Kronoplus Technical AG

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardSep 20, 2021

2020005672 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 20, 2021)

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. 15/624,823 06/16/2017 Dieter D¿hring BARDP0201WOUSA 1062 23908 7590 09/20/2021 RENNER OTTO BOISSELLE & SKLAR, LLP 1621 EUCLID AVENUE NINETEENTH FLOOR CLEVELAND, OH 44115 EXAMINER REDDY, SATHAVARAM I ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1785 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/20/2021 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): ipdocket@rennerotto.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte DIETER DӦHRING Appeal 2020-005672 Application 15/624,823 Technology Center 1700 Before CATHERINE Q. TIMM, JENNIFER R. GUPTA, and LILAN REN, Administrative Patent Judges. GUPTA, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL1 Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–3 and 23, which constitute all the claims pending in this application. Claims 2 and 4–22 have been cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 In this Decision, we refer to the Specification filed June 16, 2017 (“Spec.”); the Final Office Action dated August 5, 2019 (“Final Act.”); the Appeal Brief filed April 16, 2020 (“Appeal Br.”); the Examiner’s Answer dated June 10, 2020 (“Ans.”), and the Reply Brief filed July 30, 2020 (“Reply Br.”). 2 Appellant refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Xylo Technologies AG. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2020-005672 Application 15/624,823 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to a panel having a decorative layer. Spec. 1, ll. 15–16. Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A panel, wherein the panel is a wall, ceiling or floor panel, comprising: a carrier plate provided on at least a main surface with a décor layer, wherein the décor layer has a décor that is an imitation of a real wood surface and imprinted by digital four- color printing, wherein the décor layer is provided on a primer layer that was applied by curtain coating, wherein an aliphatic polyurethane acrylate is provided in an amount of 1 to 20 g/m2 prior to printing onto the primer layer, and wherein the décor is formed of a plurality of color points, of which more than 90% have a size from 3500 μm2 to 5000 μm2, at a dpi value from 200 to 1200. Appeal Br. 21 (Claims App.). REJECTION The Examiner maintains the rejection of claims 1–3 and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Van De Wall,3 Brooker,4 Toganoh,5 and Takeuchi,6 as evidenced by Ebecryl 284.7 Ans. 3; Final Act. 3. 3 US 2011/0244200 A1, published Oct. 6, 2011. 4 US 6,759,105 B2, issued July 6, 2004. 5 US 4,642,654, issued Feb. 10, 1987. 6 US 2002/0059762 Al, published May 23, 2002. 7 Ebecryl® 284 Data Sheet, Allnex Netherlands B.V. (2018). Appeal 2020-005672 Application 15/624,823 3 DISCUSSION The Examiner finds that Van De Wall discloses claim 1’s layered arrangement, but fails to teach: the decorative panel is a wall, ceiling or floor panel; the décor layer has a décor that is an imitation of a real wood surface; the aliphatic polyurethane acrylate is provided in an amount of 1 to 20 g/m2 on the primer layer; and the décor is formed by a plurality of color points where more than 90% have a size from 3000 μm2 to 8000 μm2, at a dpi value of 200 to 1200. Final Act. 3–5. The Examiner relies on Brooker for teaching a dpi value range that overlaps with claim 1’s dpi value range of 200 to 1200. Id. at 5. The Examiner finds that Brooker teaches an inkjet receptor medium that includes a medium of a wood surface made of maple (Fig. 1, 10) and an image printed onto the medium (Fig. 1, 14) by inkjet printing using four colors of cyan, magenta, yellow, and black, where the resolution of the graphic image ranges from about 600 dpi to 1200 dpi. Final Act. 5 (citing Brooker 10: 7– 19, 11:6–30, Fig. 1). The Examiner determines that it would have been obvious to modify Van De Wall and form its decorative panel using an inkjet printer capable of printing an image with a resolution of about 600 dpi to about 1200 dpi, as taught by Brooker, to provide “quality durable graphics and the ability to print on natural wood surfaces with substantially the same image precision and printing speed as on paper or polymeric media. Id. at 8 (citing 11: 21–29). For claim 1’s color point size range, the Examiner relies on Toganoh. Final Act. 6. The Examiner finds that Toganoh teaches a printed receiving member that includes a support, such as wood, and a receiving layer overlying the support, where images are recorded on the receiving layer, and Appeal 2020-005672 Application 15/624,823 4 the images are formed from liquid droplets having a diameter from 20 to 1000 μm. Id. (citing Toganoh 2: 45–52, 3:15–21, 4:14–27). From Toganoh’s diameter range, the Examiner calculates Toganoh’s color points as having a size range of 314 μm2 to 785,000 μm2, which overlaps the range recited in claims 1 and 2. The Examiner determines that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use color points with Toganoh’s size range to form Van De Wall’s decorative layer “to have good ink absorbing capacity and the circularity of the printed dot not being lowered.” Id. (citing Toganoh 3:15–21). Appellant argues that the Examiner motivation for using Toganoh’s ink diameters to form Van De Wall’s decorative layer is flawed. Appeal Br. 13. Appellant also argues that, absent improper hindsight, a person having ordinary skill in the art would not have “cherry picked” only Brooker’s resolution range and ignored Brooker’s ink drop size range. Id. at 11, 18. Appellant’s arguments identify reversible error in the Examiner’s rejection. As Appellant aptly points out, Toganoh teaches the absorbing capacity and circularity is provided by the relationship between the particle size of the filler material and the diameter of the liquid droplets. Id. at 12–13 (emphasis added). Toganoh does not teach or suggest that the ink diameter in itself, without the corresponding filler particle size, achieves a good ink absorbing capacity or the circularity of the printed dot, in contrast to the Examiner's contention. Id. at 13. The Examiner response in the Answer that “[t]he filler in Toganoh is not pertinent as it is chosen based on how big or small the diameter of the ink droplets are,” ignores the teachings of Toganoh that both the ink droplet Appeal 2020-005672 Application 15/624,823 5 diameter and the particle size of the filler are pertinent to the ink absorbing capacity and circularity. Ans. 15; Reply Br. 3; Toganoh 3:17–21. Additionally, as Appellant argue, the Examiner fails to explain why the person having ordinary skill in the art, absent improper hindsight, would have cherry picked only the resolution range from Brooker, and modified Van De Wall to include only the resolution range and not the resolution and ink drop size that together provide the quality graphics in Brooker. Appeal Br. 19; see also Brooker 11:15–29 (teaching that both dpi range and ink drop size range provide image precision in Brooker). Because Appellant has identified reversible error in the Examiner’s rejection, we do not sustain the § 103(a) rejection of claims 1–3 and 23. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–3 and 23 is reversed. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–3, 23 103 Van De Wall, Brooker, Toganoh, Takeuchi, Ebecryl 284 1–3, 23 REVERSED