Ex Parte Nishio

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 30, 2016

12878102 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 30, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/878, 102 09/09/2010
72119 7590 10/04/2016
MARK D, SARALINO ( SHARP )
RENNER, OTTO, BOISSELLE & SKLAR, LLP
1621 EUCLID AVENUE
19THFLOOR
CLEVELAND, OH 44115
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Motokazu NISHIO
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.
HARAP0283US 4381
EXAMINER
MCLEAN, NEIL R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2676
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/04/2016 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 MOTOKAZU NISHIO
Appeal2015-005211
Application 12/878,102
Technology Center 2600
Before JASON V. MORGAN, MELISSA A. RAAP ALA, and
NABEEL U. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Introduction
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's Final
Rejection of claims 1-13. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appeal 2015-005211
Application 12/878,102
Exemplary Claim
Representative claim 1 is reproduced below. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2014) (discussing selecting a single claim to represent a
group or subgroup).
1. A printer control apparatus which controls plural kinds of
printers by use of a universal printer driver which is
capable of communicating with the plural kinds of printers
via a network and which is capable of supporting the plural
kinds of printers,
the printer control apparatus comprising:
an input section for accepting, from an
administrator who has a printer administrator authority, an
input for selecting at least one available printer from the
plural kinds of printers; and
an available printer restricting section programmed
to allow a user to use only said at least one available
printer, the user not having the printer administrator
authority.
Br. 20 (Claims App'x).
Rejections
The Examiner rejects claims 1-13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Selvaraj (US 2008/0180726 Al; published July 31, 2008),
Oomori (US 2008/0106754 Al; published May 8, 2008), and Hanson (US
6,148,346; issued Nov. 14, 2000).
ISSUES
Appellant's arguments present the following issues:
1. Has the Examiner shown it would have been obvious to
2
Appeal 2015-005211
Application 12/878,102
combine Selvaraj 's and Oomori' s relied upon teachings and
suggestions?
2. Has the Examiner erred in concluding the Selvaraj-Oomori
combination teaches or suggests representative claim 1 's "available printer
restricting section programmed to allow a user to use only said at least one
available printer"?
3. Has the Examiner erred in concluding Hanson teaches or suggests
representative claim 1 's "input section for accepting, from an administrator
who has a printer administrator authority, an input for selecting at least one
available printer from the plural kinds of printers"?
ANALYSIS
Issue 1
Appellant argues the Examiner erred in proposing to control Oomori's
network of printers via Selvaraj 's universal printer driver because "[ t ]here is
nothing to suggest including the functions of Oomori' s printers (i.e.,
determining if a user has permission to use a printer) into a universal printer
driver." Br. 15. In support, Appellant contends Oomori's network of
printers and Selvaraj 's universal printer driver are incompatible because
Oomori' s printers store the printing permissions of users and Selvaraj 's
universal printer driver will not send a print request to a printer unless aware
of the user's permission to use the printer. Id. ("Oomori's printers would
obtain printing authority information ... , where[as] Selveraj's universal
printer driver would be used to communicate with the printer if the user had
permission."); accord Oomori i-f 96 ("each of the printers 4A to 4C stores
information on ... the presence or absence of the printing authority"); but
3
Appeal 2015-005211
Application 12/878,102
see Selvaraj i1 40 (disclosing an option of "querying all available pnntmg
devices on a network").
The argument does not persuasively rebut the Examiner's articulated
combination of Selvaraj 's and Oomori' s teachings. The Examiner correctly
finds Selvaraj 's universal printer driver provides client control of networked
printers, discovery of the available network printers, and discovery of each
available printer's capabilities. Ans. 5; Final Act. 5-6; Selvaraj i-f 40. The
Examiner also correctly finds each of Oomori' s networked printers stores
printing authority information identifying the users authorized to use the
respective printer and printing usage information identifying the respective
printer capabilities available to a user (e.g., color printing). Ans. 5; Final
Act. 3, 6; Oomori i-f 96. The Examiner concludes, and we agree, it would
have been obvious for Selvaraj 's universal driver to not only control
Oomori' s networked printers but also store Oomori' s printing authority and
usage information to better control printer resources and notify the user of
available printing options. Final Act. 3, 6. The Examiner further concludes,
and we agree, the universal driver's discovery would thus expectedly include
discovery of the printing authority and usage information. Id.; see also
Ans. 7.
The Examiner has provided articulated reasoning with a rational
underpinning as to why one skilled in the art would have found it obvious to
combine Selvaraj's and Oomori's teachings to arrive at the disputed subject
matter. The Examiner's findings are reasonable because the skilled artisan
would "be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of
a puzzle" since the skilled artisan is "a person of ordinary creativity, not an
automaton." See KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 420-21
4
Appeal 2015-005211
Application 12/878,102
(2007). Combining the cited teachings, as above, would have predictably
used the prior art elements according to their established functions. Id. at
417.
Appellant further argues:
[D]epending on which model of printer is connected to a
network, it would be necessary in the cited reference
combination to replace all drivers of all personal computers to be
connected to the networked printers with new drivers. This
creates an additional burden on an administrator and is a
disadvantage compared to claim 1.
Br. 16.
Appellant's arguments are not persuasive. First, Appellant does not
provide persuasive evidence to support the contention that "replac[ing] all
drivers of all personal computers" would have been an impractical tradeoff
for implementing the advantages of Selvaraj 's universal printer driver. See
In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ("An assertion of what
seems to follow from common experience is ... not the kind of factual
evidence that is required to rebut a prima facie case ... . ");see also
Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ("[A]
given course of action often has simultaneous advantages and
disadvantages[. This] does not necessarily obviate motivation to
combine."). Second, Appellant's argument overlook the availability of
drivers shared via a server. See, e.g., Hanson col. 4, 11. 39--45.
Issue 2
Appellant argues the Examiner unreasonably finds Oomori's second
embodiment teaches or suggests claim 1 's "available printer restricting
section programmed to allow a user to use only said at least one available
5
Appeal 2015-005211
Application 12/878,102
printer, the user not having the printer administrator authority." Br. 11-14.
In support, Appellant contends: Oomori's client computer determines the
printers available to a user by obtaining printing authority information from
each connected printer; and requesting each printer to identify a user's
authority does not disclose the claimed printer restricting section for holding
administrator permissions of multiple printers at a singular printer control
apparatus. Id. at 12-14.
Even assuming arguendo the claimed printer restricting section holds
administrator permissions of multiple printers at a singular printer control
apparatus, the argument is not persuasive. The Examiner relies on the above
combination of Selvaraj 's and Oomori' s teachings to reach the disputed
subject matter; proposing a universal printer driver that performs Selvaraj 's
discovery of network printers and, in doing so, discovers Oomori's printing
and usage authority information. Ans. 5 (addressing the argument); see also
supra pp. 3--4. Oomori's printing and usage authority information plainly
constitutes administrator permissions. See, e.g., Oomori i-fi-1 6-7 (discussing
user "authentication"), Fig. 8 ("confirm user ID and password, or please
inquire system administrator"). And, in the Selvaraj-Oomori combination,
the printing and usage authority information is received and held at the
singular universal printer driver via the noted discovery. Appellant's
argument attacks Oomori individually, rather than showing error in the
Examiner's reliance on the above Selvaraj-Oomori combination. See In re
Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981) ("[O]ne cannot show
non-obviousness by attacking references individually where, as here, the
rejections are based on combinations of references.").
6
Appeal 2015-005211
Application 12/878,102
Issue 3
Appellant argues the Examiner unreasonably finds Hanson teaches or
suggests claim 1 's "input section for accepting, from an administrator who
has a printer administrator authority, an input for selecting at least one
available printer from the plural kinds of printers." Br. 17-18. In support,
Appellant contends Hanson's system administrator sets a user's respective
permissions to use networked printers on a printer-by-printer basis via
respective maintenance menus of the printers. Id. at 17. Appellant further
contends such accessing of multiple maintenance menus does not disclose
the claimed input section for entering the same permissions at a singular
universal printer driver. Id. at 18.
The argument is not persuasive. The Examiner finds, and we agree,
Hanson's administrator menu receives administrator inputs for all printers
controlled by a singular printer driver and thus discloses "an administrator
... input for selecting at least one available printer from the plural kinds of
printers" (claim 1 ). Final Act. 7; Ans. 11; Hanson col. 2, 11. 8-28 ("dynamic
device driver ... interprets [each] retrieved peripheral device driver and
controls the peripheral device"), col. 6, 11. 16-17 ("maintenance menu 74
... provides for installation of a new printer on the network"), col. 6, 11. 26-
30 ("maintenance menu 80a can limit or expand printer access by changing
accessible user address or can add or remove users from an existing access
list").
We also note the disputed limitation is plainly reached by the
proposed combination of Selvaraj 's, Oomori's, and Hanson's teachings.
The Examiner is adding Hanson's administrator menu to Selvaraj 's universal
7
Appeal 2015-005211
Application 12/878,102
printer driver, as modified to control Oomori's networked printers. Final
Act. 7; Ans. 11.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, we sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of representative claim 1 and represented claims 2-13
falling therewith.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-13.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal maybe extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
8