Ex Parte Konig

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 31, 2011

09981847 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 31, 2011)

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.
09/981,847 10/18/2001 Edelbert Konig A-2875 7052
24131 7590 09/01/2011
LERNER GREENBERG STEMER LLP
P O BOX 2480
HOLLYWOOD, FL 33022-2480
EXAMINER
NASH, LASHANYA RENEE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2492
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/01/2011 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte EDELBERT KONIG
____________

Appeal 2009-010997
Application 09/981,847
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, MAHSHID D. SAADAT,
and ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judges.

SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1 and 3-13. Claim 2 has been canceled. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

Appeal 2009-010997
Application 09/981,847

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant’s invention relates to a method of transmitting data between
a first and a second computing unit using a determined communications
protocol (see Spec. 2:2-18). Claim 1, which is illustrative of the invention,
reads as follows:
1. A method for establishing a data connection and
for transmitting data from a first computing unit to a second
computing unit, which comprises:
in the first computing unit, selecting and reading out
from a database, in a selection program, an address of the
second computing unit controlling a printing unit;
establishing a connection with the address of the second
computing unit; initially performing a version comparison
between the first and the second computing units with respect
to an employed communications protocol;
after the communications protocol is determined,
establishing a data connection for transmitting data;
displaying a specified number of diagnostic programs
stored in the second computing unit after the data connection is
established;
selecting and starting one of the diagnostic programs via
the first computing unit; and
transmitting results of the one diagnostic program to the
first computing unit.

The Examiner’s Rejections
The Examiner relies on the following prior art in rejecting the claims:
Waite US 4,688,170 Aug. 18, 1987
Kraslavsky US 5,537,626 Jul. 16, 1996
Sridhar US 6,098,108 Aug. 1, 2000
Collin WO 00/49501 Aug. 24, 2000
Appeal 2009-010997
Application 09/981,847

3

Official Notice taken by the Examiner that outputting data in parallel
and transmitting data serially in data packets would have been known and
obvious.

Claims 1, 3-7, and 10-12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Sridhar, Collin, and Waite.
Claims 8 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Sridhar, Collin, Waite, and the Official Notice.
Claim 13 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Sridhar, Collin, Waite, and Kraslavsky.

Appellant’s Contentions
With respect to claims 1 and 12, Appellant does not dispute the
teachings of Sridhar and Waite and merely challenges the teachings of
Collin (Br. 7-10). Appellant specifically asserts that the servers shown in
figures 1 and 2 and described in pages 7-9 of Collin correspond to
applications within the same computer system and do not meet the claimed
first and second computing units (Br. 7-14). Appellant presents general
arguments with respect to the remaining applied prior art and asserts that the
applied prior art references do not teach all the claimed features (Br. 11).
With respect to the dependent claims, Appellant relies on their
dependency upon claim 1 to argue their patentability (Br. 17).

ISSUE
Has the Examiner erred in rejecting the claims as being obvious over
Sridhar, Collin, and Waite because the references do not teach or suggest the
first and the second computing units, as recited in claims 1 and 12?
Appeal 2009-010997
Application 09/981,847

4
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
numerous arguments (Br. 7-16) that the Examiner has erred.
We disagree with Appellant’s conclusions. We adopt as our own
(1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from
which this appeal is taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner
in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellant’s Appeal Brief (Ans. 13-
21). We concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner.
In particular, we agree with the Examiner’s Findings and reasoning
(Ans. 14) that Collin teaches a first computing unit (i.e., in Figure 2, modem
system 202) and a second computing system (i.e., in Figure 2, message
server 208 and signal server 210).

CONCLUSION
On the record before us, we conclude that, because the references
teach or suggest all the claim limitations, the Examiner has not erred in
rejecting the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Therefore, we sustain the
rejection of claims 1 and 12, and of claims 3-11 and 13 falling with claim 1.

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1 and 3-13 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

Appeal 2009-010997
Application 09/981,847

5

ke