Ex Parte Nagata

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 12, 2016

13273326 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 12, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/273,326 10/14/2011
72119 7590 09/14/2016
MARK D, SARALINO ( SHARP )
RENNER, OTTO, BOISSELLE & SKLAR, LLP
1621 EUCLID AVENUE
19THFLOOR
CLEVELAND, OH 44115
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Yoshinori NAGATA
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.
HARAP0319US 1080
EXAMINER
ZONG,HELEN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2673
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/14/2016 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):
ipdocket@rennerotto.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte YOSHINO RI NAGATA
Appeal2015-001095
Application 13/273,326
Technology Center 2600
Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, JESSICA C. KAISER, and
SHARON PENICK, Administrative Patent Judges.
KAISER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
final rejection of claims 1, 2, and 4--10, 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 Claim 3 has been canceled. (App. Br. 6.)
Appeal2015-001095
Application 13/273,326
EXEMPLARY CLAIM
Claim 1 is exemplary and is reproduced below with disputed
limitation emphasized:
1. An image processing system comprising:
an image forming apparatus;
a client apparatus; and
a host apparatus,
each of said image forming apparatus and said client
apparatus being connected with said host apparatus via a
network,
said image forming apparatus including at least one of an
image reading apparatus which carries out image reading and a
printing apparatus which carries out printing,
said host apparatus including a host-side storage apparatus
and a host-side control section,
said at least one of the image reading and the printing
being carried out in accordance with processing execution
condition information stored in the host-side storage apparatus,
said client apparatus including a client-side storage
apparatus and a client-side control section,
the client-side storage apparatus storing the processing
execution condition information for said at least one of the image
reading and the printing,
the client-side control section being configured such
that, when said client apparatus is connected with said host
apparatus via the network, the client-side control section
transmits the processing execution condition information to
said host apparatus, and
the host-side control section being configured such that, in
a case where the host-side control section receives the processing
execution condition information from said client apparatus, the
host-side control section causes the host-side storage apparatus
to store the processing execution condition information;
2
Appeal2015-001095
Application 13/273,326
wherein:
said image forming apparatus further includes an image
forming apparatus-side display apparatus, an image forming
apparatus-side input apparatus, and an image forming apparatus-
side control section;
the image forming apparatus-side control section causes
the image forming apparatus-side display apparatus to display a
processing execution condition setting screen for use in setting a
processing execution condition indicated by processing
execution condition information;
the image forming apparatus-side control section receives
a processing execution condition being set on the processing
execution condition setting screen in accordance with an input
supplied via the image forming apparatus-side input apparatus,
and transmits the processing execution condition to said host
apparatus as processing execution condition information;
the host-side control section of said host apparatus stores,
in the host-side storage apparatus, the processing execution
condition information received from said image forming
apparatus, and transmits the processing execution condition
information to said client apparatus; and
the client-side control section of said client apparatus
stores, in the client-side storage apparatus, the processing
execution condition information received from said host
apparatus.
REJECTIONS
The Examiner has rejected claims 1, 8, and 10 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sato (US 2010/0171982 Al; published
July 8, 2010) and Kubokura (JP 2003-015852; published Jan. 17, 2003).
(Final Act. 2-7.)
3
Appeal2015-001095
Application 13/273,326
The Examiner has rejected claims 2, 4--7, and 9 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sato and Kubokura in combination with
additional references. (Final Act. 7-21.)
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellant's
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellant's
conclusions. In so far as they relate to issues raised in this appeal, we adopt
as our own the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Final
Action from which the appeal is taken and the reasons set forth in the
Examiner's Answer in response to Appellant's Appeal Brief (see Ans. 22-
24). We highlight and address specific findings and arguments for emphasis
as follows.
Appellant argues neither Kubokura nor Sato teaches "the client-side
control section being configured such that, when said client apparatus is
connected with said host apparatus via the network, the client-side control
section transmits the processing execution condition information to said host
apparatus," as recited in claim 1 and similarly recited in claim 10. (App. Br.
7-8.)
The Examiner finds, and we agree, Sato teaches this limitation. (Ans.
22.) Regarding the broadest reasonable interpretation of "processing
execution condition information," the Examiner finds Appellant's
Specification states "the processing execution condition information are a
plurality of pieces of processing execution condition information." (Id. at
22-23 (citing Spec. 42:8-10).) Thus, the Examiner finds the broadest
4
Appeal2015-001095
Application 13/273,326
reasonable interpretation of "processing execution condition information"
encompasses a print job. (Id. at 23.)
We agree with the Examiner's construction because it is consistent
with Appellant's claims and Specification. Claim 1 recites (and claim 10
similarly recites) "said at least one of the image reading and the printing
being carried out in accordance with processing execution condition
information." Consistently, the Specification also states the pieces of
processing execution condition information are "used in the image reading
by the image reading apparatus or the printing by the printing apparatus."
E.g., Spec. 52:16-21. Because printing is carried out in accordance with a
print job (and the print job itself is used in printing by the printing
apparatus), the Examiner's construction is consistent with the language of
the claims and with Appellant's Specification.
Under that construction, we are not persuaded of error in the
Examiner's finding that Sato teaches the disputed limitation. In particular,
the Examiner finds, and we agree, Sato' s control unit 101 b in client PC 101
(i.e., client side control section) is configured to transmit the generated print
job (i.e., processing execution condition information) to the printer server
102 (i.e., host apparatus) via the network 105. (Ans. 22 (citing Sato i-f 34).)
Appellant does not address the Examiner's construction, and instead
argues that even if that construction "is assumed," Sato teaches transmitting
the print job "at the time of registering the print job," and not "when the
client apparatus is connected with the host apparatus via the network," as
recited in claim 1. (Reply Br. 3.) Specifically, Appellant argues "[t]his
timing simply is not taught by the references." (Id. at 4.) We are not
persuaded because the argued limitation requires only that the client-side
5
Appeal2015-001095
Application 13/273,326
control section transmits the recited information "when said client apparatus
is connected with said host apparatus via the network." As discussed supra,
Sato teaches this because the control unit 101 b transmits the print job at a
time when the client PC 101 is connected with the print server 102 via
network 105. See Sato i-f 34. The broadest reasonable interpretation of this
limitation imposes no further timing requirement.
For the reasons discussed above, we are not persuaded the Examiner
erred in finding Sato teaches "the client-side control section being
configured such that, when said client apparatus is connected with said host
apparatus via the network, the client-side control section transmits the
processing execution condition information to said host apparatus," as
recited in claim 1 and similarly recited in claim 10.
Appellant further argues without elaboration that the combination of
Sato and Kubokura does not teach:
(I) the host apparatus of the first image processing system and
the client apparatus commonly retain processing execution
condition information created by the image forming apparatus;
and (II) the processing execution condition information stored
in the client apparatus (i.e.[,] processing execution condition
information created by the image forming apparatus) is
transmitted to the host apparatus of the second image
processing system to which the client apparatus is connected, so
that the processing execution condition information is stored in
such second host apparatus.
(App. Br. 8; see also Reply Br. 4--5) We are not persuaded. The Examiner
finds Sato teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, except "the host-side
control section of said host apparatus ... transmits the processing execution
condition information to said client apparatus" and "the client-side control
section of said client apparatus stores, in the client-side storage apparatus,
6
Appeal2015-001095
Application 13/273,326
the processing execution condition information received from said host
apparatus." (Final Act. 2-5.) The Examiner further finds Kubokura in
combination with Sato teaches those limitations. (Id. at 5---6 (citing
Kubokura Abstr., i-f 15).) Appellant's argument does not persuasively
address this combination of teachings.
For the reasons discussed above, we sustain the Examiner's decision
to reject independent claim 1, independent claim 10 argued together with
claim 1 (App. Br. 7-8), and dependent claims 2 and 4--9 not argued
separately (id. at 2, 9-10).
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1, 2, and 4--10
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
7