Ex Parte Pizot et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 31, 2016

13882749 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 31, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/882,749 05/01/2013
22879 7590 11/02/2016
HP Inc,
3390 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 35
FORT COLLINS, CO 80528-9544
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Laurent Pizot
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.
83246168 9135
EXAMINER
BATAILLE, FRANTZ
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2677
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/02/2016 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 LAURENT PIZOT, LOREN D. CHAPPLE, TENG CHAI LIM,
HEAN KOON KOA Y, and K. S. VENUGOP AL
Appeal2015-007970
Application 13/882,749
Technology Center 2600
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, JENNIFER L. McKEOWN, and
STEVEN M. AMUNDSON Administrative Patent Judges.
NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1 through 14, which constitute all the
claims pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We affirm.
Appeal2015-007970
Application 13/882,749
fr.JVENTION
The invention is directed to a method for use of a scanner connected
to a network. See paragraph 7 Appellants' Specification.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and reproduced below:
1. A method, comprising:
receiving, at a network server, a scan request from
an image scanner;
sending, in response to the scan request, a
command from the network server to the image
scanner to scan media; and
obtaining a scanned image of the media from the
image scanner according to the command.
REFERENCES AND REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 4 through 10, and 12 through 14
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Fujita (US
2011/0096360 Al; published Apr. 28, 2011) and Ferlitsch (US
2010/0005136 Al; published Jan. 7, 2010). Final Act. 6-12. 1
The Examiner rejected claims 3 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Fujita, Ferlitsch, and Yada (US 2012/0229844 Al;
published Sept. 13, 2012). Final Act. 13-14.
ISSUES
Appellants argue, on pages 7 through 10 of the Appeal Brief and
pages 4 through 6 of the Reply Brief, that the Examiner's rejection of
2
Appeal2015-007970
Application 13/882,749
independent claims 1 is in error. These arguments present us with the
following issue: did the Examiner err in finding that Fujita and Ferlitsch
teach a network server receiving a scan request from an image scanner and
in response to the scan request the network server sending a command to the
image scanner to scan the media?
Appellants' arguments directed to claims 2 through 7 and 9 through
14 on pages 10 through 12 of the Appeal Brief present us with the same
issue as claim 1.
Appellants' arguments directed to claim 8 on page 11 of the Appeal
Brief and page 6 of the Reply Brief present us with the issue: did the
Examiner err in finding that Fujita and Ferlitsch teach the command sent to
the image scanner includes the destination address for sending the scanned
image?
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed Appellants' arguments in the Briefs, the
Examiner's rejections and the Examiner's response to the Appellants'
arguments. Appellants' arguments have not persuaded us of error in the
Examiner's rejections of claims 1 through 14.
With respect to the first issue, Appellants argue Fujita teaches a scan
request is received from the scanner driver of the scan control computer
(PC500) and not from the image scanner as claimed. App. Br. 8. Further,
1 Throughout this Opinion we refer to the Appeal Brief filed April 2, 2015,
Reply Brief filed August 31, 2015, Final Office Action mailed November 3,
2014, and the Examiner's Answer mailed July 13, 2015.
3
Appeal2015-007970
Application 13/882,749
Appellants argue that F erlitsch does not teach sending a scan request to a
network server. App. Br. 9.
In response to Appellants' arguments the Examiner relies upon the
teachings of Fujita to show that a scan request is sent to a server (PC500)
and a scan command is sent to a scanner from the server. Answer 3. Further,
the Examiner finds that Ferlitsch teaches receiving a scan request at the
image scanner. Answer 3. We concur with the Examiner. We disagree with
Appellants' statements on page 9 of the Brief that the scanner network
device 100 of Fujita does not send a scan request to the scanner. Fujita
teaches the remote scanner/network connection apparatus is separate from
the PC and allows the user to operate the scanner control at the PC500, thus
the user enters the scan request at item 100. Fujita i-fi-141--42. We consider
the Examiner's rejection to merely demonstrate that it would be obvious to
move the scanner/network connection apparatus to be at the image scanner.
Thus, Appellants' arguments, which address the references individually and
not the combined teaching of the references, have not persuaded us of error
in the Examiner's rejection of claim 1. Accordingly, we sustain the
Examiner's rejection of claims 1 through 7 and 9 through 14.
With respect to the second issue, the Examiner finds that Fujita
teaches the limitations of claim 8. Appellants argue that the rejection claim
8 is in error as paragraph 47 of Fujita, cited by the Examiner to teach the
limitations of claim 8, does not teach the command to the scanner includes
the destination address of the scanned image. App. Br. 11 and Reply Br. 6.
Specifically, Appellants state "in Fujita, the destination IP address is for a
packet, and not a destination address for the scanner device 200 to send
scanned images." App. Br. 11. We disagree with the Appellants, paragraph
4
Appeal2015-007970
Application 13/882,749
47 of Fujita discusses the communication between the PC500 and the
scanner/network connection apparatus (item 100, which receives the read
image from the scanner to be supplied to the PC500, see para. 46). Thus, the
addresses discussed in paragraph 4 7 are destination addresses for the image
data, that the image data may be in packet form is of no consequence.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner's rejection of
claim 8, and we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 8.
DECISION
We sustain the Examiner's rejections of claims 1 through 14 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
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
5