Ex parte Akiyama

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Dec 15, 1999

08314131 (B.P.A.I. Dec. 15, 1999)

Application for patent filed September 28, 1994. 1
An amendment after the final rejection was filed [paper2
no. 7] and was entered in the record for the purposes of this
-1-
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered
today (1) was not written for publication in a law
journal and (2) is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 18
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
________________
Ex parte TAKAO AKIYAMA
________________
Appeal No. 1997-0509
Application 08/314,1311
________________
ON BRIEF
________________
Before JERRY SMITH, LALL and GROSS, Administrative Patent
Judges.
LALL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from
the Examiner's final rejection of Claims 5 to 19, other2
Appeal No. 1997-0509
Application 08/314,131
appeal [paper no. 8], even though the face of the amendment
shows "not entered".
-2-
claims having been canceled.
The disclosed invention is directed to a printing
apparatus having a memory management system and to a memory
management method which randomly changes the layout of data
and usage of a READ/WRITE memory in the printing apparatus.
The invention resides in an improved memory management system
and method for a printer which enables the user to install
customized symbols and graphic characters and which maximizes
the use of available memory without the need for any increase
in the storage capacity of the memory. The invention is
further illustrated by the following claim.
Representative claim 5 is reproduced as follows:
5. A printing apparatus comprising:
printing means for performing a plurality of printing
operations;
a memory for storing printing data; and
control means for controlling the plurality of printing
operations performed by the printing means in accordance with
a predetermined control program, the control means being
connected to the memory and having memory management means for
randomly dividing the memory means into a plurality of memory
blocks, for randomly and exchangeably assigning a usage to
Appeal No. 1997-0509
Application 08/314,131
A reply brief was filed [paper no. 14] and was entered3
in the record without any further response by the Examiner
[paper no. 15].
-3-
each of the memory blocks in accordance with a plurality of
predetermined user applications, and for storing printing data
corresponding to the respective predetermined user
applications to the respective memory blocks.
The Examiner relies on the following reference:
Toyokura 5,335,316 Aug. 2, 1994
(filed Apr. 22, 1992)
Claims 5 to 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as
being
anticipated by Toyokura.
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellant or the
Examiner, we make reference to the briefs and the answer for3
the respective details thereof.
OPINION
We have considered the rejections advanced by the
Examiner and the supporting arguments. We have, likewise,
reviewed Appellant’s arguments set forth in the briefs. It is
our view that claims 5 to 19 are anticipated by Toyokura.
In our analysis, we are guided by the precedence of our
reviewing court that the limitations from the disclosure are
not to be imported into the claims. In re Lundberg, 244 F.2d
Appeal No. 1997-0509
Application 08/314,131
-4-
543, 113 USPQ 530 (CCPA 1957); In re Queener, 796 F.2d 461,
230 USPQ 438 (Fed. Cir. 1986). We are also mindful, however,
that anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102 is established only
when a single prior art reference discloses, either expressly
or under the principles of inherency, each and every element
of a claimed invention. See RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital Data
Sys., Inc., 730
F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert.
dismissed, 468 U.S. 1228 (1984). Furthermore, only those
arguments actually made by Appellant have been considered in
making this decision. Arguments which Appellant could have
made but chose not to make in the briefs have not been
considered [37 CFR § 1.192(a)].
Rejection of claims 5 to 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 102
These claims are rejected as being anticipated by
Toyokura. We first take independent claim 5. We have
evaluated the positions of the Examiner [final rejection,
pages 3 to 4 and answer, pages 2 to 3] and Appellant [brief,
pages 8 to 13 and reply brief, pages 2 to 5]. We agree with
the Examiner that Toyokura does anticipate the invention as
Appeal No. 1997-0509
Application 08/314,131
-5-
claimed in claim 5 for the following reasons. Appellant
argues that “claims 5 and 16 recite that the multiple blocks
of the printer memory may each be used to store character data
or program data corresponding to multiple user applications or
programs.” [Brief, page 10]. Again, at page 12 of the brief,
Appellant reiterates that “[i]n accordance with this
explicitly recited structure (claim 5) and method (claim 16),
user-defined character data and/or graphic data may be
selectively downloaded from a host computer for use in the
divided print memory, thereby obviating the need for memory
expansion.” However, as the Examiner points out, this feature
does not appear in claim 5. In fact, claim 5, in pertinent
part, calls for “assigning a usage to each of the memory
blocks ... blocks.” Toyokura, figure 1B, does disclose the
assignment to each of the memory blocks (0 thru 7), a usage,
such as of storing of characters A, B and C depending on an
application being run. Furthermore, a plurality of
applications can be run on a computer, including Toyokura's,
one at a time, and the results of each particular application
can be printed by using the printer of Toyokura. Claim 5 does
not call for the different applications being run
Appeal No. 1997-0509
Application 08/314,131
-6-
simultaneously and the printer being used simultaneously for
more than one application. Thus, the arguments made by
Appellant are not commensurate with the features claimed in
claim 5.
Furthermore, Appellant argues that the claims should be
interpreted to read on the specific structure disclosed in the
specification, citing In re Donaldson, 16 F.3d 1189, 1194, 29
USPQ 1845, 1849 [brief, pages 13 to 14]. However, Appellant
has not specifically spelled out what particular means in the
claims correspond to the specific disclosed structure, and how
that structure differs from Toyokura's disclosure. Absent
that, we agree with the Examiner's interpretation of the
claims as given by the Examiner's position above.
The dependent claims 6 through 15 are elected to be
grouped with claim 5 [brief, page 8] and not argued
separately. Therefore, we sustain the anticipation rejection
of claims 5 through 15.
Regarding the other independent claim 16, this is a
method claim corresponding to the apparatus claim 5 discussed
above. The Examiner, as well as Appellant, have argued claim
16 in the same manner as claim 5. Consequently, we need to
Appeal No. 1997-0509
Application 08/314,131
-7-
add nothing further. Furthermore, once again, dependent
claims 17 through 19 are elected to be grouped with claim 16
[brief, page 8] and not argued separately. Therefore, we also
sustain the anticipation rejection of claims 16 through 19 for
the same reasons as claim 5.
In summary, we have affirmed the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 5 through 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated
by Toyokura.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
Appeal No. 1997-0509
Application 08/314,131
-8-
JERRY SMITH )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
PARSHOTAM S. LALL ) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
ANITA PELLMAN GROSS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 1997-0509
Application 08/314,131
-9-
Adams & Wilks
50 Broadway
31st Floor
New York, NY 10004
PSL/ki