Ex Parte Inamine

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 30, 2002

08917718 (B.P.A.I. May. 30, 2002)

-1–
The opinion in support of the decision being entered
today was not written for publication in a law journal
and is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 19
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES

Ex parte NOBORU INAMINE

Appeal No. 2001-0830
Application No. 08/917,718

HEARD: MAY 22, 2001

Before KRASS, RUGGIERO, and DIXON, Administrative Patent Judges.
KRASS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the final rejection of
claims 1, 4, 5 and 8-16, all of the pending claims.
The invention is directed to an interface between a computer
and an image-forming apparatus best illustrated by reference to
representative independent claim 1, reproduced as follows:
Appeal No. 2001-0830
Application No. 08/917,718
-2–
1. An interface system between at least one image forming
machine and a computer, comprising:
data input means for receiving data from the computer, said
data including a header portion and a data portion;
determining means for determining whether the data input
through said data input means is print data or environment
setting data based on a header code included in the header
portion of the data received from the computer;
page data storing means for storing page data prepared based
on the print data determined by said determining means;
nonvolatile storage means for storing the environment
setting data determined by said determining means; and
an output means for outputting the page data stored in said
page data storage means to the image forming machine based on the
environment setting data stored in said nonvolatile storage
means,
wherein the environment setting data and the print data are
input as data in separate packet formats.
The examiner relies on the following reference:
Kashiwazaki et al. [Kashiwazaki] 5,748,861 May 5, 1998
(filed May 18, 1993)
Claims 1 and 4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as
anticipated by Kashiwazaki.
Claims 5 and 8-16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as
unpatentable over Kashiwazaki.
Reference is made to the briefs and answer for the
respective positions of appellant and the examiner.
Appeal No. 2001-0830
Application No. 08/917,718
-3–
OPINION
With regard to independent claim 1, the examiner takes the
position that the claim is anticipated by Kashiwazaki for the
reasons set forth at pages 2-3 of the answer. We have reviewed
the examiner’s reasoning and have studied the various portions of
Kashiwazaki identified by the examiner as disclosing certain
claimed elements and we agree with appellant that Kashiwazaki
does not anticipate the claim for at least the following reasons.
Claim 1 requires the data received from the computer to
include a “header” and a “data” portion and that a determination
is made as to whether data input is print data or environment
setting data based on a header code included in the header
portion.
The examiner points to column 11, lines 50-60, of
Kashiwazaki for a teaching of a “header portion” and to Figure 19
and column 15, lines 4-10, for a teaching of a “data portion.”
The examiner then points to CPU 22 in Figure 2 of Kashiwazaki as
the “determining means” for determining whether the data input is
print data (pointing to column 7, lines 34-37) or environment
setting data (pointing to column 9, lines 37-45) and that this is
based on a header code included in the header portion of the data
Appeal No. 2001-0830
Application No. 08/917,718
-4–
received from the computer, relying on column 11, lines 51-60,
and Figure 19 of Kashiwazaki.
Referring to the cited portions of Kashiwazaki, column 11,
lines 50-60, does mention “head data” and column 15, lines 4-10,
does mention a pair of print data and an emulation designation
command. CPU 22 does control the overall operation of
Kashiwazaki’s apparatus. However, the examiner’s rationale is
unclear as to how these various portions of Kashiwazaki are tied
together. Moreover, when we refer to the cited portions at
column 7, lines 34-37, and column 9, lines 37-45, we do not find
any teaching or suggestion of a determination as to whether the
data input is print data or environment setting data based on a
header code included in the header portion of the data received
from the computer, as claimed.
At column 7, it is recited that the CPU 22 determines
whether all the I/Fs 21a and 21b are set in an on-line state. It
is true that I/F 21a is interrupted when print data is output
from an external apparatus so the cited portion of column 7 may
be found to suggest that the CPU determines if the data input is
print data. At column 9, Kashiwazaki discloses that the external
apparatus sends a control command for downloading font scaler
data to the apparatus, “a code representing that the download
Appeal No. 2001-0830
Application No. 08/917,718
-5–
data is font scaler data, the total number of bits to be sent,
font scaler data, and check sum data...” If this font scaler
data is “environment setting data,” as claimed, [the font scaler
is defined, at column 1, lines 18-19, as a function of generating
character patterns], then it might be reasonably said that
Kashiwazashi teaches a determination as to whether certain input
data is print data or environment setting data. However, we find
no teaching within Kashiwazashi that this determination is based
on a header code included in the header portion of the data
received from the computer, as claimed. The examiner refers us
to column 11, lines 51-60, of Kashiwazaki for such a teaching but
it is unclear to us that this portion of the reference teaches
what the examiner alleges it teaches.
Thus, as alleged by appellant, at page 7 of the principal
brief, “even assuming that a header is described in the cited
lines, this still does not correct the deficiency that the
reference does not necessarily teach that distinctions between
print and header data are made by a determining means based on
the header.” Since the examiner’s position appears to be based
on speculation, we will not sustain the rejection of claims 1 and
4 under 35 U.S.C. 102(e).
Appeal No. 2001-0830
Application No. 08/917,718
-6–
We also agree with appellant’s arguments that Kashiwazaki
does not teach storage of environment data in non-volatile memory
because the font scaler and print data of Kashiwazaki are stored
in volatile memory 24. As explained by appellant, at page 7 of
the principal brief, “if the data were non-volatile, such that
old font data or emulator data were carried over, then the unique
relationship between print and emulator data...would not be
maintained, thereby obviating a principle of operation of the
reference.” The examiner disputes this position, stating
[answer-page 8] that Kashiwazaki teaches a nonvolatile memory for
storing and holding various setting contents, pointing to column
6, lines 44-46. However, it is not clear from this portion of
Kashiwazaki that one of those “various setting contents” is the
environment setting data determined by the determining means, as
claimed.
Moreover, we also agree with appellant’s argument that
Kashiwazaki does not include print and environment data as
separate packet formats, as claimed. Column 9 of Kashiwazaki,
cited by the examiner for such a teaching, merely indicates a
format for a control command and does not require separate
packets for the two data types if a control signal within a
single packet can separate environment and print data.
Appeal No. 2001-0830
Application No. 08/917,718
-7–
As explained by appellant, at page 8 of the principal brief,
since there is an alternative to providing separate packets in
Kashiwazaki, it cannot be said, as alleged by the examiner, that
the separate packets are “inherent” in Kashiwazaki.
Since independent claim 9 comprises similar features, we
will not sustain the rejection of claims 5 and 8-16 under
35 U.S.C. 103.
Since we have not sustained either the rejection of claims 1
and 4 under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) or the rejection of claims 5 and 8-
16 under 35 U.S.C. 103, the examiner’s decision is reversed.
REVERSED
ERROL A. KRASS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
)
JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO ) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
JOSEPH L. DIXON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 2001-0830
Application No. 08/917,718
-8–
EK/RWK
SUGHRUE MION ZINN
MACPEAK & SEAS
2100 PENNSYLVANIA AVE NW
WASHINGTON, DC 20037