Ex Parte LI

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 27, 2017

14682881 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 27, 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.
14/682,881 04/09/2015 Zhiyun Li 2014.10.014.MN0 6586
106809 7590
Docket Clerk - SAMS
P.O. Drawer 800889
Dallas, TX 75380
09/29/2017 EXAMINER
LAM, ANDREW H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2675
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/29/2017 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):
patents @ munckwilson. com
munckwilson @ gmail. com
patent, srad @ samsung.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ZHIYTJN LI
Appeal 2017-006854
Application 14/682,881
Technology Center 2600
Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR, BETH Z. SHAW and
JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judges.
WHITEHEAD JR., Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant is appealing the Final Rejection of claims 1—20 under 35
U.S.C. § 134(a). Appeal Brief 7. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b) (2012).
We reverse.
Introduction
The invention is directed to “secure printing and, more specifically,
to using a mobile device with a secure token to print a document file.”
Specification, paragraph 1.
Appeal 2017-006854
Application 14/682,881
Illustrative Claim (disputed limitations emphasized)
1. A method for managing a secure print job, the method comprising:
receiving, at a printing server, a request for the secure print job, the
request received from a first device associated with an originating user;
receiving, at the printing server, a document file associated with the
secure print job;
sending, from the printing server, a secure token associated with the
secure print job to a second device;
after sending the secure token, receiving, at the printing server, the
secure token associated with the secure print job, from a printer; and
responsive to receiving the secure token, sending, from the printing
server, the document file to the printer.
Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1—3, 5, 7, 10-13, 15, 17 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§103 (a) as being unpatentable over Goldwater (U.S. Patent Application
Publication 2011/0075200 Al; published March 31, 2011) and Keeney (U.S.
Patent Application Publication 2004/0148335 Al; published July 29, 2004).
Answer 3—6.
Claims 4 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Goldwater, Keeney and Luman (U.S. Patent Application
Publication 2002/0075508 Al; published June 20, 2002). Answer 6—7.
Claims 6, 8, 9, 16, 18, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Goldwater, Keeney and Chien (U.S. Patent
Application Publication 2012/0307284 Al; published December 6, 2012).
Answer 7—9.
2
Appeal 2017-006854
Application 14/682,881
ANALYSIS
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the Examiner,
we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed November 14, 2016), the Reply Brief
(filed March 27, 2017), the Answer (mailed January 27, 2017) and the Final
Rejection (mailed June 10, 2016) for the respective details.
Appellant argues:
The Examiner concedes that Goldwater does not disclose the
feature of, “sending, from the printing server, a secure token
associated with the secure print job to a second device, after
sending the secure token, receiving, at the printing server, the
secure token associated with the secure print job from a printer,
and responsive to receiving the secure token, sending, from the
printing server, the document file to the printer.” Instead, the
Examiner relies on Keeney to recite these features. The Examiner
assets that PIN 400 is forwarded to the spooling (second device)
server 50 by the print driver 14 along with the print job, and that
this shows sending, from the printing server, a secure token
associated with the secure print job to a second device as recited
in Claim 1.
Appeal Brief 9 (citing Final Rejection 3).
The Examiner finds Keeney discloses sending “a secure token
associated with the secure print job to a second device (see fig. 4, [0086]”
wherein “[t]he PIN 400 is forwarded to the spooling (second device) server
50 by the print driver 14 along with the print job); after sending the secure
token, receive the secure token associated with the secure print job from
a printer ([0086]).” Answer 4.
Keeney’s Figure 4 is reproduced below:
3
Appeal 2017-006854
Application 14/682,881
Keeney’s Figure 4 discloses:
each print job may be stored on the spooling server 50 according
to a personal identification number (PIN) 400. As an example,
FIG. 4 shows the PIN 400 entered at a client device 12. The PIN
400 is forwarded to the spooling server 50 by the print driver 14
along with the print job. The spooling server 50 may
communicate to the printer polling device 100 a list of print jobs
associated with the PIN 400 which are stored at the spooling
server 50.
Keeney paragraph 86.
Appellants argue that “[njone of the components, including the print
driver 14 and spooling server 50, in Keeney perform both sending the secure
token to a second device and receiving the secure token from a printer.'1'’
Appeal Brief 12. The Examiner finds that “claims 1 and 11 [do] not claim
what happen[s] to the sent secure token associated with the secure print job,
they only require a secure token associated with the secure print job being
4
Appeal 2017-006854
Application 14/682,881
sent to a second device from the server.” Answer 9. However, Appellant
disagrees and argues claim 1 explicitly recites, ‘“sending, from the printing
server, a secure token associated with the secure print job to a second
device”’ and subsequently “[t]he secure token is therefore sent from, and
then later received by, the printing server.” Reply Brief 6.
We find Appellant’s arguments persuasive because we agree that
“[t]he Examiner has still failed to show any equivalent to a secure token that
is both sent from and received by the printing server,” as required in claim 1.
Reply Brief 6. We reverse the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 1,
as well as independent claim 11, which is commensurate in scope with claim
1. We also reverse the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of dependent
claims 2—10 and 12—20 for the same reasons.
DECISION
The Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 1—20 are reversed.
REVERSED
5