COMMISSIONER'S DECISION
Obviousness simplification by the patentee of his patented apparatus by
eliminating previously considered essential gearing structure that had
been accepted as the norm in the printing art and yet retaining effective
results was considered acceptable. Rejection withdrawn.
This decision deals with Applicant's request for review by the
Commissioner of Patents of the Examiner's Final Act in on
application 397,246 (C1. 101-80.1). The application was filed on
February 26, 1982, by Heidelberger Druckmaschinen
Aktiengesellschaft and is entitled MAIN DRIVE FOR ROTARY OFFSET
PRINTING PRESSES. The inventor is Willi Jeschke. The Examiner in
charge issued a Final Action on July 23, 1985, refusing to allow
the claims. A Hearing was held on October 12, 1988 at which the
Patent agent, Mr. Warren Hall, represented the Applicant, and
submitted an amendment to claim 1. The amendment was confirmed by
letter dated October 17, 1988. Subsequent amendments to claims 5
and 6 were made by letter dated November 2, 1988.
The invention relates to a rotary offset printing machine having
a plurality of meshing identical in line printing units, to form
a serially disposed array for printing both sides of a web moving
horizontally through them, as depicted in figures 1 and 2 produced
below:
(see formula I, II)
Each unit has main cylindrical drive gears 10, 11. Gear 10 drives
cylindrical gear 9 to provide the only driving connection with one
of the second cylindrical gears 13, 17, which are connected to
separated plate cylinders 7, 8 respectively. Printing cylinders
5, 6 are in mutual contact to permit a web 4 to pass therebetween
and each includes a first gear 14, 15 for engagement with gears 13,
17 respectively.
The claims were refused in view of the following United States
Patent:
4,154,165 May 15, 1979 Jeschke
The Jeschke Patent discloses an in-line array of printing units for
printing a horizontally moving web. As shown in figure 4
reproduced below, main driving gears 12, 13 through plate cylinder
drive gears 10, 11 power a closed gear train. Each gear 10, 11 has
an offset spur gear 17. when separate actuators 30 move gears l0
and 11 into mesh with the respective main gears, gears 17 drive
plate cylinders 8, 9 and also mesh with spur gears 18 to obtain the
closed gear train and rotate blanket cylinders 6, 7 between which
a paper web is moved. To ensure proper tensioning or bracing of
the gears during operation an adjustment means 33 is provided.
(see formula I)
In his Final Action the Examiner said, in part, as follows:
The alleged invention pertains to a rotary offset
printing machine, particularly to a simplified
construction of the main drive cylindrical gear and a
simplified construction of the main drive. As cited in
the rejected claim 1, the provision of the alleged
invention is the improvement of
"gear means for providing the only drive connection
between a predetermined one of said drive gears and
predetermined one of said second gears whereby said
predetermined diameters can be selected to
establish desired separation distances between
individual ones of said printing units in
dependence upon said predetermined diameters while
maintaining the same first and second gears."
This structure was rejected in the Official Action of
January 18, 1985 as being obvious to one skilled in the
art and aware of the teachings of the citation. The
critical feature of the alleged invention, as the
applicant states in his letter of May 17, 1985, is a two
point mesh contact: the first between the gears 10 and
11, which is distinguished from the reference, which
shows the same structure having three point mesh contact
where the third is between gears 11 and 13, (fig. 2 of
the reference). This is true that the presented "new"
structure is distinguished and superior over the old,
simply because any three point mesh contact is costly and
difficult to align and regulate and this is obvious
common general knowledge. The "new" structure was
achieved by improving the old by removing gear 11 and the
actuating mechanism (fig. 4 of the reference) and differs
from the older only in simplification of its operation.
The Applicant disagreed, and replied in part as follows:
...
The claims of the present application distinguish over
the prior art, in that the diameters of gears 11 and 13
can be preselected to achieve a particular spacing
between serially disposed printing machines without
varying the drive arrangement of the plate cylinders 7
and 8 and offset cylinders 5 and 6. This is possible,
as the main cylindrical gears 10 and 11 only mesh with
each other and one gear of a plate cylinder and as such
have a "two point" mesh contact. There is a host of
different diameter main cylindrical gears which can
cooperate and maintain the two point mesh contact, thus
allowing variation in the effective spacing between
serially disposed printing machines, previously
predetermined by a "three point" mesh contact. The drive
train of the plate cylinders and the offset cylinders
only has one point of direct meshing engagement with the
main cylindrical gears, and as such, a defined force
transmission through the gears of the cylinders is
provided, again not found in the prior art.
The drive of the cylinders is disengagable by a single
releasable coupling significantly reducing the capital
expense.
The improved printing press is more adaptable for onsite
conditions, requires less gears and actuators and still
provides the required quality of printing.
United States Patent 4,154,165 is the present inventor's
earlier patent ... Two embodiments are disclosed in the
detailed description, one of which is shown in Figures
1 through 3 and an alternate embodiment shown in Figure
4. The first embodiment does not include the necessary
meshing gear drive arrangement between the offset
cylinders 6 and 7 and requires the additional actuated
drive gear 1l in mesh with spur gear 13 of the main drive
system. It is apparent, gear 11 of the structure
illustrated in Figures 1 through 3 can not be eliminated
as offset cylinder 7 would not be driven by the drive
arrangement. Furthermore, it is essential to the Jeschke
structure to maintain this drive relation as stated in
Column 2, lines 24 to 44 which read as follows:
With the foregoing and other objects in view, there
is provided, in accordance with the invention, in a
rotary printing machine having a plurality of
serially disposed printing units, each including two
blanket cylinders in mutual contact and two plate
cylinders respectively cooperating with one of the
blanket cylinders, and a main drive system
individually driving each of the plate cylinders,
the main drive system of each of the printing units
comprising two spur gears in mutually meshing
engagement and in meshing engagement with the spur
gears of the respective main drive systems of the
printing units immediately adjacent thereto, each of
the plate cylinders having a drive gear in meshing
engagement with one of the two spur gears and, in
combination with the main drive system, a drive
system serially associated therewith and comprising
two additional spur gears coupling each of the plate
cylinders to a respective blanket cylinder, the
additional spur gears being disposed adjacent the
main drive system in a gear line different from that
of the main drive system. (emphasis added)
...
The Jeschke reference when consider in its entirety,
establishes that 3 point mesh contact is essential to the
drive arrangement of the printing press and, therefore,
an "unimaginative technician" with knowledge of the
reference would not consider deleting what are clearly
stated as essential elements to the printing press. The
Examiner's statement regarding 3 point mesh contact is
considered in isolation of the teaching of the reference
which when considered as a whole, leads a person away
from the invention claimed. Why would a person consider
eliminating a component which is stated as necessary to
achieve the desired result?
The issue before the Board is whether or not the claims define
patentable subject matter in view of the cited art. Amended claim
1 reads:
In a rotary offset printing machine, of the type
adapted to cooperate with like printing machines to form
a plurality of serially disposed identical printing units
for printing on a web moving along a substantially
horizontal web path and having a common drive,
said printing machine including:
a pair of journalled horizontally offset and parallel
printing cylinders in mutual contact with one another to
allow a web to pass therebetween; said printing cylinders
including first cylindrical gears in mesh with one
another:
a pair of journalled and vertically separated plate
cylinders, each of said plate cylinders including a
second gear and being operatively intermeshed with a
predetermined respective one of said first cylindrical
gears associated with said printing cylinders:
a pair of drive cylindrical gears of predetermined
diameters each intermeshed with one another and capable
of intermeshing with one of a similar pair of drive
cylindrical gears of adjacent serially disposed printing
units; and cylindrical gear means for providing the only
drive connection between a predetermined one of said
drive cylindrical gears and a predetermined one of said
second cylindrical gears whereby said predetermined
diameters can be selected to establish desired separation
distances between individual ones of said printing units
in dependence upon said predetermined diameters while
maintaining the same first and second cylindrical gears.
At the Hearing, Mr. Hall explained the Applicant's invention as
basically being the realization that it was not essential to have
a constant drive applied at both ends of the gear train as shown
in the Jeschke Patent. Resulting from this new concept, the Patent
Agent says the Applicant found that satisfactory printing quality
was obtained by retaining only one actuator and one spur gear means
that operated with only one drive gear, anti by eliminating the
second actuator as well as the tensioning or bracing means previou-
sly considered essential in the Applicant's cited prior patent.
The Agent emphasized that a quality product is obtained by the
Applicant's two point mesh contact described in his application,
whereas previously the Applicant had considered a three point mesh
and bracing of the gearing was essential. In response to ques-
tions, the Agent described how different sizes of main drive gears
may be made to mesh with the closed gear train of the invention set
out in the application without requiring rearrangement of the gears
in the train as would be required in the patented device. He drew
attention to the simplification the Applicant achieves by having
only one drive point to produce quality printing. In responding
to blurring of print, he detailed how the web was contacted
individually on two sides which permitted satisfactory printing
with no detectable blurring or slippage that affected quality.
Mr. Hall noted the Applicant here was the patentee of the cited
reference, who in that patent was concerned with a more compli-
cated, expensive gear drive in a search for quality, and was
working within the constraints of what had been accepted at that
time. He stressed that the removal of a drive means from one end
of the gear train was a significant advance in the art of offset
printing. Mr. Hall argued that the cited patent nowhere suggested
that a simpler arrangement of known parts could produce acceptable
quality printing, nor did it indicate or provide any reason to
think along the lines that it would be possible to eliminate either
one of the mesh points or the bracing. He referred to the decision
in Canadian General Electric Co. Ltd. v. Fada Radio Ltd. XLVII
R.P.C. (1930) 69, at 88, 89
The law on this subject is, in their Lordship's opinion,
accurately summarized by Maclean J. in his judgement.
His statement is as follows: "There must be a substantial
exercise of the inventive power or inventive genius, though
it may in cases be very slight. Slight alterations or
improvements may produce important results, and may disclose
great ingenuity. Sometimes it is a combination that is
the invention; if the invention requires independent thought,
ingenuity and skill, producing in a distinctive form a
more efficient result, converting a comparatively defective
apparatus into a useful and efficient one, rejecting what
is bad and useless in former attempts and retaining what
is useful, and uniting them all into an apparatus which,
taken as a whole, is novel, there is subject-matter. A
new combination of well known devices, and the application
thereof to a new and useful purpose, may require invention
to produce it, and may be good subject matter for a patent."
The Examining staff expressed a concern that a balance of loads at
the pressure point between the cylinders 5 and 6 during printing
would not be obtainable due to imbalances produced at various points
in the gear train as a result of only one drive point. Due to the
accumulating slippage they doubted that there would be acceptable
alignment during printing. The Agent explained that the open end
gear train only provides slight slippage at most, and that the Applicant's
system provides for printing on opposite sides of the web. Therefore,
he pointed out that any variation would not be noticeable in the
end product since exact synchronisation is not needed when printing.
The Examining staff regarded as obvious the reduction of the number
of gears from 9 in the patent to 8 in the application, and the actuators
from 2 to 1. For his part, the Agent pointed to the decreased cost
benefit as being an extremely important factor that should not be
forgotten in assessing the advance brought to the printing art.
Nor, he stressed, should the significance of the concept be dismissed
lightly.
The Examining staff regarded the new combination as no more than
a simplification of the patented structure by merely removing one
gear and the actuating mechanism. The Agent stressed the significance
of the Applicant's system saying the concept of removing both the
need for bracing, and for a drive from each end of the previously
patented system, could not be considered as an expected approach
to take in view of the teaching provided by the patented arrangement
that such elements were essential.
In view of the direction provided by the decision in Canadian General
Electric Co. v. Fada Radio Ltd., supra, we think the Applicant has
demonstrated independent thought and ingenuity in producing a combination
that produces useful results. We believe there has been an exercise
of the inventive faculty to improve upon the known apparatus by changing
from what had been accepted as the norm in the printing art to an
arrangement that dispenses with previously required elements to achieve
unexpected results. Moreover, the new combination produces effective
results with reduced costs.
We are satisfied the distinctiveness of the Applicant's gearing system
set out in the application, and clearly defined by amended claims
1, 5, and 6, and claims 2 to 4, and 7, merits patent protection.
We recommend acceptance of amended claims 1, 5 and 6, as well as
dependent claims 2 to 4, and 7.
M.G. Brown S.D. Kot
Acting Chairman Member
Patent Appeal Board
After carefully reviewing the prosecution, I concur with the findings
and the recommendation of the Patent Appeal Board. Accordingly,
I accept the amendment to claims 1, 5, and 6, and the claims dependent
thereon. I withdraw, therefore, the refusal of the claims, and I
remand the application to the Examiner for prosecution consistent
with the recommendation.
J.H.A. Gariepy
Commissioner of Patents
Dated at Hull, Quebec
this 10th day of January 1989