Ex parte Nishi

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Oct 22, 1999

08188925 (B.P.A.I. Oct. 22, 1999)

Application for patent filed January 31, 1994.1
1
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today
(1) was not written for publication in a law journal and
(2) is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 19
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
________________
Ex parte AKIHIRO NISHI
________________
Appeal No. 1997-1381
Application 08/188,9251
________________
Heard: October 06, 1999
________________
Before HAIRSTON, HECKER, and GROSS, Administrative Patent
Judges.
HECKER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the final rejection of
claims 1 through 23 and 27 through 32, all claims pending in
this application.
Appeal No. 1997-1381
Application 08/188,925
2
The invention relates to an image printer. The printer
receives image data from a host computer. When a problem is
detected, such as a paper jam, the image data is compressed
and stored in a compressed format. Thus, when the image
printing function is suspended because of the detected
problem, the printer can continue to receive image data, thus
enabling the host computer to continue with other operations.
Because the image data received after the detection of a
problem is compressed, the image data can be stored in a
relatively small capacity memory.
Representative independent claim 1 is reproduced as
follows:
1. a printer apparatus arranged to actuate an image
forming means based on a received print data for printing an
image based on the print data, said printer apparatus
comprising:
a detecting means for detecting trouble in the image
forming means,
a compressing means for initiating the compression
of the received print data upon detection of the trouble,
a memory means for memorizing the compressed data,
an expanding means for expanding data read from said
memory means, and
a control for instructing starting of said expanding
Appeal No. 1997-1381
Application 08/188,925
3
means after elimination of the trouble and also, for printing
the image by the image forming means based on the expanded
data.
The Examiner relies on the following references:
Maniwa et al. (Maniwa) 4,860,119 Aug. 22, 1989
Hirata 4,920,427 Apr. 24, 1990

Claims 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 11, 12, 14, 16, 17, 19, 21, 23,
27, 29, 30 and 32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Maniwa et al. Claims 1, 2, 3, 7, 9, 13,
15, 18, 20, 22, 28 and 31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Maniwa et al. in view of Hirata.
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the
Examiner, reference is made to the brief, reply brief, answer
and supplemental answer for the respective details thereof.
OPINION
After a careful review of the evidence before us, we will
not sustain the rejection of claims 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 11, 12,
14, 16, 17, 19, 21, 23, 27, 29, 30 and 32 under 35 U.S.C. §
102 (b), and we will not sustain the rejection of claims 1, 2,
3, 7, 9, 13, 15, 18, 20, 22, 28 and 31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Appeal No. 1997-1381
Application 08/188,925
4
With regard to the 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claim
4, it is axiomatic that anticipation of a claim under § 102
can be found only if the prior art reference discloses every
element of the claim. See In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1326,
231 USPQ 136, 138 (Fed. Cir. 1986) and Lindemann
Maschinenfabrik GMBH v. American Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F.2d
1452, 1458, 221 USPQ 481, 485 (Fed. Cir. 1984). "Anticipation
is established only when a single prior art reference
discloses, expressly or under principles of inherency, each
and every element of a claimed invention." RCA Corp. v.
Applied Digital Data Systems, Inc.,
730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert.
dismissed, 468 U.S. 1228 (1984), citing Kalman v. Kimberly-
Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 772, 218 USPQ 781, 789 (Fed. Cir.
1983).
Claim 4 requires, among other things:
a detecting means for detecting trouble of the
print means,
a compressing means for initiating the
compression of the print data inputted from said
external device when the trouble of the print means
is detected, (Emphasis added.)
In applying the Maniwa reference, trouble of the print
Appeal No. 1997-1381
Application 08/188,925
5
means is the occurance of a paper jam. The Examiner and
Appellant go back and forth regarding the issue of whether
Maniwa compresses and stores print data upon occurance of a
jam (Examiner’s position) or, Maniwa compresses and stores
print data upon receipt from a host computer and uses it to
correct a jam (Appellant’s position). Appellant argues that
since Maniwa compresses and stores data when the data is
received, the claim 4 limitation recited supra is not met by
Maniwa. An example of some of the back and forth positions is
presented below.
The Examiner contends:
Maniwa et al discloses at column 15, lines 55-58,
“image data supplied from the host system is
compressed and is then stored as backup data when
paper jamming occurs”. In addition, Maniwa et al
discloses in column 36, lines 24-27, “As described
previously, in the present printer controller 130,
the backup buffers 191 are formed in the RAM 133 in
order to recover data which would be lost if the
paper is jammed”. Finally, at column 37, line 6+,
Maniwa et al discloses “When the backup is
unnecessary, the process proceeds to step 1036 where
the image data is stored into the temporary memory.
Alternatively when it is detected at step 1032 that
the backup is necessary, it is checked at step 1033
as to whether or not the image data should be
compressed”. (Answer-pages 10 and 11.)
Appeal No. 1997-1381
Application 08/188,925
6
Appellant argues:
The Examiner has relied heavily on a statement
in the prior art reference at column 15, lines 55-
58, which states that “image data supplied from host
system is compressed and is then stored as backup
data when paper jamming occurs”.
The sentence is ambiguous because the phrase
“when paper jamming occurs” could be interpreted to
apply to the compression and storage steps together,
or, alternatively, it could be interpreted as
applying only to the storage step.
The Examiner has interpreted this statement as
if the “when paper jamming occurs” phrase applies to
both the compression and the storage steps.
However, as set forth in the Brief for the
Appellant, the Examiner’s interpretation is
inconsistent with the remainder of the reference.
If the Examiner’s interpretation was correct,
there would be no compression of the data until a
paper jam occurs. Thus, there would be no
compressed data in the backup buffer region unless a
paper jam occurs. However, attention is directed to
column 36, lines 61-63, wherein it states that when
a page is completely discharged, i.e., successfully
printed, the data is canceled from the backup buffer
region. If the Examiner’s interpretation was
correct, there would be no reason for data to be in
the backup buffer if a page was completely
discharged, because according to the Examiner’s
position, data is only compressed and stored upon
the detection of a paper jam. Thus, according to
the Examiner’s position, it would be impossible for
data in the backup buffer to be canceled if a page
was completely discharged. (Reply brief-pages 1 and
2.)
The Examiner responds:
(a)Attention is directed to column 36, lines 61-
63, wherein the recitation is “When data regarding a
Appeal No. 1997-1381
Application 08/188,925
7
page which has been completely discharged is
cancelled from the backup buffer region.” The
recitation does not mention “i.e. successfully
printed”, it is the Appellant interpretation that
“When data regarding a page which has been
completely discharged” means “i.e. successfully
printed.”
(B) If the Appellant interpretation is correct,
image data supplied from the host system is
compressed and is then stored as backup data when
paper jamming occurs; (see column 15, lines 55-58)
and (see column 36, lines 24-27), so that eventually
the image data can be printed once the paper jam is
corrected or eliminated. This is the reason why the
image data is saved in the backup buffer. Once the
paper jamming is corrected or eliminated, and “When
data regarding a page which has been completely
discharged” as noted at column 36, lines 61-63,
(under the JAM BACKUP), (meaning after the paper jam
is corrected or eliminated, otherwise the print data
cannot be printed), the image data in the backup
buffer is not needed any longer and therefore it is
cancelled from the backup buffer region, because the
image data was “i.e. successfully printed”.
(Supplemental answer-pages 2 and 3.)
We have carefully reviewed Maniwa and can understand how
it is possible to interpret this reference in the two opposing
ways presented by the Examiner and the Appellant. However, we
agree with the Appellant that the weight of the evidence
favors Appellant’s interpretation.
Column 37, lines 4-6 recite:
The CPU 131 in the printer controller 130 looks
up the designated information on the backup at the
time of inputting the image data at step 1031 of
Appeal No. 1997-1381
Application 08/188,925
8
FIG. 34.
Thus, Figure 34 is directed to image data at the time of
input, not at the time of jam. At the time of data input,
Figure 34 determines which mode has been selected. If the
backup/compressed data mode had been selected (mode 2, column
15, lines 55-58), the flow chart of Figure 34 would progress
as follows:
1031 Image data input.
1032 Yes, backup has been selected.
1033 Yes, backup with compression has been selected.
1034 Image data is compressed.
1035 Compressed data is stored in backup buffer 191.
As this scenario shows, data compression takes place upon data
input from the host computer. Data compression does not hinge
on the detection of a jam as claimed.
For these reasons, we will not sustain the rejection of
claim 4.
As noted by the Appellant in footnote 3, page 5 of the
Brief, and verified by us, each of the independent claims in
Appeal No. 1997-1381
Application 08/188,925
9
this application includes the element discussed above that
links initiating compression of data upon detection of
trouble, i.e., a
jam. Since Maniwa does not teach this limitation, we will not
sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of any claims.
Since the Examiner has not indicated this limitation to
be obvious over Maniwa and/or Hirata, we will not sustain the
35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of any claims.
In view of the foregoing, the decision of the Examiner
rejecting claims 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 11, 12, 14, 16, 17, 19, 21,
23, 27, 29, 30 and 32 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is reversed.
Appeal No. 1997-1381
Application 08/188,925
10
Likewise, the decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1, 2,
3, 7, 9, 13, 15, 18, 20, 22, 28 and 31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
is reversed.
REVERSED
Kenneth W. Hairston )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
Stuart N. Hecker )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
Anita Pellman Gross )
Administrative Patent Judge )
DYN/SNH
Appeal No. 1997-1381
Application 08/188,925
11
Burns, Doane, Swecker & Mathis
George Mason Building
Washington and Prince Streets
P.O. Box 1404
Alexandria, VA 22313-1404
Appeal No. 1997-1381
Application 08/188,925
12
DYM/SNH