substrate permeability assessment, the operations
including:
identifying a type of the substrate based on the
image of the substrate on which no printing fluid has
been applied;
determining whether the substrate is fluid-
permeable based on the image;
determining an accessory recommendation based
on the determination of the type of the substrate and the
determination of whether the substrate is fluid-
permeable; and
preventing a printing unit from applying the
printing fluid to the substrate if the substrate is
determined to be fluid-permeable and loaded into a
printing device.
(Appeal Br. 12 (Claims Appendix).)

REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Jupina US 6,558,786 B1 May 6, 2003
Ferguson et al. US 2007/0229640 A1 Oct. 4, 2007
Appeal 2018-008479
Application 15/304,625

3
(“Ferguson”)
Hayashihara US 2008/0252896 A1 Oct. 16, 2008
Lindström et al. US 2015/0083182 A1 Mar. 26, 2015
(“Lindström”)
Yanai et al. US 2015/0168134 A1 June 18, 2015
(“Yanai”)
Keskes et al. US 2015/0310294 A1 Oct. 29, 2015
(“Keskes”)
Romanski EP 000013471 A1 July 23, 1980
Seo KR 20140045701 A Apr. 17, 2014

REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 1 and 2 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Hayashihara in view of Lindström and Ferguson.
Claims 3 and 7–9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Hayashihara in view of Lindström and Ferguson, and
further in view of Yanai.
Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Hayashihara in view of Lindström and Ferguson, and further in view of
Seo.
Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Hayashihara in view of Lindström and Ferguson, and further in view of
Romanski.
Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Hayashihara in view of Lindström and Ferguson, and further in view of
Romanski and Keskes.
Appeal 2018-008479
Application 15/304,625

4
Claims 10, 11, 13, 14, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Hayashihara in view of Lindström and Ferguson,
and further in view of Jupina.
Claim 15 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Hayashihara in view of Lindström and Ferguson, and further in view of
Jupina and Seo.

ANALYSIS
With respect to independent claim 1, the Examiner finds
Hayashihara’s speckle, captured by an image sensor, teaches the claimed
“image of a substrate,” and Hayashihara’s speckle analysis using FFT (fast
Fourier transform) “identif[ies] a type of the substrate based on the image of
the substrate” as claimed, because the speckle identifies “paper qualities”
such as “rough paper with paper fiber on a surface thereof relatively
roughened,” “plain paper,” and “gloss paper.” (Ans. 2, 4–5 (citing
Hayashihara ¶¶ 22, 28–33, 73–74, Fig. 2); see also Final Act. 4.) The
Examiner acknowledges “Hayashihara . . . does not define fluid permeability
of the substrate” but asserts Lindström teaches the claimed “determining
whether the substrate is fluid-permeable based on the image” because
Lindström observes “woven fibers often have large holes which allow a
large amount of particles in the printed inks to pass right through the woven
fiber in an uncontrolled way.” (Ans. 2–4, 6 (citing Lindström ¶ 54)
(emphasis omitted); see also Final Act. 4–5.) The Examiner reasons
“[g]iven Hayashihara and Lindstrom et al.’s teaching, it would not be
difficult for a skilled artisan to obtain a speckle pattern image of a woven
substrate. . . . associate[] it [(a woven substrate)] with ink leaking during
Appeal 2018-008479
Application 15/304,625

5
printing,” and “identify [the] substrate that is fluid-permeable so as to apply
accessory to prevent ink striking-through.” (Ans. 6; Final Act. 5.) We do
not agree.
We agree with Appellant that Hayashihara and Lindström, alone or in
combination, fail to teach or suggest determining whether a substrate is
fluid-permeable based on a captured image of the substrate as recited in
claim 1. (Appeal Br. 6–7; Reply Br. 2–4.) As Appellant explains,
Hayashihara merely describes “distinguishing rough substrates from non-
rough (gloss) substrates using fast Fourier transforms of laser speckles,”
however, “distinguishing between roughness and smoothness in substrate
type does not necessarily map to distinguishing between permeability and
non-permeability” because “[r]oughness of a substrate is orthogonal to fluid
permeability.” (Reply Br. 3–4.) In other words, both rough and smooth
substrates may be equally porous and thus permeable to fluid. (Id. at 3.)
Thus, Hayashihara does not suggest that its speckle could be used to
determine whether a substrate is fluid-permeable. (Id.)
Lindström does not make up for the above-noted deficiencies of
Hayashihara, as Lindström does not teach or suggest determining whether a
substrate is fluid-permeable based on a substrate image, either. (Appeal Br.
6–7.) Lindström does not use any image capture device to capture an image
of a substrate, and does not analyze substrate images. (Id. at 6.) Rather,
Lindström describes manufacturing improvements for ceramic substrates of
solar cells, whereby non-woven glass fibers are deposited on top of woven
glass fibers to prevent ink particles from passing through. (See Lindström
¶ 54.) That is, Lindström observes physical characteristics of solar cell
substrates, such as “[substrate’s] woven fibers . . . hav[ing] large holes
Appeal 2018-008479
Application 15/304,625

6
which allow a large amount of particles in the printed inks to pass right,” and
improves the substrate’s manufacturing process accordingly; however,
Lindström does not perform a determination of a fluid-permeability of the
ceramic substrate based on an image (as claim 1 requires). (Appeal Br. 6–
7.)
In addition, the Examiner has not provided an adequate reason based
on rational underpinnings to explain why a skilled artisan would have been
led to modify Lindström’s manufacturing analysis or Hayashihara’s speckle
analysis to determine fluid-permeability based on a substrate image. In re
Chaganti, 554 F. App’x 917, 922 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“It is not enough to say
that . . . to do so would ‘have been obvious to one of ordinary skill.’ . . .
Such circular reasoning is not sufficient—more is needed to sustain an
obviousness rejection.”) As discussed supra, neither Lindström nor
Hayashihara suggests determining whether a substrate is fluid-permeable
based on a substrate image. As Appellant further explains:
There is nothing in the applied art that would lead one of ordinary
skill within the art to conclude that fast Fourier transforms
applied to [Hayashihara’s] laser speckles reflected by substrates
to identify . . . the roughness of the substrates could be extended
to also identify whether the substrates are permeable or not.
(Reply Br. 3 (emphasis added).) Distinguishing between rough and non-
rough substrates via speckles obtained by irradiating a laser spot onto the
substrate (as in Hayashihara) does not provide a reasonable expectation that
a speckle pattern generated on a fluid-permeable substrate would be
distinguishable from a speckle pattern generated on a non-permeable
substrate. (Id. at 3–4.)
Appeal 2018-008479
Application 15/304,625

7
The Examiner also has not shown that the additional teachings of
Ferguson, Yanai, Seo, Romanski, Keskes, and Jupina make up for the
above-noted deficiencies of Hayashihara and Lindström. Thus, for the
reasons set forth above, we do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness
rejection of independent claim 1, and independent claims 10 and 14
similarly reciting a determination of whether a substrate is fluid-permeable
based on an image. (See claim 10 (“determine whether printing fluid would
pass through the substrate during printing based on” an analysis of “an
image of a substrate”), claim 14 (“identifying . . . the substrate as a fluid-
permeable substrate if voids are shown in the image [of the substrate] or as
non-fluid-permeable if voids are not shown in the image”).) We also do not
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 2–9, 11, 13, 15, and 16.
Because the above-discussed issues are dispositive as to the obviousness
rejections of all claims on appeal, we do not reach additional issues raised by
Appellant’s arguments as to the § 103 rejection of claims 1 and 10.

CONCLUSIONS
The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1–11 and 13–16 based upon
obviousness.

DECISION
For the above reasons, we REVERSE the Examiner’s obviousness
rejections of claims 1–11 and 13–16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

In summary:
Appeal 2018-008479
Application 15/304,625

8
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.§  Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2 103  Hayashihara,
Lindström,
Ferguson
1, 2
3, 7–9 103 Hayashihara,
Lindström,
Ferguson, Yanai
3, 7–9
4 103 Hayashihara,
Lindström,
Ferguson, Seo
4
5 103 Hayashihara,
Lindström,
Ferguson, Romanski
5
6 103 Hayashihara,
Lindström,
Ferguson,
Romanski, Keskes
6
10, 11, 13, 14, 16 103 Hayashihara,
Lindström,
Ferguson, Jupina
10, 11, 13,
14, 16
15 103 Hayashihara,
Lindström,
Ferguson, Jupina,
Seo
15
Overall Outcome 1–11, 13–16

REVERSED