Ex Parte Parker

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 11, 2006

10033622 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 11, 2006)

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written for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________

Ex parte ABBIE PARKER
__________

Appeal No. 2006-1732
Application No. 10/033,622
___________

ON BRIEF
___________

Before HAIRSTON, JERRY SMITH, and SAADAT, Administrative Patent
Judges.

HAIRSTON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1
through 3, 5 through 9, 11 through 13 and 15 through 27.

The disclosed invention relates to a method and system for
Appeal No. 2006-1732
Application No. 10/033,622

2
providing print outcome notification to a user whenever one or
more print driver settings is likely to adversely affect either
the quality of images printed on a print media, the speed at
which printing is performed or the consumption of large amounts
of printing device consumables.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed invention, and it
reads as follows:
1. A method for providing print outcome notification,
comprising:

determining which print driver settings are selected;
determining whether one or more of the print driver settings
is likely to adversely affect the quality of images printed on
the print media or the speed at which printing is performed, or
to result in consumption of large amounts of printing device
consumables; and

providing notification to a user that a selected print
driver setting may result in an adverse printing result.

The reference relied on by the examiner is:

Moro et al. (Moro) 6,327,051 Dec. 4, 2001

Claims 1 through 3, 5 through 9, 11 through 13 and 15
through 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Moro.
Appeal No. 2006-1732
Application No. 10/033,622

3
Reference is made to the briefs and the answer for the
respective positions of the appellant and the examiner.
OPINION

We have carefully considered the entire record before us,
and we will sustain the obviousness rejection of claims 1 through
3, 5, 7 through 9, 11 through 13, 15 through 19, 21 through 24,
26 and 27, and reverse the obviousness rejection of claims 6, 20
and 25.
We agree with the examiner’s findings (answer, page 3) that
Moro describes a method for “providing print outcome
notification” in steps S284 (i.e., display fact that paper is
different), S353 (i.e., is mounted head same as driver setting?)
and S404 (i.e., are mounted head and head setting of printer
driver different?) in Figures 42, 49 and 54, respectively, and a
step of “determining which print driver settings are selected” in
steps S282 (i.e., obtain setting of paper size designation of
printer driver), S352 (i.e., obtain setting of cartridge
Appeal No. 2006-1732
Application No. 10/033,622

4
designation of printer driver) and S404 (i.e., are mounted head
and head setting of printer driver different?) in Figures 42, 49
and 54, respectively. We additionally agree with the examiner’s
finding (answer, page 4) that Moro describes a step of “providing
notification to a user that a selected print driver setting may
result in an adverse printing result” in step S284 (i.e., display
fact that paper is different) and an error dialog box to notify
the user that a paper mismatch exists (Figure 41). A second
error dialog box (Figure 48) notifies the user that a color
cartridge has not been installed for a selected color-printing
mode in step S354 (i.e., present display to achieve conformity
with printing method of mounted head).
In response to the examiner’s contentions (answer, page 4)
that print quality would be adversely affected by the above-noted
erroneous print settings, the appellant argues (brief, page 9)
that a mismatch in paper size “may result in the hard copy
printed being the wrong size and, potentially, the print data not
being properly centered on the page, [but] such a paper size
mismatch would not affect print quality.” Appellant also argues
Appeal No. 2006-1732
Application No. 10/033,622

5
(brief, pages 9 and 10) that “[a]lthough a mismatch between the
print head that is in the printer and a print head selection made
with the driver may result in the wrong color being printed
(e.g., monochrome instead of color), such a mismatch would not
adversely affect the print quality (i.e., the quality of the
image as it appears on the page).”
We agree with the appellant’s arguments that print quality
would not be adversely affected by the above-noted printing
errors; however, we find that such errors when repeated over time
will “result in consumption of large amounts of printing device
consumables” (e.g., wasted paper and ink/toner). The appellant’s
argument to the contrary notwithstanding, any print job that has
to be repeated because of an error results in the waste of
“printing device consumables” (brief, page 12). Thus, the
obviousness rejection of claims 1 through 3, 5, 7 through 9, 11
through 13, 15 through 19, 21 through 24, 26 and 27 is sustained.
The obviousness rejection of claims 6, 20 and 25 is reversed
because we agree with the appellant’s argument (brief, pages 13
and 14) that “merely identifying an adverse result does not
include the additional feature of also providing an indication of
how severe the adverse result is.”
Appeal No. 2006-1732
Application No. 10/033,622

6
DECISION

The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1 through 3,
5 through 9, 11 through 13 and 15 through 27 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) is affirmed as to claims 1 through 3, 5, 7 through 9,
11 through 13, 15 through 19, 21 through 24, 26 and 27, and is
reversed as to claims 6, 20 and 25.
Appeal No. 2006-1732
Application No. 10/033,622

7
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR § 1.136
(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

KENNETH W. HAIRSTON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
JERRY SMITH )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
MAHSHID D. SAADAT )
Administrative Patent Judge )

KWH/ce
Appeal No. 2006-1732
Application No. 10/033,622

8
HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ADMINISTRATION
P.O. BOX 272400
FORT COLLINS, CO 80527-2400