Ex Parte Conley

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 31, 2017

14267357 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 31, 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.
14/267,357 05/01/2014 John H. Conley 20131507US01 7529
81368 7590
GIBB & RILEY, LLC
Frederick W. Gibb, III, Esq.
844 West Street
Suite 100
Annapolis, MD 21401
09/05/2017 EXAMINER
RUST, ERIC A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2674
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/05/2017 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):
support @ gibbiplaw .com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JOHN H. CONLEY
Appeal 2017-005213
Application 14/267,357
Technology Center 2600
Before JAMES R. HUGHES, ERIC S. FRAHM, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2017-005213
Application 14/267,357
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1,
3—8, 10-15, and 17—20.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
Appellant’s application relates to scheduling sheets of a print job in a
printing device based on timing and resource constraints by using, for
example, the Scheduling Markup Language (SML). Spec. Tflf 4, 21—22.
Further, the SML scheduling is augmented with high-level explanations to
provide a user without particular knowledge of SML an explanation, for
instance, where in a linear time scale a print job failed, or of any constraints
violated when the user attempts to reschedule a sheet. Spec. 5—8, 23—25.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method comprising:
receiving, into a computerized device, scheduling
constraints for processing sheets of print media of one multi­
sheet print job through a printing device having processing
components;
preparing a sheet timing schedule for each of said sheets
of print media of said multi-sheet print job based on said
scheduling constraints, using said computerized device, said
sheet timing schedule having different locations of different
sheets of said multi-sheet print job relative to different ones of
said processing components of said printing device and relative
to a linear time scale to depict a series of sheet schedules along
said linear time scale and show different successive printer
operations applied to said different sheets of said multi-sheet
print job at different times along said linear time scale;
1 Claims 2, 9, and 16 have been canceled.
2
Appeal 2017-005213
Application 14/267,357
augmenting said sheet timing schedule to produce an
augmented sheet timing schedule by adding explanatory text to
said sheet timing schedule using said computerized device, said
explanatory text describing different intended locations of said
different sheets of said multi-sheet print job with respect to
different ones of said processing components of said printing
device at different times along said linear time scale, and said
explanatory text describing a different processing activity for
said different sheets of said multi-sheet print job occurring at a
corresponding point along said linear time scale;
receiving, into said computerized device, user input
selecting a portion of said augmented sheet timing schedule; and
outputting, from said computerized device in response to
said user input selecting said portion of said augmented sheet
timing schedule, corresponding portions of said explanatory text
corresponding to a location on said linear time scale represented
by said portion of said augmented sheet timing schedule.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Hatta
Noda
Abiko
Dumitrescu
US 7,258,498 B2
US 2005/0243365 A1
US 2006/0028672 A1
US 2006/0044597 A1
Aug. 21,2007
Nov. 3, 2005
Feb. 9, 2006
Mar. 2, 2006
REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 1, 5—8, 12—15, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Abiko, Noda, and Hatta.
Claims 3, 10, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Abiko, Noda, Hatta, and Dumitrescu.
3
Appeal 2017-005213
Application 14/267,357
Claims 4, 11, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Abiko, Noda, Hatta, and Official Notice.
ANALYSIS
Appellant contends Abiko does not teach timing schedules for sheets
of a single print job relative to different processing components of a printing
device, but rather only teaches the timing schedules of multiple print jobs
relative to multiple printing devices. See App. Br. 14—16. Appellant also
contends Hatta fails to cure this deficiency of Abiko. See App. Br. 19-20.
Specifically, Appellant argues “Figure 11 of Hatta instead shows different
sheets of a print job being printed by different printers.” Reply Br. 3. We
are persuaded by Appellant’s arguments.
Abiko discloses a process control server that manages the scheduling
of multiple print jobs across multiple devices. See Abiko, Abstract; lin-
is. In one example, Abiko’s Figure 5 shows a chart 501 that displays a
schedule for various devices, including that print jobs 249, 250, and 251 are
to be performed by device 401. Abiko, 1 69; Fig. 5. However, the Examiner
has not shown Abiko teaches the scheduling of individual sheets of a
particular print job with respect to the different components of the device
401.
Hatta relates to the management of photo studio printing (Hatta,
Abstract), and discloses an example job list page 180 in Figure 11. Hatta,
col. 30,11. 8—9. Hatta’s Figure 11 shows a print job “000103” in which
pages “01” and “02” are scheduled for printing on different printers.
However, although Hatta discloses page-level scheduling, the Examiner has
not shown Hatta discloses a schedule that include the details of the progress
4
Appeal 2017-005213
Application 14/267,357
of a given page with respect to the different processing components of the
printer that is printing that page. Claim 1 requires “said sheet timing
schedule having different locations of different sheets of said multi-sheet
print job relative to different ones of said processing components of said
printing device and relative to a linear time scale.” Hatta, in contrast, only
discloses which printer is scheduled to print a page, and does not disclose
scheduling each page with respect to the processing components of the
printer. Accordingly, Hatta fails to cure the deficiency of Abiko noted
above.
We are, therefore, constrained by the record to find the Examiner
erred in rejecting independent claim 1, independent claims 8 and 15, and
dependent claims 3—7, 10-14, and 17—20.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 3—8, 10-15, and 17—20
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 3—
8, 10-15, and 17—20 is reversed.
REVERSED
5