Ex Parte Ohta

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 28, 2007

09805978 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 28, 2007)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written
for publication in a law journal and is not binding precedent of the Board.

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte YOSHINORI OHTA
____________

Appeal 2007-0681
Application 09/805,978
Technology Center 3600
____________

Decided: March 28, 2007
____________

Before ANITA PELLMAN GROSS, JENNIFER D. BAHR, and
ANTON W. FETTING, Administrative Patent Judges.

GROSS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Ohta (Appellant) appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's
final rejection1 of claims 1 through 14, 16, 17, and 19 through 33, which are
all of the claims pending in this application.

1 Although the cover page of the Final Rejection indicates that claims 1-33
are pending and rejected, claims 15 and 18 are cancelled.
Appeal 2007-0681
Application 09/805,978

2
Appellant's invention relates to an image ordering system. Claim 1 is
illustrative of the claimed invention, and it reads as follows:
1. An image ordering system comprising:

a center server;

a first client computer for an orderer; and

a plurality of second client computers for a laboratory,

wherein said center server, said first client computer, and said
plurality of second client computers are capable of communicating data with
one another;

said first client computer comprising:

an input unit for inputting data that specifies an image to be
printed; and

a first transmitting unit for transmitting, to said center server,
the image specifying data that is input from said input unit and data
specifying the orderer;

said center server comprising:

a memory for storing correspondence data in advance, the
correspondence data representing which of the plurality of second client
computers is affiliated with the first client computer of the orderer;

a first receiving unit for receiving the image specifying data and
the orderer specifying data transmitted from said first transmitting unit of
said first client computer;

a determination unit for determining, on the basis of the
correspondence data, which of the plurality of second client computers is
affiliated with the orderer specified by the orderer data received by said first
receiving unit; and
Appeal 2007-0681
Application 09/805,978

3

a second transmitting unit for transmitting the image specifying
data and the orderer specifying data, which has been received by said first
receiving unit, to one of said plurality of second client computers that has
been determined by said determination unit in association with each other;
and

said one of said plurality of second client computers comprising:

a second receiving unit for receiving the image specifying
data and the orderer specifying data transmitted from said second
transmitting unit of said center server; and

a first alerting unit for giving notice of information regarding
an image specified by the image specifying data and of an orderer
represented by the orderer specifying data, which items of data have been
received by said second receiving unit.

The prior art references of record relied upon by the Examiner in
rejecting the appealed claims are:
Freedman US 4,839,829 June 13, 1989
Hartman US 5,960,411 Sep. 28, 1999
Greulich US 6,018,338 Jan. 25, 2000

Claims 1 through 7, 11 through 14, 16, 17, and 19 through 33 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Freedman in view
of Hartman.
Claims 8 through 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Freedman in view of Hartman and Greulich.
We refer to the Examiner's Answer (mailed March 3, 2006) and to
Appellant's Brief (filed November 23, 2005) for the respective arguments.

Appeal 2007-0681
Application 09/805,978

4
SUMMARY OF DECISION
As a consequence of our review, we will reverse the obviousness
rejections of claims 1 through 14, 16, 17, and 19 through 33.

OPINION
The main issue presented by Appellant (Br. 20-31) is whether
Freedman and Hartman disclose the center server determining, on the basis
of stored data, which of the second client computers is affiliated with the
orderer and transmitting the order to that second client computer. The
Examiner (Answer 9-10) asserts that Hartman discloses storing data for
future orders, and, therefore, suggests storing an affiliation between the
orderer and second client computers for the center server to use in selecting
a second client computer. We agree with Appellant that no affiliation is
disclosed on the record before us.
Freedman discloses (col. 10, ll. 19-27) that either the orderer selects
the printing facility (or second client computer) or the orderer may permit
the system (or center server) to select the printing facility. We find no other
disclosure in Freedman as to how a printing facility is chosen, nor any
teaching of saving order information for future orders. Hartman discloses
(col. 3, ll. 40-42) that "purchaser-specific order information may have been
collected from a previous order placed by the purchaser." The information
is saved for single-action ordering capabilities, so that the purchaser need
not send sensitive information via the Internet multiple times. See col. 3, l.
66-col. 4, l. 3, and col. 6, ll. 48-52. We find no teaching or suggestion that
Appeal 2007-0681
Application 09/805,978

5
the data saved includes affiliation information. Thus, neither Freedman nor
Hartman teaches or suggests the center server determining, on the basis of
stored data, which of the second client computers is affiliated with the
orderer and transmitting the order to that second client computer.
Accordingly, we cannot sustain the obviousness rejection of claims 1
through 7, 11 through 14, 16, 17, and 19 through 33.
For claims 8 through 10, the Examiner adds Greulich to the primary
combination. Appellant contends (Br. 38-39) that Greulich does not remedy
the shortcomings of Freedman and Hartman. Greulich states (col. 5, ll. 60-
65) that the computer determines which printing facility to use based upon
scheduling, geographic location, and capabilities of the facility. We find no
suggestion in Greulich to use a printing facility that has an affiliation with
the orderer. Thus, Greulich fails to cure the deficiency of the primary
combination, and we find no evidence in the record before us that would
have suggested the affiliation limitation that is lacking from above-noted
references. Accordingly, we cannot sustain the obviousness rejection of
claims 8 through 10.

Appeal 2007-0681
Application 09/805,978

6
ORDER
The decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1 through 14, 16, 17,
and 19 through 33 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
REVERSED

vsh

MCGINN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP, PLLC
8321 OLD COURTHOUSE ROAD
SUITE 200
VIENNA, VA 22182-3817