Ex Parte DeRoller et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 29, 2016

12255095 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/255,095 10/21/2008
70537 7590 08/29/2016
Prass LLP
2661 Riva Road
Building 1000, Suite 1044
Annapolis, MD 21401
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Matthew H. DeRoller
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.
056-0099 2727
EXAMINER
WILLS, LAWRENCE E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2673
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
08/29/2016 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MATTHEW H. DEROLLER,
DAVID ASHTON, and KIRK POTHOS
Appeal2015-002470
Application 12/255,095
Technology Center 2600
Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., NABEEL U. KHAN, and
KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judges.
SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final
rejection of claims 1, 2, 4--9, 11-16, and 18-21. Claims 3, 10, and 17 have
been cancelled. (Br. 19, 21, 23). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
Appeal2015-002470
Application 12/255,095
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention is directed to a method and apparatus for
automatically reconfiguring a print driver for an image production device.
(Spec. i-f 1 ). Claim 1, is representative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method for automatically reconfiguring a print driver for an
image production device, comprising:
receiving a request to print a print job from a user, wherein the
print job includes one or more print job parameters;
determining if the one or more print job parameters violate a
first one or more print policies corresponding to the print driver,
wherein if it is determined that the one or more print job parameters
violate one or more print policies,
notifying the user that the one or more print policies have been
violated;
prompting the user to select to have the print driver
reconfigured to adhere to the one or more print policies that were
violated;
determining if the user selected to reconfigure the print driver,
wherein if it is determined that the user selected to reconfigure the
print driver,
reconfiguring the print driver whereby the print driver
corresponds to a second one or more print policies, wherein the one or
more print job parameters adhere to the second one or more print
policies that were violated; and
sending a signal to print the requested print job,
wherein the reconfigured print driver is used for subsequent
print jobs.
2
Appeal2015-002470
Application 12/255,095
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7-9, 11, 12, 14, 16, 18, 19, and 21 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Kawamoto et al. (US
7,228,314 B2; issued June 5, 2007).
Claims 6, 13, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Kawamoto and Higashiuchi (US
2007 /0280709 Al; published Dec. 6, 2007).
ANALYSIS
After considering each of Appellants' arguments, we agree with the
Examiner. We refer to and adopt the Examiner's findings and conclusions
as set forth in the Examiner's Answer and in the action from which this
appeal was taken. (Ans. 2-10; Final Act. 2-6). Our discussions here will be
limited to the following points of emphasis.
Issue 1: Did the Examiner err in finding Kawamoto discloses:
receiving a request to print a print job from a user,
wherein the print job includes one or more print job parameters;
determining if the one or more print job parameters
violate a first one or more print policies corresponding to the
print driver, wherein if it is determined that the one or more
print job parameters violate one or more print policies, [and]
notifying the user that the one or more print policies
have been violated,
as recited in independent claim 1 and commensurately recited in
independent claims 8 and 15?
Appellants argue:
3
Appeal2015-002470
Application 12/255,095
The Examiner is in error in asserting that the opening of a
print driver (Column 14, lines 35-40) is the same or equivalent
to the receiving of a print job. Additionally, it is wrong for the
Examiner to assert that selection of print parameters through a
User Interface (UI) of a print driver (Fig 8 and Column 14 at lines
64-66) to be the same or equivalent to the parameters of a
received print job.
(Br. 12).
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments. Kawamoto
describes a printer driver user interface (UI) control module that displays a
print setup window and allows user setup of items referred to as "printer
functions." (Kawamoto col. 4, 11. 40-45, col. 5, 11. 1-9). For example,
Figure 8 depicts a print setup window with printer functions "print style"
and "finishing." (Kawamoto Fig. 8).
We agree with the Examiner that the user instruction to open the
printer driver UI, which loads the print process related program into RAM,
discloses "receiving a request to print a print job from a user." (i\'.Lns. 2-3,
citing Kawamoto col. 14, 1. 35--40). We further agree with the Examiner
that Kawamoto' s printer functions disclose the claimed print job parameters.
(Ans. 2-3, citing Fig. 8, col. 14, 11. 64---66). We note Appellants have not
particularly addressed the specific findings made by the Examiner.
Specifically, Appellants have not persuasively rebutted the Examiner's
finding that "it is well known in the art that the opening of a print driver is
the receiving of a job to be printed by an application program" and in
opening such a print driver, "[ t ]he user requests to print a document from an
application with a printer." (Ans. 7). Accordingly, on this record we are not
persuaded the Examiner erred in finding Kawamoto discloses "receiving a
4
Appeal2015-002470
Application 12/255,095
request to print a print job from a user, wherein the print job includes one or
more print job parameters."
Appellants further argue "Kawamoto does not disclose the use of a
database of print policy to limit or man[a]ge how resources are used at a
target printer when processing a print job." (Br. 11). Appellants argue "[a]
print policy ... is different than a print option since an option is a printing
parameter that is embedded in a document while a print policy is a
restriction on a printing function at a particular printer." (Br. 14).
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments. Kawamoto
describes using "conflict process rules" to detect conflicts between printer
functions. (Kawamoto col. 5, 11. 24--35; col. 14, 1. 57-col. 16, 1. 10). Ifa
conflict is detected, Kawamoto describes disabling control to inhibit the
conflicting setup. (Kawamoto col. 15, 1. 40 - col. 16, 1. 10, Fig. 8, Fig. 9).
Appellants' arguments are not commensurate with the scope of the claim
language. Claim 1 does not require a "database of print policy to limit or
man[ a ]ge how resources are used at a target printer when processing a print
job." (See Br. 11 ). Claim 1 only recites "print policies corresponding to the
print driver." Appellants' Specification describes a "print policy" as "rules
for printing that dictate parameters by which a user may print his or her print
jobs." (Spec. i-f 13). Under a broad interpretation in light of the
Specification, we agree with the Examiner that Kawamoto' s "conflict
process rules," which are used to detect conflicts between printer functions
(the claimed parameters), disclose the claimed "print policies." (See Ans. 3,
citing Kawamoto col. 5, 11. 25-30). Accordingly, we are not persuaded the
Examiner erred in finding Kawamoto discloses "determining if the one or
5
Appeal2015-002470
Application 12/255,095
more print job parameters violate a first one or more print policies
corresponding to the print driver."
Appellants further contend "Figure 1 7 of Kawamoto does not provide
the same notification and choice for changing a print driver on the fly with
minor user interaction." (Br. 13). Appellants also argue "it is unreasonable
for the Examiner to assert that a print setup window (Figure 17) is the same
as the claimed notification and configuration dialog window." (Br. 14).
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments. As shown in Figure
1 7, Kawamoto may display a reason why a control is not available.
(Kawamoto Fig. 17, col. 16, 11. 55-57). Again, Appellants' arguments are
not commensurate with the scope of the claim language, which merely
requires "notifying the user that the one or more print policies have been
violated." The claim language does not require a "notification and
configuration dialog window" (See Br. 14), or a "notification and choice for
changing a print driver on the fly with minor user interaction" (See Br. 13).
We agree with the Examiner that Kawamoto' s reason why a control is not
available discloses the claimed notification. (Ans. 9). Accordingly, we are
not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding Kawamoto discloses "notifying
the user that the one or more print policies have been violated" as recited in
claim 1.
For the foregoing reasons, we sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) rejection of independent claim 1. For the same reasons, we sustain
the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of independent claims 8 and 15,
which recite substantially similar limitations as those discussed above, and
dependent claims 2, 4, 7, 9, 11, 14, 16, 18, and 21, which were not
separately argued.
6
Appeal2015-002470
Application 12/255,095
Issue 2: Did the Examiner err in finding Kawamoto discloses a print
policy database as recited in dependent claims 5, 12, and 19?
Appellants argue "it is unreasonable for the Examiner to equate an
'inference engine' with a database." (Br. 14). Appellants also argue "the
use of a symbolic rule (Column 15 at lines 1-14) is not the same or
equivalent of comparing print parameters as received from a print job to
parameters retrieved from a database." (Id.)
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments because Appellants
do not persuasively address the Examiner's findings. Specifically, the
Examiner finds "the conflict process rule description file is considered to
read on a database since it contains a list of rules that govern the print
system as clearly shown in Fig. 7." (Ans. 9). We agree with the Examiner
that Kawamoto' s conflict process rule description file discloses the claimed
print policy database.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection
of claims 5, 12, and 19.
Issue 3: Did the Examiner err in combining Kawamoto and
Higashiuchi?
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in combining Kawamoto and
Higashiuchi in rejecting dependent claims 6, 13, and 20. (Br. 15).
Specifically, Appellants argue "[i]t is not permissible for an Examiner to
conclude[] obviousness without giving a specific reason why the ordinary
artisan would have had any incentive to incorporate the sending of a
7
Appeal2015-002470
Application 12/255,095
message from a printer in Higashiuchi with the print set-up window of
Kawamoto." (Br. 15-16).
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments, which do not
persuasively rebut the Examiner's findings. As noted by the Examiner (Ans.
5-6), a "combination of familiar elements according to known methods is
likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results."
KSR Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). Here, each of the
claim elements is taught by Kawamoto, except for the confirmation
message, which is taught by Higashiuchi. (See Ans. 5, 6, 10). The
Examiner reasonably found that one of ordinary skill in the art would be
motivated to modify Kawamoto to include displaying a confirmation
message to update printer functions or status variable list. (Ans. 5, 6, 10).
Appellants fail to provide sufficient evidence or argmnent that the
combination of Kawamoto and Higashiuchi yields anything other than
predictable results. \Ve are also not persuaded combining the respective
familiar elements of the cited references in the manner proffered by the
Examiner was "uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in
the art." Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162
(Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 418).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection
of dependent claims 6, 13, and 20.
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 2, 4--9,
11-16, and 18-21 is affirmed.
8
Appeal2015-002470
Application 12/255,095
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
9