09969845 (B.P.A.I. May. 17, 2010)

Ex Parte Nomura et al

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesMay 17, 2010

09969845 (B.P.A.I. May. 17, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE _____________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES _____________ Ex parte TATSUO NOMURA, SYOICHIRO YOSHIURA, and TSUTOMU YOSHIMOTO _____________ Appeal 2009-004723 Application 09/969,845 Technology Center 2600 ______________ Decided: May 17, 2010 _______________ Before, ROBERT E. NAPPI, KARL D. EASTHOM, and BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, Administrative Patent Judges. NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2009-004723 Application 09/969,845 This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the final rejection of claims 1-2, 4-11, and 53.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse the Examiner’s rejections of these claims. INVENTION The invention is directed to an image forming and processing system that restricts output based upon established attributes. The system is designed to prevent unauthorized use of an image forming system. See Spec: 1-11. Claim 1 is representative of the invention and reproduced below: 1. An image forming system which includes an image processing device for processing image data in a predetermined image process, and an image forming device for forming an image based on the image data processed by the image processing device, the image processing device and the image forming device being connected to each other, said image forming system comprising: an attributes judging section for judging whether or not the image data is for business use based on attributes of the image data including at least a ratio of color area in the image data; and an output control section for restricting output operation of the image forming device when the judging section judges that the image data is not for business use 1 Claims 12-16, 20-24, 28-33, 37-39, 43-47, and 51-52 were cancelled in response to an Election/Restriction requirement, mailed September 13, 2005. Claims 17-19, 34-36, 40-42, and 48-50 were cancelled in response to an Election/Restriction requirement, mailed February 27, 2007. Claims 3 and 25-27 were cancelled in response to an Election/Restriction requirement, mailed June 12, 2007. 2 Appeal 2009-004723 Application 09/969,845 based on the attributes of the image data judged by said attributes judging section. REFERENCES Yamada US 5,694,222 Dec. 2, 1997 Matsumoto US 5,754,744 May 19, 1998 Suzuki US 5,861,960 Jan. 19, 1999 Kojima US 6,807,388 B1 Oct. 19, 2004 (filed Feb. 25, 2000) Sato US 2005/0219605 A1 Oct. 6, 2005 (filed April 19, 2005) Namikata US 2005/0225793 A1 Oct. 13, 2005 (filed Jun. 13, 2005) REJECTIONS AT ISSUE Claims 1, 2, 7, and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Yamada in view of Suzuki. Ans. 3-5. Claims 4, 9, and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Yamada in view of Suzuki and Namikata. Ans. 5-7. Claims 5 and 53 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Yamada in view of Suzuki and Kojima. Ans. 7-8. Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Yamada in view of Suzuki and Matsumoto. Ans. 8-9. Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Yamada in view of Namikata and Sato. Ans. 9-10. 3 Appeal 2009-004723 Application 09/969,845 ISSUE 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections Appellants argue on pages 9-12 of the Appeal Brief that the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2, 7, and 8 is in error. Appellants argue that Yamada in view of Suzuki does not disclose determining whether the image data is for business based on image data attributes that include a ratio of color area in the image data. App. Br. 12. Additionally, Appellants argue on pages 12-14 of the Appeal Brief that the Examiner’s rejection of claims 4-11 and 53 is in error for the same reasons as independent claim 1. Thus, with respect to claims 1-11 and 53, Appellants’ contentions present us with the issue: Did the Examiner err in finding that Yamada in view of Suzuki renders obvious determining whether the image data is for business based on image data attributes that include a ratio of color area in the image data?2 FINDINGS OF FACT (FF) Suzuki 1. Suzuki discloses that office documents, i.e., business documents, have typically been monochrome documents. However, as printers with high image quality and full-color copy machines have increased in 2 Appellants make additional arguments regarding claims 1-11 and 53. App. Br. 10-12. We do not reach these additional issues since the issue of whether Yamada in view of Suzuki discloses determining a business document based on image data attributes including a ratio of color is dispositive of the case. 4 Appeal 2009-004723 Application 09/969,845 numbers, so too has the use of color documents in an office setting. Col. 1, ll. 11-15. ANALYSIS 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections Appellants’ arguments have persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. Claim 1 recites “an attributes judging section for judging whether or not the image data is for business use based on attributes of the image data including at least a ratio of color area in the image data.” The Examiner finds that Yamada discloses judging whether image data is for business. Ans. 3-4. In addition, the Examiner finds that Suzuki discloses that business documents are conventionally monochrome. Ans. 4. As a result, the Examiner finds that since monochrome documents contain a ratio of 0% color area that anytime a monochrome document is received, it is determined to be a business document. Ans. 4. We disagree. Suzuki discloses that office documents have conventionally been monochrome. FF 1. However, as full-color copiers and printers have become more prevalent, color documents have also become more prevalent in an office setting. FF 1. Therefore, Suzuki does not suggest that business documents are determined as a result of a ratio of color area in the image data because both color and monochrome documents are considered business documents. Thus, Yamada in view of Suzuki does not render obvious determining whether a document is a business document based upon image attributes that include a ratio of color. The additional teachings of Namikata, Kojima, Matsumoto, and Sato do not make up for the deficiencies 5 Appeal 2009-004723 Application 09/969,845 noted above. Therefore, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-11 and 53. CONCLUSION The Examiner erred in finding Yamada in view of Suzuki renders obvious an attributes judging section for judging whether or not the image data is for business use based on attributes of the image data including at least a ratio of color areas in the image data. SUMMARY The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-2, 4-11, and 53 is reversed. 6 Appeal 2009-004723 Application 09/969,845 REVERSED ELD NIXON & VANDERHYE, P.C. 901 NORTH GLEBE ROAD, 11TH FLOOR ARLINGTON, VA 22203 7