Ex Parte Kawano

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 19, 2016

12798562 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 19, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
121798,562 04/07/2010
54072 7590 07/21/2016
SHARP KABUSHIKI KAISHA
C/O KEA TING & BENNETT, LLP
1800 Alexander Bell Drive
SUITE 200
Reston, VA 20191
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Shinichi Kawano
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.
70404.2316/sz 4607
EXAMINER
ZONG,HELEN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2673
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/21/2016 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):
JKEATING@KBIPLA W.COM
uspto@kbiplaw.com
epreston@kbiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SHINICHI KAW ANO
Appeal 2015-001083
Application 12/798,562
Technology Center 2600
Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, JESSICA C. KAISER, and
KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judges.
KAISER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant 1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
final rejection of claims 1-3 and 6-14, all of the pending claims. 2 We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Sharp Kabushiki
Kaisha. (App. Br. 2.)
2 Claims 4 and 5 have been canceled. (App. Br. 3.)
Appeal 2015-001083
Application 12/798,562
EXEMPLARY CLAIM
Claim 1 is exemplary and is reproduced below:
1. A network print system in which a client computer,
connected to a network together with a server computer and a
plurality of printing apparatuses, prints an image using said
printing apparatus, wherein
in response to installment of a universal printer driver
usable for various printing apparatuses, said client computer
transmits install information including information representing
type of said installed universal printer driver to said server
computer; and
said server computer searches and detects, through said
network, a printing apparatus or apparatuses usable among the
printing apparatuses on said network and extracts a printing
apparatus or printing apparatuses usable by said client computer
in accordance with said information representing the type from
among the printing apparatuses detected by said search, and
based on received said install information, said server computer
limits and sets the extracted printing apparatus or printing
apparatuses usable by said client computer.
REJECTIONS
The Examiner has rejected claims 1-3 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Nagashima (US 2009/0013065 Al; published Jan.
8, 2009), Nakamura (US 2008/0244000 Al; published Oct. 2, 2008); and
Matsuo (US 7,236,262 B2; issued June 26, 2007). (Final Act. 2-5.)
3 The Examiner's inclusion of claim 12 in the summary statement of this
rejection (Final Act. 2) appears to be a typographical error because only
claims 1-3 are substantively addressed (id. at 2-5).
2
Appeal 2015-001083
Application 12/798,562
The Examiner has rejected claims 6-14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Nagashima, Nakamura, and Matsuo in combination
with additional references. (Final Act. 5-11.)
ANALYSIS
Appellant argues the Examiner erred in finding the combination
Nagashima, Nakamura, and Matsuo teaches or suggests "based on received
said install information, said server computer limits and sets the extracted
printing apparatus or printing apparatuses usable by said client computer," as
recited in claim 1. Specifically, Appellant argues Nagashima does not teach
"any limitations upon the use of printing devices that have been determined
to be usable by the client PC." (App. Br. 16.) Appellant further argues
Matsuo does not teach "a server computer at all" and does not teach the
"limits and sets" limitation of claim 1. (Id. at 18-23 .)
Regarding the "limits and sets" limitation, Appellant argues "limits"
refers to "those of all of the printers on the network that are allowed to be
operable with a particular client computer having a particular universal
printer driver installed thereon," and "sets" refers to setting "which of the
'limited' group of printers is allowed to operate with any given one (or
group) of the client computers having the particular associated universal
printer driver type installed thereon." (Id. at 20.) As Appellant notes,
however, the broadest reasonable interpretation of "limits and sets," as
recited in claim 1 and consistent with the Specification, encompasses
limiting and setting all of the extracted printing apparatuses as usable by the
client computer. (Id. at 20, 22; Spec. 20:9-17, Fig. 9 (showing client
3
Appeal 2015-001083
Application 12/798,562
computer PC(3) with "limited" usable printers including all three of the
extracted printers).)
Under this construction, Appellant's arguments do not persuade us of
Examiner error. In the Final Office Action, the Examiner relied on Matsuo
as teaching the "limits and sets" limitation of claim 1. (Final Act. 4--5.)
Appellant argues that, in Matsuo, "all of those printers on the network that
will allow printing by the common (universal) driver loaded onto the
computer ... are registered on the computer that conducts the search."
(App. Br. 19.) As discussed above, however, "limits and sets" as recited in
claim 1 does not require limiting the number of usable printers to less than
all such printers. Matsuo teaches a process of registering all printers
supported by a common driver installed on a computer so that those printers
are usable by that computer. (See Final Act. 4--5 (citing Matsuo Fig. 5);
Matsuo Fig. 5 (step S35), 5:25-34.) We are not persuaded the Examiner
erred in finding this process "limits and sets" the extracted printing
apparatuses usable by the client computer.
Appellant also argues that Matsuo does not teach a server computer at
all. (App. Br. 19.) Appellant's argument is not persuasive of error,
however, because "one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking
references individually where ... the rejections are based on combinations
of references." In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981) (citation
omitted). Here, the Examiner finds "Nagashima teaches a network print
system in which a client computer [is] connected to a network together with
a server computer and a plurality of printing apparatuses." (Final Act. 2.)
Appellant has not persuasively explained why having a server rather than a
client computer perform the recited "limits and sets" would have been
4
Appeal 2015-001083
Application 12/798,562
"uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art" or
"represented an unobvious step over the prior art," particularly in light of
Nagashima's teachings. See Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485
F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
In addition, in the Answer, the Examiner finds Nagashima teaches the
recited "limits and sets" when it teaches setting the default printer for the
client computer. (Ans. 13-14 (citing Nagashima i-fi-175, 78, 107).) In the
Reply Brief, Appellant argues the Examiner's finding is erroneous. (Reply
Br. 1-3.) Specifically, Appellant argues "setting of the default printer [in
Nagashima] would not prevent use of other printers." (Id. at 3.) We are
unpersuaded because as discussed above, "limits and sets" as recited does
not require preventing use of any printers, but instead encompasses limiting
and setting all of the extracted printing apparatuses.
For the reasons discussed above, we sustain the Examiner's decision
to reject independent claim 1, independent claim 2 argued together with
claim 1, and dependent claims 3 and 6-14 not argued separately (App. Br.
14).
5
Appeal 2015-001083
Application 12/798,562
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-3 and 6-14
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
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
6