Ex Parte Opfer et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 13, 2016

13698559 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 13, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/698,559 11/16/2012
22879 7590 09/15/2016
HP Inc,
3390 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 35
FORT COLLINS, CO 80528-9544
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Shamai Opfer
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.
83128897 4256
EXAMINER
CRUZ, IRIANA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2675
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/15/2016 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):
ipa.mail@hp.com
barbl@hp.com
yvonne.bailey@hp.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SHAMAI OPFER, ELAD D. BARAM, JODY TERRILL,
YOSSI ADAM, ELI BITAN, TAMIR HATIVA,
SHMULIK TISCHLER, and NOGA TAL
Appeal2015-004917 1
Application 13/698,559
Technology Center 2600
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, CAROLYN D. THOMAS, and
AARON W. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's final rejection of claims 19-27 and 29-37. Claims 1-18 and 28
have been canceled. App. Br. 4.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Hewlett-Packard Indigo
B.V. App. Br. 2.
2 All dependent claims in this appeal improperly depend on previously
canceled claims. Claims App'x.
Appeal2015-004917
Application 13/698,559
Appellants' Invention
Appellants' invention is directed to a method and system for printing
with in-line finishing. Spec. i-f 2. In particular, upon receiving a job
command from a printing station (12) via a direct communication link (15),
a finishing line controller (PLC, 20) converts the job command into a
finishing action command, which is communicated to one or more finishing
devices (14, 16, 18). Id. i-f 44, Fig. 1.
Illustrative Claim
Independent claim 19 is illustrative, and reads as follows:
19. A printing system comprising:
a printing station comprising a printing assembly;
a finishing line controller for controlling operation of one or more
finishing devices arrangeable in-line with the printing station; and
a direct communication link between the printing station and the
finishing line controller for communicating job commands from the printing
station to the finishing line controller to be translated into finishing action
commands by the finishing line controller and communicated to said one or
more finishing devices.
Rejection on Appeal
Claims 19-27 and 29-37 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Ryan.
2
Appeal2015-004917
Application 13/698,559
ANALYSIS
We consider Appellants' arguments seriatim, as they are presented in
the Appeal Brief, pages 9-25, and the Reply Brief, pages 4--18. 3
Appellants argue that Ryan does not anticipate the claims on appeal.
App. Br. 10-25; Reply Br. 4--18. We have reviewed the Examiner's
rejection in light of Appellants' arguments. We are unpersuaded by
Appellants' contentions. Except as otherwise indicated herein below, we
adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth in the rejection from
which the appeal is taken and in the Examiner's Answer in response to
Appellants' Appeal Brief. See Final Act. 2-8; Ans. 2-10. However, we
highlight and address specific arguments and findings for emphasis as
follows.
First, Appellants argue Ryan does not describe a direct
communication link between a printing station and a finishing line controller
(PLC). App. Br. 12-14; Reply Br. 6-8. According to Appellants, because
the disclosed VFJTR (701) is not part of the FMC (700), they do not
describe together the claimed PLC. Id (citing Ryan, Fig. 5). In particular,
Appellants argue that the claimed PLC (20) includes a Bindery Agent (21 ),
which translates a job command from the PLC into a finishing action
suitable for distribution to the finishing devices. App. Br. 12 (citing Spec.
3 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner, we
refer to the Appeal Brief (filed September 29, 2014), the Reply Brief (filed
March 27, 2015) and the Answer (mailed January 30, 2015) for their
respective details. We have considered in this Decision only those
arguments Appellants actually raised in the Briefs. Any other arguments
Appellants could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs are deemed
to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2012).
3
Appeal2015-004917
Application 13/698,559
if 47). In contrast, Appellants submit the VFJTR merely provides
information to the FMC, and does not translate the information for
subsequent distribution. Id. This argument is not persuasive.
As correctly noted by the Examiner, although the PLC includes a
bindery agent, the latter device is not recited in the claim, and, therefore,
cannot constitute a proper basis for supporting Appellants' arguments. Ans.
6. Consequently, Appellants' argument that the VFJTR does not describe
the Bindery Agent is not commensurate with the scope of the claim.
Second, Appellants argue that because the JSIS and VFJTR serve as
intermediaries between the printing station and the FMC, Ryan does not
describe a direct link between the printing station and the FMC. App. Br.
13-14; Reply Br. 8-10. This argument is not persuasive. As correctly noted
by the Examiner, Ryan's VFJTR serves the function of reading information
from the JSIS to the FMC, which in tum, interprets, translates, and delivers
the information to the finishing module. Ans. 6-7 (citing Ryan iii! 60-64).
We, thus, agree with the Examiner that because the functions performed by
the VFJTR and the FMC describe the functions of the claimed PLC, the
VFJTR and FMC taken together describe the claimed PLC. Id.
Accordingly, Ryan's disclosure of the JSI describes a direct link between the
VFJTR/FMC and the printing stations. Fig. 1.
Third, Appellants argue that because the JSI refers to a job segment
identifier for looking up a job segment in the VFJTDB, it does not contain a
job command, which is communicated to the PLC. App. Br. 14--15; Reply
Br. 10-12. This argument is not persuasive. The claim does not require that
the direct link include a job command. Instead, the disputed limitation
requires a direct link for communicating a job command from the printing
4
Appeal2015-004917
Application 13/698,559
station to the FLC. As correctly noted by the Examiner, Ryan discloses
transmitting to the VFJTR/FMC via the JSI job segments obtained from the
printing devices such that the identified job segments can be rendered at the
finishing modules. Ans. 7-8 (citing i-fi-160-64). It, therefore, follows that
Appellants have not shown error in the Examiner's anticipation rejection of
claim 19.
Regarding the rejection of claim 26, Appellants argue Ryan does not
describe gathering information from a finishing device (e.g. the capacity
thereof), and communicating status information to the printing station. App.
Br. 16. According to Appellants, Ryan discloses the FMC requesting access
to desired device information from the VFJTDB, and providing the
information to the finishing devices, as opposed to the FMC gathering data
from the finishing devices and communicating the gathered information to
the printing station. Id. at 16-8 (citing Ryan i-fi-160-64, 72). This argument
is not persuasive. As correctly noted by the Examiner, Ryan discloses the
controller tracking performance information about the finishing devices, and
subsequently relating the gathered information to the printing stations. Ans.
8-9 (citing Ryan i-fi-192-94). Likewise, Ryan's disclosure of interrogating
devices identified as being in an error state to thereby generate a recovery
request for an operator to handle describes generating an automated error
recovery request. Ryan i-fi-194--95. We agree with the Examiner that the
cited disclosures describe the disputed limitations. Accordingly, we sustain
the Examiner's rejection of claim 26.
Regarding the rejection of claim 32, Appellants argue Ryan does not
describe operating the communication link as a near real-time interface.
App. Br. 19-22. This argument is not persuasive. Because the JSI
5
Appeal2015-004917
Application 13/698,559
communicates the identified job segments to the VFJTR/FMC without
substantial delay, the JSI communication link describes a near real-time
interface between the controller and the finishing devices. Ryan i-f 73.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 32.
Regarding the rejection of claim 20, Appellants argue Ryan does not
describe a digital front end controller (DFEC) with a first communication
link to the printing station, and a second communication link to the finishing
line controller (PLC). App. Br. 23-24. This argument is not persuasive. As
correctly noted by the Examiner, Ryan discloses a DFE (200) coupled to the
VFJTR/FMC pair via JSI, and also coupled to the printing devices via
interfaces 202/203. Ans. 9 (citing Ryan i-f 90, Fig. 5). Accordingly, we
sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 20.
Regarding the rejection of claim 22, Appellants argue that Ryan does
not describe a bindery agent hosted in the PLC. App. Br. 24--25. This
argument is not persuasive. As correctly noted by the Examiner, because the
FMC is capable of performing finishing actions, such as translating the
printing job command before transmitting it to the finishing devices, it
incorporates the conventional functions of the bindery agent, and thereby
describes the cited agent. Ans. 10. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's
rejection of claim 22.
Regarding claims 21, 23-25, 27, 29-31, and 33-37, because
Appellants reiterate substantially the same arguments as those previously
discussed for patentability of claims 19, 20, 22, 26, and 32 above, claims 21,
23-25, 27, 29-31, and 33-37 fall therewith. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 19-27 and 29-37.
6
Appeal2015-004917
Application 13/698,559
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