Ex Parte Paczewitz

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Dec 12, 2002

08959138 (B.P.A.I. Dec. 12, 2002)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not
written for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 13
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte LAURA M. PACZEWITZ
_____________
Appeal No. 2001-0948
Application No. 08/959,138
______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before HAIRSTON, JERRY SMITH, and LEVY, Administrative Patent
Judges.
HAIRSTON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims
1 through 18.
The disclosed invention relates to a method for selecting
printing features at print time with the aid of a print dialog
box and a media-type dialog box.
Appeal No. 2001-0948
Application No. 08/959,138
2
Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed invention, and it
reads as follows:
1. A method for selecting printing features at print
time comprising the steps of:
(a) upon a user selecting to perform a first print job
from an application, displaying a print dialog box;
(b) upon the user closing the print dialog box without
canceling the first print job, displaying a media-type pop-
up dialog box which allows a user to specify which type of
media is to be used for printing the first print job;
(c) upon the user changing selection of media-type,
changing print parameters for the first print job; and
(d) upon the user closing the media-type pop-up dialog
box without canceling the first print job, printing the
first print job.
The references relied on by the examiner are:
Kimura et al. (Kimura) 4,666,801 May 19, 1987
Stephenson et al. (Stephenson) 5,369,419 Nov. 29, 1994
Laumeyer et al. (Laumeyer) 5,572,632 Nov. 5, 1996
Kubo et al. (Kubo) 5,828,461 Oct. 27, 1998
(filed Nov. 15, 1996)
Cameron et al. (Cameron) 5,839,117 Nov. 17, 1998
(filed Jan. 6, 1997)
Anglin et al. (Anglin) 5,862,322 Jan. 19, 1999
(filed Feb. 15, 1996)
Claims 1 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Kubo in view of Laumeyer.
Claims 2 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Kubo in view of Laumeyer and Anglin.
Appeal No. 2001-0948
Application No. 08/959,138
3
Claims 3 through 5 and 12 through 14 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kubo in view of
Laumeyer, Stephenson and Kimura.
Claims 6 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Kubo in view of Laumeyer, Anglin,
Stephenson and Kimura.
Claims 7 through 9 and 16 through 18 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kubo in view of
Laumeyer, Anglin, Stephenson, Kimura and Cameron.
Reference is made to the briefs (paper numbers 8 and 11) and
the answer (paper number 10) for the respective positions of the
appellant and the examiner.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the entire record before us,
and we will reverse the obviousness rejection of claims 1 through
18.
All of the claims on appeal specifically recite the steps of
displaying a media-type pop-up dialog box “upon . . . closing” a
previously opened print dialog box.
The examiner’s contentions (answer, page 4) to the contrary
notwithstanding, the main menu display 63 (Figure 4) and the main
menu display 90 (Figure 9A) in Kubo are neither print dialog
Appeal No. 2001-0948
Application No. 08/959,138
4
boxes nor media-type pop-up dialog boxes. Although the main menu
display 63 permits the setting of a photosensitive material
(i.e., a media material) (column 19, lines 60 through 62) during
the performance of scanning functions, the setting of the media
material is not after a print dialog box has been opened and
closed. Within the main menu display 90 is a print setting
button 95 that will bring up a dialogue box 113 for a print
setting operation (Figure 12; column 22, lines 53 through 59;
column 24, lines 18 through 30). The dialogue box 113
simultaneously displays both a print dialog box and a media-type
(i.e., paper size) pop-up dialog box.
Laumeyer permits the user of console 18 to select a printer
19 from among the suite of printers 19, and to select media for a
print job (column 11, line 62 through column 12, line 14).
Laumeyer is completely silent as to whether the console user has
the benefit of dialog boxes when making the noted selections.
Inasmuch as neither Kubo nor Laumeyer teaches or would have
suggested the specifically claimed steps of closing the print
dialog box before displaying the media-type pop-up dialog box,
the obviousness rejection of claims 1 and 10 is reversed. The
obviousness rejections of claims 2 through 9 and 11 through
Appeal No. 2001-0948
Application No. 08/959,138
5
18 are likewise reversed because the teachings of Anglin,
Stephenson, Kimura and Cameron do not cure the noted shortcomings
in the teachings of Kubo and Laumeyer.
DECISION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1 through
18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed.
REVERSED

)
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
JERRY SMITH )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
STUART S. LEVY )
Administrative Patent Judge )
KWH:hh
Appeal No. 2001-0948
Application No. 08/959,138
6
HEWLETT PACKARD CO.
P.O. BOX 272400, 3404 E. HARMONY ROAD
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ADMIN.
FT. COLLINS, CO 80527-2400