Ex Parte Butler et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 28, 2016

13225815 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 28, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/225,815 09/06/2011
22879 7590 05/02/2016
HP Inc.
3390 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 35
FORT COLLINS, CO 80528-9544
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
David G. Butler
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
82690754 2362
EXAMINER
PATEL, HITESHKUMARR
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2441
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/02/2016 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):
ipa.mail@hp.com
barbl@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 DAVID G. BUTLER, KENNETH K. SMITH, and
ADAM J. SNYDER
Appeal2014-003821
Application 13/225,815
Technology Center 2400
Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, DANIEL J. GALLIGAN, and
JOHN R. KENNY, Administrative Patent Judges.
THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's finally rejecting claims 1, 4-12, and 14-21, all the pending
claims in the present application. Claims 2, 3, and 13 are canceled. We
have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
The present invention relates generally to using a uniform resource
identifier from a controller to define a parameter setting or value for an
electronic device. See Abstract.
Appeal2014-003821
Application 13/225,815
Claim l is illustrative:
1. A method of controlling an electronic device,
compnsmg:
receiving at the electronic device, from an external
controller, a uniform resource identifier (URI) pathname having plural
levels, each level specifying a parameter setting for the electronic
device;
parsing the plural levels of the received URI pathname to
determine the corresponding plural parameter settings; and
after all the plural levels have been parsed, applying the
determined plural parameter settings to the electronic device.
Appellants appeal the following rejections:
Claims 1, 6, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Oshima (US 2007/0053376 Al, Mar. 8, 2007) (see Final Act
3).
Claims 4, 5, 7-12, and 14--20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Oshima in combination with various other prior art
(see Final Act 6-24).
ANALYSIS
Rejection under§ 102(b) of claims 1, 6, and 21 under Oshima
Issue: Did the Examiner err in finding that Oshima discloses a
uniform resource identifier (URI) pathname having plural levels, each level
specifying a parameter setting, as set forth in claim 1?
Appellants contend "[ t ]he pathname identified by the Examiner is
only a portion of the pathname that is received at the electronic device from
the external controller (App. Br. 11 ). Appellants further contend that "[i]n
the Examiner's Answer, the Examiner continues to disregard the presence of
2
Appeal2014-003821
Application 13/225,815
the highest level pathname, '/CONTROL', in the URI pathname
'/CONTROL/PRINTER/PRINTBASICl"' (Reply Br. 6).
The Examiner finds that Oshima teaches a "URI pathname having
plural levels i.e., '/PRINTER/PRINTBASICl ',first plural level pathname is
'/printer' ... second plural level pathname is '/printbasic 1 ' ... [and] the
MFP device unit 400 performs parsing" (Ans. 5). We agree with the
Examiner.
Although we agree with Appellants that the Examiner is only looking
at a portion of the entire pathname received in Oshima, i.e.,
/CONTROL/PRINTER/PRINTBASICl (see Oshima i-f 137 and Fig. 11), we
note that claim 1 does not specify that the entire received pathname must be
utilized (both the highest level pathname and the low-level pathname), only
that the received pathname has plural levels. Consistent with this
interpretation, Oshima describes "'/PRINTER/PRINTBASICl"' as "'the
low-level path name"' and it includes plural levels (see i-f 137). Thus, we
find that the claimed received pathname reads on the Examiner's proffered
low-level pathname. For example, Oshima discloses that "layers [are] being
separated by a slash '/"' (see i-f 137) and that the low level path name is
parsed (see i-f 142). In other words, the low-level pathname has two levels
that are parsed. Therefore, we see no error in the Examiner omitting
Oshima's highest level path name portion, i.e., /CONTROL, from the
Examiner's analysis.
Appellants also contend:
Thus, the Oshima reference fails to disclose the limitation of
"after all the plural levels have been parsed, applying the determined
plural parameter settings to the electronic device", because the
"/CONTROL" pathname level is applied to the multifunction
peripheral device 200 by the MFP server 300 before the
3
Appeal2014-003821
Application 13/225,815
"/PRINTER/PRINTBASIC l" pathname levels are even received,
much less parsed, by the MFP device unit 400.
(App. Br. 17). Because this argument is premised on Appellants' previous
argument that the Examiner improperly ignored the /CONTROL portion of
the pathname, with which we disagree supra, we similarly find this
argument unpersuasive, as it is not necessary that the Examiner consider the
/CONTROL portion of the pathname.
Appellants further contend that "[p ]arameter settings are described in
Appellants' specification as 'settings or values for various operational
parameters of the I/O device"' (App. Br. 12, citing Spec. 1:12-13) and that
"the Oshima reference discloses that the /PRINTER and/or /PRINTBASICl
levels of the pathname do not specify any parameter settings for the
electronic device, but rather direct the message body ... to the proper device
and/or service module for processing" (id. at 13).
states:
The portion of the Specification that Appellants direct our attention to
Through the application and the driver, the user specifies settings or
values for various operational parameters of the I/O device, and
commands the I/O device to perform an I/O operation and transmit
data to and from the device, such as scanning an image and providing
image data to the host computer, or printing a specified data file
provided by the computer to the device.
Spec. 1: 12-16. In other words, the user-specified settings can include
printing a specified data file. Similarly, Oshima discloses that according to
the low-level path name, "the 'Printer' device module is selected according
to the high level layer name '/PRINTER,' and the 'PRINTBASIC' service
module is selected according to the low level layer name '/PRINTBASIC 1.'
The message body is then presented to this 'PrintBasic' service module" (i-f
4
Appeal2014-003821
Application 13/225,815
140). Therefore, we find unavailing Appellants' contention that in the
Oshima reference the /PRINTER and/or /PRINTBASICl levels of the
pathname do not specify any parameter settings for the electronic device,
given the aforementioned disclosure.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's anticipation rejection of
claim 1, and Appellants do not argue separate patentability for dependent
claims 6 and 21 (see App. Br. 8-17). We, therefore, also sustain the
Examiner's anticipation rejection of claims 6 and 21.
Rejection under§ 103(a) of claims 4, 5, 7-12, and 14-20
Because Appellants have not presented separate patentability
arguments or have reiterated substantially the same arguments as those
previously discussed for patentability of claim 1 (see App. Br. 17-22),
claims 4, 5, 7-12, and 14--20 fall therewith. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(v).
DECISION
We affirm all of the Examiner's§ 102(b) and§ 103(a) rejections.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
5