Ex Parte Kassmann

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 27, 2003

08977193 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 27, 2003)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not
written for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 15
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte GARY W. KASSMANN
_____________
Appeal No. 2001-0954
Application No. 08/977,193
______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before HAIRSTON, GROSS, and BLANKENSHIP, Administrative Patent
Judges.
HAIRSTON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims
1 through 19.
The disclosed invention relates to a facsimile user profile
stored in the memory of a printing system that defines the manner
in which a portion of an incoming facsimile document is to be
processed by the printing system.
Appeal No. 2001-0954
Application No. 08/977,193
2
Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed invention, and it
reads as follows:
1. A printing system, with a memory and a plurality of
document processing related subsystems, for processing a
facsimile document with an image data set, the printing
system including a printing subsystem communicating with an
input device, by way of a network, so that one or more
prints are producible from the image data set when the image
data set is transmitted from the input device to the
printing subsystem, comprising:
a) a facsimile user profile, stored in the memory of
the printing system, including one or more attribute sets
with each attribute set, along with a corresponding set of
attribute values, defining a manner in which a portion of
the facsimile document is to be processed at the printing
subsystem;
b) a facsimile processing subsystem for reading the
facsimile user profile; and
c) a controller, cooperating with the facsimile
processing subsystem, for determining whether the document
processing related subsystem defined by the one or more
attribute sets of the facsimile user profile and by the
corresponding attribute values is enabled to process the
portion of the facsimile document, wherein the portion of
the facsimile document is processed with the defined
document processing related subsystem when it is determined
that the defined document processing related subsystem is
enabled.
The references relied on by the examiner are:
Baehr 5,644,685 Jul. 1, 1997
Austin et al. (Austin) 5,689,625 Nov. 18, 1997
Imai et al. (Imai) 5,828,466 Oct. 27, 1998
(filed Nov. 14, 1995)
Yoshiura et al. (Yoshiura) 5,854,693 Dec. 29, 1998
(filed Jan. 7, 1997)
Appeal No. 2001-0954
Application No. 08/977,193
3
Claims 1, 7 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Austin.
Claims 2 through 6, 8 through 12, 14, 15, 18 and 19 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Austin in view of Yoshiura.
Claim 16 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Austin in view of Baehr.
Claim 13 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Austin in view of Yoshiura and Imai.
Reference is made to the briefs (paper numbers 11 and 13)
and the answer (paper number 12) for the respective positions of
the appellant and the examiner.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the entire record before us,
and we will sustain the obviousness rejection of claims 1 through
12, 14, 15 and 17 through 19. The obviousness rejection of
claims 13 and 16 is reversed.
We agree with the appellant’s finding (brief, pages 7 and 8)
that Austin discloses the “use of a ‘user profile’ to direct
distribution of a single document to multiple services such as
printers and facsimile machines located within a network . . . ”
and “to enable the job [to] be processed in a manner likely to be
Appeal No. 2001-0954
Application No. 08/977,193
4
desired.” On the other hand, we agree with the examiner (answer,
page 4) that Austin has a facsimile user profile to process a
facsimile image in light of Austin’s teaching “to use the user
profile and attribute to control how the image is processed
. . . . ”
Appellant argues (brief, page 9) that “the invention of
Austin is concerned with the distribution or outgoing delivery of
a facsimile message whereas the present invention is concerned
with printing or other processing of a received or incoming
facsimile document.” Stated differently, appellant seeks to
limit the user profile in Austin “to the sending of a document,
not the receiving of a fax” (reply brief, page 4). Appellant’s
arguments to the contrary notwithstanding, an incoming facsimile
document from the client is sent via the network in Austin
(Figure 13), and the facsimile is then processed in accordance
with the attributes of the user profile. Nothing in the claims
on appeal precludes the distribution of the facsimile document by
the distribution agent to the facsimile printing subsystem
(Figure 13). The user profile in Austin is, therefore, “at the
receiving end of a facsimile message” (brief, page 10). Thus,
the obviousness rejection of claims 1, 7 and 17 is sustained.
Appeal No. 2001-0954
Application No. 08/977,193
1 Appellant’s arguments (brief, pages 11 through 13) were
directed to the claims as a group.
5
Turning next to the obviousness rejection of claims
2 through 6, 8 through 12, 14, 15, 18 and 19, appellant’s
argument (brief, pages 11 and 12) that Yoshiura is not analogous
art is without merit in view of appellant’s admission (brief,
page 11) that Yoshiura “has fax capability.” As indicated supra,
Austin was relied on by the examiner for “management of a
facsimile document on the receiving end of a fax transmission”
(brief, page 11). Accordingly, the obviousness rejection of
claims 2 through 6, 8 through 12, 14, 15, 18 and 191 is sustained
because the examiner did not have to resort to impermissible
hindsight to demonstrate the obviousness of these claims.
With respect to claim 16, appellant argues (brief, pages
14 and 15) that “Baehr teaches the use of a banner page for
selection of an output tray that should receive a print job
related to a particular user . . . , ” whereas “claim 16 teaches
that a banner page can be a portion of a facsimile print job and
that processing of the facsimile banner page may require special
processing or finishing operations.” We agree. The obviousness
rejection of claim 16 is reversed.
Appeal No. 2001-0954
Application No. 08/977,193
6
Turning lastly to claim 13, appellant argues (brief, pages
13 and 14) that “the paper color detector in Imai is used in
coordination with an ‘ink remaining’ function to determine if
enough ink resides in the system to print . . . , ” whereas “the
present invention of claim 13 requires a first and second paper
tray to be loaded with different color paper and that when a
facsimile user profile includes a specification of paper color
for fax output, that the paper tray containing the specified
color be enabled.” We agree. The obviousness rejection of claim
13 is reversed.
DECISION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1 through
19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is affirmed as to claims 1 through
12, 14, 15 and 17 through 19, and is reversed as to claims 13 and
16. Accordingly, the decision of the examiner is affirmed-in-
part.
Appeal No. 2001-0954
Application No. 08/977,193
7
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
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
ANITA PELLMAN GROSS ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP )
Administrative Patent Judge )
KWH:hh
Appeal No. 2001-0954
Application No. 08/977,193
8
RONALD ZIBELLI
XEROX CORPORATION
XEROX SQUARE 20A
ROCHESTER, NY 14644