Ex Parte Izuo

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 15, 2017

13730494 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 15, 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.
13/730,494 12/28/2012 Seiji Izuo Q143091 6362
23373 7590 02/17/2017
SUGHRUE MION, PLLC
2100 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, N.W.
SUITE 800
WASHINGTON, DC 20037
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, LAM S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2853
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/17/2017 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):
PPROCESSING@SUGHRUE.COM
sughrue@sughrue.com
USPTO@sughrue.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SEIKO EPSON CORPORATION1
Appeal 2016-001249
Application 13/730,494
Technology Center 2800
Before LINDA M. GAUDETTE, GEORGE C. BEST, and CHRISTOPHER C.
KENNEDY, Administrative Patent Judges.
GAUDETTE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision2
twice rejecting, under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), claims 1 and 9 over Imai (US
6,123,406, iss. Sept. 26, 2000) and Endo (US 6,764,159 B2, iss. July 20, 2004),
and claim 5 over Imai, Endo, and Nakata et al. (US 2006/0192804 Al, pub. Aug.
31, 2006 (“Nakata”)). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 The inventor is Seiji Izuo. Appellant identifies itself as the real party in interest.
Appeal Brief filed Mar. 17, 2015 (“Br.”), 2.
2 Non-Final Office Action mailed Sept. 25, 2014 (“Non-Final Act.”).
Appeal 2016-001249
Application 13/730,494
The invention relates to a method of using a printer wherein ink ejection of
print nozzles is checked (e.g., for clogging) concurrently with a paper ejection
process. See, e.g., Specification filed Dec. 28, 2012 (“Spec.”) Tflf 10 and 40.
According to the Specification, in prior art methods, the ink ejection testing
process generally is not performed until after completion of: feeding paper to a
print head (the paper feed process); ejecting print recording liquid onto the paper
(the printing process); and ejecting the printed paper from the print head area onto,
e.g., a catch tray (the paper ejection process). Id. 13. Performance of the ink
ejection testing process thereby creates a time delay between the paper ejection
process and commencement of the paper feed process for a subsequent paper to be
printed. Id. The inventor is said to have discovered that this time delay can be
shortened by conducting the ink ejection testing process concurrently with the
paper ejection process, as well as in a manner that partially overlaps with the paper
feed process of a subsequent page. See id. ]Hf 4—7 and 40.
Claim 1 is representative of the appealed claims, and is reproduced below:
1. An image forming method by using an image forming
apparatus that performs printing by using a print head including a
plurality of nozzles that eject a print recording liquid onto a print
medium, the image forming method comprising:
performing an ejection check, and
executing a process of ejecting print medium for which the
printing is completed when a subsequent page is to be printed exist[s],
wherein the ejection check is performed during the process, and
wherein the ejection check determines whether each of the
nozzles of the print head ejects normally.
Br. 22 (Claims App’x).
The Examiner finds Imai discloses a method as recited in claim 1, with the
exception that Imai does not conduct an ink ejection testing process (“ejection
2
Appeal 2016-001249
Application 13/730,494
check” (claim 1)) to “determine^ whether each of the nozzles of the print head
ejects normally” (claim 1). Non-Final Act. 2—3. The Examiner finds one of
ordinary skill in the art would have modified Tmai’s process of detecting for
residual ink to further detect for normality of ink ejection from the nozzles, based
on Endo’s disclosure of detecting for proper nozzle function to ascertain when
cleaning is needed. See id. at 3; Examiner’s Answer mailed Aug. 17, 2015
(“Ans.”), 6.
Appellant argues the Examiner reversibly erred in finding Imai, alone or in
combination with Endo, discloses or suggests performing an ink ejecting testing
process (“an ejection check” (claim 1)) “during” the paper ejection process, as
required by claim 1. See Br. 14—18. Appellant argues Imai clearly shows two
distinct, non-overlapping processes of discharging a printed sheet from the print
apparatus (S206) and performing ink detection (S207). Id. at 16—17. Appellant
argues “Endo simply describes a method of testing nozzles of an inkjet print
head,” and “does not cure the[] deficiencies” of Imai. Id. at 18.
Appellant’s characterization of Imai as describing the paper discharge as
being completed before commencement of ink detection is supported by Imai’s
disclosure. See Imai 6:56—60, Fig. 4; see also id. at 8:30-31. The Examiner
contends, however, that the claims, as drafted, read on Imai’s process. See id.
More specifically, the Examiner determines that because
the claim language does not define when the process of ejecting a
printing medium ends, the process thus can be interpreted as starting
when printing on the printing medium is completed (step S206) and
ending at an undefined time later[,]. . . [such as] when the ejecting of
the next printing medium starts. As a result, the INK DETECTION
operation (S207) is considered as running during the duration of the
process of ejecting the printing medium.
Non-Final Act. 3 (emphasis omitted).
3
Appeal 2016-001249
Application 13/730,494
We agree with Appellant the Examiner’s claim construction is not consistent
with the Specification. See Br. 17—18. The following disclosure in the
Specification is particularly relevant to interpretation of the claim language in
dispute:
“The paper ejection process rotates and drives the line feed roller 35 and the
paper feed roller 37, and ejects a recording sheet S onto a catch tray (not shown).”
Spec. 139. “[Wjhen there is a subsequent page to print, the CPU 72 sets the head
check execution flag F to the value 1 so as to start the head check routine, and also
initiates the paper ejection process (step S210). Id. 140. “When the print ejection
process ends, the CPU 72 initiates the paper feed process (step S230).” “[Wjhen
the paper feed process has ended,... the CPU 72 judges whether or not the head
check routine that started with the paper ejection process has ended (step S130).”
Id. “When the head check execution flag F has the value 0, the CPU 72 judges
whether or not the print head can print (step S140).” Id. If the print head cannot
print, CPU 72 displays an error (step SI 50). Id. If the print head can print, then
printing process commences. Id.
Thus, in the course of printing the second page and subsequent pages,
an ink ejection check can be carried out in a parallel manner with the
paper ejection process of the recording sheet S as well as in a manner
that partly overlap [s] with the paper feed process of the recording
sheet S.
Id.
Considering the argued claim language in light of the Specification, we
agree with Appellant the Examiner erred in interpreting the claim language “a
process of ejecting print medium” (claim 1) as encompassing the steps of Imai’s
method that occur from the time printing of a sheet is completed through the time
when the next sheet is delivered to the print head. See Br. 17—18. Rather, as
argued by Appellant (id. at 18), one of ordinary skill in the art would have
4
Appeal 2016-001249
Application 13/730,494
understood the claim 1 phrase “a process of ejecting print medium” as limited to
the steps of moving a printed paper to a zone outside the location where printing
occurs, e.g., to a catch tray or the like. See, e.g., Spec. 139. We find no support in
the Specification for the Examiner’s interpretation of the phrase “a process of
ejecting print medium” as encompassing Imai’s ink detection step (207) that
commences after completion of the printed paper discharge step (206) and ends
prior to commencement of delivery of a subsequent paper to the print head. See
Imai 6:56-60, 7:24—29.
In sum, Appellant has argued persuasively that the Examiner’s obviousness
determination is based on an erroneous finding that Imai discloses or suggests a
step of “executing a process of ejecting print medium . . . wherein [an] ejection
check is performed during the process,” as required by claims 1,5, and 9.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejections of claims 1, 5, and 9.
REVERSED
5