Ex parte CHROSNY et al.

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Dec 3, 1998

07961795 (B.P.A.I. Dec. 3, 1998)

Application for patent filed October 16, 1992. Assigned to Pitney Bowes1
Inc.
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publication in a law journal and (2) is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 14
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte WOJCIECH M. CHROSNY,
and KHOSROW EGHTESADI
_____________
Appeal No. 96-0327
Application 07/961,7951
______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before KRASS, JERRY SMITH and LEE, Administrative Patent
Judges.
LEE, 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 1, 10-14 and 20-25.
Claims 8 and 9 have been canceled. Claims 2-7, 15-19, and 26-
27 have been objected to as containing allowable subject
matter but depending from a rejected claim.
References relied on by the Examiner
Appeal No. 96-0327
Application 07/961,795
2
Chang et al. (Chang) Patent No. 4,933,616 June 12, 1990
The Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1, 10-14 and 20-25 stand finally rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Chang.
The Invention
The invention is directed to a method and apparatus for a
sheet processing system. The independent claims are claims 1,
14 and 24. which are reproduced below:
1. A sheet processing system, comprising:
a) sheet handling apparatus, said apparatus including a
first input for input of a control signal for determining the
rate at which said apparatus processes sheets;
b) a sheet feeder for input of sheets to said apparatus,
said feeder producing a signal during input of a sheet
characteristic of said sheet;
c) means responsive to said characteristic signal and
connected to said first input for generating said control
signal in accordance with said characteristic signal so that
the processing rate of said apparatus is reduced if said sheet
is likely to jam in said apparatus.
14. A method for controlling a sheet handling apparatus
to reduce jams, comprising the steps of:
a) monitoring a signal produced during input of a sheet,
said signal being characteristic of said sheet;
b) generating a control signal for controlling the
processing rate of said apparatus in response to said
characteristic signal so that the processing rate is reduced
if said sheet is likely to jam in said apparatus.
Appeal No. 96-0327
Application 07/961,795
3
24. A sheet processing system, comprising:
a) sheet handling apparatus, said apparatus including a
first input for input of a control signal for determining the
rate at which said apparatus processes sheets;
b) a sheet feeder for input of sheets to said apparatus,
said feeder producing a signal during input of a sheet
characteristic of said sheet;
c) means responsive to said characteristic signal and
connected to said first input for generating said control
signal in accordance with said characteristic signal.
Opinion
We affirm the rejection of claims 1, 10-14, 20, 21 and
23-25. We reverse the rejection of claim 22.
Our opinion is based solely on the arguments made by the
appellants in the appeal brief. Arguments which could have
been raised but which are not before us, are not at issue and
are considered waived.
The rejection of claim 22 as being anticipated by Chang
is summarily reversed. Claim 22 depends from claim 18 which
has been indicated as containing allowable subject matter but
dependent from a rejected claim. Thus, no proper basis exists
for rejecting claim 22. Rather, on this record, it should be
objected to, like claim 18, as containing allowable subject
matter but dependent from a rejected claim, i.e., claim 1.
Appeal No. 96-0327
Application 07/961,795
4
The appellants argue that while the claimed invention
requires a control signal for determining the rate of
processing of the sheet processing apparatus, Chang discloses
only a method for measuring the speed of a mail piece. The
argument is erroneous and misplaced. Chang discloses (bottom
of column 5 to the top of column 6) that upon arrival of the
leading edge of an envelope to the second speed sensor 68, the
microcomputer estimates the mail speed and determines the new
conveyor IN-SPEED for the mailing machine 10, and also
determines the new PEAK-DRUM-SPEED of the mailing machine
relative to the new IN-SPEED. In lines 46-52 of column 6,
Chang further discloses that as the leading edge of an
envelope arrives at the start slowdown point (Q), the
microcomputer sets the conveyor GOAL SPEED to equal to the
computed desired PEAK-DRUM-SPEED and sets variables to ramp
down conveyor stepper motor 24 of the transport system 20 in
mailing machine 10. Accordingly, it is clear that the
transport system 20 in the mailing machine 10 is caused to
slow down in response to the detected mail speed when an
envelope gets sufficiently close to the print drum of the
mailing machine. Chang does not simply measure or estimate
Appeal No. 96-0327
Application 07/961,795
5
the incoming mail speed. Rather, real events and activities
occur in response to the detecting of the incoming mail speed.
The incoming speed of an envelope is characteristic of
the incoming envelope, given the appellants’ disclosure in
their own specification (page 3, line 38 to page 4, line 7)
that the motor drive current of sheet feeder 20 is the
preferred source of characteristic signals of the incoming
sheets. Motor drive currents reflect the speed of the feeder
20. Accordingly, Chang does disclose the production of a
signal characteristic of the incoming sheets.
Finally, the appellants argue that while the claimed
invention slows down the sheet processing speed if the sheet
is likely to jam in the apparatus, Chang slows down the
processing speed after a jam has already occurred, citing
column 6, lines 11-17, of Chang. However, a reasonable
reading of Chang reveals that the cited portion describes only
a further feature for handling the occurrence of a jam and not
the ordinary operations of the mailing machine.
The cited portion immediately follows the introduction of
a "mail jam timeout counter," and the rest of column 6's
description, beginning on line 19, appears to describe the
Appeal No. 96-0327
Application 07/961,795
6
regular operations of the mailing machine. In lines 46-52, it
is described that the conveyor is set to a GOAL SPEED equal to
the PEAK-DRUM-SPEED (print drum slew speed) when the envelope
arrives at the start slowdown point (Q). See also the
flowchart illustrated in Chang’s Figure 8B. It is clear that
the slowdown is a built-in stage for processing and is
initiated even when no jam has been detected. Also, it is
implicit that the slowdown of the conveyor speed to match the
print drum slew speed is to avoid a jam that would be caused
by conveyor 20's running faster than the printing station 70
can print. Here, the conveyor speed represents the processing
rate of the sheet processing apparatus.
The appellants refer to parts of the flow chart shown in
Figure 13. But Figure 13 is only a "shut down" subroutine
which includes procedures for clearing a jam by moving the
mailing machine conveyor very slowly. That is not
inconsistent with slowing down the conveyor speed to match the
PEAK-DRUM-SPEED of the printing assembly during ordinary
processing without a jam.
Accordingly, the appellants’ argument is without merit.
The appellants may not ignore those portions which anticipate
Appeal No. 96-0327
Application 07/961,795
7
the claimed invention and recognize only a feature of Chang
which does not involve the appellants’ claimed invention.
Moreover, it should be noted that the appellants’ independent
claim 24 states nothing with regard to slowing down the
processing if a sheet is likely to jam. With respect to
claims 24 and 25, the appellants’ argument is not commensurate
in scope with what has been claimed.
For the foregoing reasons, we sustain the rejection of
claims 1, 10-14, 20, 21 and 23-25 as being anticipated by
Chang.
Conclusion
The rejection of claims 1, 10-14, 20, 21, and 23-25 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Chang is affirmed.
The rejection of claim 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Chang is reversed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Appeal No. 96-0327
Application 07/961,795
8
ERROL A. KRASS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
JERRY SMITH )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
JAMESON LEE )
Administrative Patent Judge )
sd
Brigitte L. Jeffery
PITNEY BOWES INC.
Intellectual Property and
Technology Law Department
World Headquarters
One Elmcroft Road
Stamford, CT 06926-0700