Ex Parte Recchia et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 12, 2017

12660451 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 12, 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.
12/660,451 02/26/2010 David A. Recchia 2156-341B 4324
34238 7590 06/14/2017
ARTHUR G. SCHAIER
CARMODY TORRANCE SANDAK & HENNESSEY LLP
195 CHURCH STREET
P.O. BOX 1950
NEW HAVEN, CT 06509-1950
EXAMINER
OLAMIT, JUSTIN N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2854
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/14/2017 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):
patents @ carmodylaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DAVID A. RECCHIA, TIMOTHY GOTSICK,
and RYAN VEST1
Appeal 2015-003732
Application 12/660,451
Technology Center 2800
Before PETER F. KRATZ, BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, and
JENNIFER R. GUPTA, Administrative Patent Judges.
KRATZ, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1—3, 5, 7—11, 13—15, and 17—20. We
have jurisdiction pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6.
Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to a flexographic relief
printing element.
Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below:
1. A flexographic relief image printing element
comprising at least one photopolymer layer on a backing layer,
wherein the at least one photopolymer layer comprises a cured
1 According to Appellants the real party in interest is MacDermid Printing
Solutions, LLC.
Appeal 2015-003732
Application 12/660,451
floor layer therein and wherein the cured floor layer establishes
an overall depth of plate relief;
wherein a plurality of dots in relief are created in the at
least one photopolymer layer by selectively exposing the at
least one photopolymer layer to actinic radiation to selectively
crosslink portions of the at least one photopolymer layer and
separating and removing the uncrosslinked portions of the at
least one photopolymer layer, and
wherein said plurality of dots comprise at least one
characteristic selected from the group consisting of:
a) a planarity of a top surface of the dot is such that the
radius of curvature of the top surface of the dot, rt, is greater
than the total thickness of the at least one photopolymer layer;
b) a shoulder angle of the dot is such that the overall
shoulder angle of the dot is greater than 50°; and
c) an edge sharpness of the dots is such that the ratio of
the radius of curvature at the intersection of the shoulder and
the top surface of the dot, re to the width of the top of the dot, p,
is less than 5%; and
wherein a dot relief of the flexographic relief image printing
element is greater than about 9% of the overall plate relief.
The Examiner relies on the following prior art references as evidence
in rejecting the appealed claims:
Halpem
(“Halpem”)
US 3,249,436 May 3, 1966
Zwez et al.,
(“Zwez”)
US 6,355,395 B1 Mar. 12, 2002
Goodin et al.,
(“Goodin”)
US 2003/0129533 Al July 10, 2003
Rudolph et al.
(“Rudolph”)
US 2004/0234886 Al Nov. 25, 2004
2
Appeal 2015-003732
Application 12/660,451
Zwadlo et al. US 2008/0305407 A1 Dec. 11, 2008
(“Zwadlo”)
Karen Charlesworth, (“Charlesworth”) “Flexo turns to flat-top dots”
PrintWeek, Flexo Technology Report, (2008).
The Examiner maintains the following grounds of rejection:
1. Claims 1, 2, 5, 7—10, 13—15, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Goodin in view of Zwadlo,
Charlesworth, and Halpem.
2. Claim 18 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Goodin in view of Zwadlo, Charlesworth, Halpem, and
Zwez.
3. Claim 19 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Goodin in view of Zwadlo, Charlesworth, Halpem, and
Rudolph.
We reverse the stated rejections. Our reasoning follows.
Concerning the base (first stated) rejection, the Examiner finds that
“Goodin as modified by Zwadlo and Charlesworth does not explicitly teach
that the at least one photopolymer layer comprises a cured floor layer
therein” and wherein “the cured floor layer establishes an overall depth of
plate relief, and a depth of relief between dots, measured as a percentage of
the overall plate relief, is greater than about 12% [9%] of the overall plate
relief’ as required by the rejected claims (Final Act. 5—6; see independent
3
Appeal 2015-003732
Application 12/660,451
claims 1, 8, and 20). The Examiner turns to Halpem and finds that (Final
Act. 6):
Halpem teaches that at least one photopolymer layer comprises
a cured floor layer therein (see Fig. 7 and col. 4, lines 19-21
and 46—51, where the completely polymerized layer creates the
cured floor layer) and that the cured floor layer establishes an
overall depth of plate relief, and a depth of relief between
dots, measured as a percentage of the overall plate relief, is
greater than about 12% of the overall plate relief. Halpem
teaches a plate depth ranging from 10 mils to 60 mils (col. 3,
lines 15—17), including the specific value of 40 mils for
Example 1, which is the overall plate depth (col. 3, line 74 —
col. 4, line 2) and relief dot features having depths ranging from
1.2 mils (dot depth with mask of shadows of Example 1) to 7.1
mils (dot depth with mask of highlights of Example 3).
Based on the Examiner’s findings as to Halpem’s teachings, the
Examiner maintains that (Final Act. 6):
ft would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill
in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the
relief dots of Goodin, Zwadlo and Charlesworth to have the dot
relief as taught by Halpem in order to reproduce fine detail of
middletones and shadows after prolonged wear.
Contrary to the Examiner’s findings, Appellants argue that Halpem
does not teach a cured floor layer, which floor layer establishes an overall
depth of plate relief; that is, a floor layer of cured polymer on the support
side of the photopolymer layer that sets an overall depth of plate relief as
required by the appealed claims (App. Br. 11—12; Spec. 11,1. 16; 15,11. 23—
30; Fig. 11; Vest Decl. 14—18, 21).2 In this regard and as argued by
Appellants, the printing elements of Halpem include uncured areas
2 Declaration of Mr. Ryan Vest under 37 C.F.R. § 1.132 (“Vest Deck”).
4
Appeal 2015-003732
Application 12/660,451
throughout the thickness of the photopolymerizable layer; hence, Halpem
does not teach a cured floor layer that establishes an overall depth of plate
relief, which is a “distance between the floor of the plate and the top of a
solid relief surface as illustrated in Figure 11” (App. Br. 12; Halpem, Figs.
4, 7; Spec. 15,11. 23—24; Fig. 11). In this regard, Appellants’ Specification
states that “Figure 11 depicts relief image definitions” (Spec. 11,1. 16; see
Spec. 15,11. 23-24).
Consequently, and as argued by Appellants, the Examiner’s
interpretation of the term “overall depth of plate relief’ as encompassing any
height difference of the cured plate, including measurements from the top of
the base support layer of Halpem is misdirected and employs an incorrect
claim constmction because the plain meaning of the term “overall depth of
plate relief’ established by the cured floor layer as used in Appellants’
claims when read in light of the subject Specification requires a floor layer
of cured polymer that undergirds the entirety of the at least one
photopolymer layer such that the measured overall depth of plate relief is
defined by the distance between the cured floor layer and a top of a solid
relief surface as shown in Figure 11 (Reply Br. 5—6; Spec. 11,1. 16; Fig. 11;
Spec. 15,11. 23-24).
The Examiner has not satisfactorily explained how Halpem teaches a
cured floor layer providing for an overall depth of plate relief that satisfies
Appellant’s definitions as set forth in the subject Specification and drawings,
as contended by Appellants.
Consequently, the Examiner has not established that Halpem provides
for the missing feature of the Examiner’s proposed combination of Goodin,
5
Appeal 2015-003732
Application 12/660,451
Zwadlo and Charlesworth that the Examiner relies on Halpem to supply
(Final Act. 5—6).
Thus, we reverse the Examiner’s base obviousness Rejection 1.
The Examiner has not established that the additional prior art applied
in the separate obviousness rejections of dependent claims 18 (Rejection 2)
and 19 (Rejection 3) cure the aforementioned deficiency in the base
rejection.
It follows that we shall also reverse Rejections 2 and 3.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s decision to reject the appealed claims is reversed.
REVERSED
6