Ex Parte Ramadei et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 23, 2016

11512527 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 23, 2016)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
11/512,527 08/30/2006 Michael J. Ramadei G-223 1361
919 7590 12/28/2016
PITNEY BOWES INC.
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & PROCUREMENT LAW DEPT.
37 EXECUTIVE DRIVE
MSC 01-152
DANBURY, CT 06810
EXAMINER
CLARK, DAVID J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3628
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/28/2016 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):
iptl@pb.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MICHAEL J. RAMADEI, DAVID R. WELCH,
JAMES A. FAIRWEATHER, WESLEY A. KIRSHNER, and
DAVID J. EATON
Appeal 2014-009679
Application 11/512,527
Technology Center 3600
Before ANTON W. FETTING, JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, and
BIBHU R. MOHANTY, Administrative Patent Judges.
MOHANTY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the final
rejection of claims 21—24 which are all the claims pending in the application.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
SUMMARY OF THE DECISION
We REVERSE.
Appeal 2014-009679
Application 11/512,527
THE INVENTION
The Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to a system that
generates mail pieces and manages differences in operating rates in the
system (Spec., para. 1). Claim 21, reproduced below, is representative of the
subject matter on appeal.
21. A system comprising:
a data source device that generates print data for individual
pages to be printed;
a printer operatively coupled to the data source to receive
the print data and to use the print data to print the individual
pages;
a buffer coupled to the printer for receiving the printed
individual pages from the printer and temporarily storing the
printed individual pages;
a mail-assembling device including a controller that
controls operation of the mail assembling device, the controller
operatively coupled to the buffer to determine on a continuous
basis the number of printed individual pages in the buffer and
operatively coupled to the data source to throttle on a continuous
basis the release of individual pages of print data generated by
the data source to the printer based on the determined number of
pages in the buffer.
THE REJECTION
The following rejection is before us for review:
Claims 21—23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Van Der Werff (US 6,338,479 Bl, iss. Jan. 15, 2002).
2
Appeal 2014-009679
Application 11/512,527
FINDINGS OF FACT
We have determined that the findings of fact in the Analysis section
below are supported at least by a preponderance of the evidence1.
ANALYSIS
The Appellants argue that the rejection of claim 21 is improper
because the prior art fails to disclose:
throttl[ing] on a continuous basis the release of individual pages of
print data generated by the data source to the printer based on the
determined number of pages in the buffer.
(App. Br. 3, 4; Reply Br. 1—3).
In contrast, the Examiner has determined that cited claim limitation is
found in Van Der Werff at Figure 1, column 3, lines 36-47, column 7, lines
30-35, and claim 3 (Final Act. 4; Ans. 3—5).
We agree with the Appellants. Here, Van Der Werff at the above
cited portions does not disclose the cited claim limitation which requires
“throttling] on a continuous basis the release of individual pages of print
data generated by the data source to the printer based on the determined
number of pages in the buffer” (emphasis added). For example, Van Der
Werff at column 3, lines 36-47 does disclose that documents are printed in
accordance with printing instructions, but there is no specific disclosure of
any throttling in the specific manner claimed. Van Der Werff at column 7,
lines 30—35 does disclose that a buffer station can receive a temporary
excess of sheets, and that after the cause of the delay has been removed, can
1 See Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1427 (Fed. Cir. 1988)
(explaining the general evidentiary standard for proceedings before the
Patent Office).
3
Appeal 2014-009679
Application 11/512,527
dispense these again, which could be considered throttling. However, there
is no specific disclosure that this throttling is done based on the determined
number of pages in the buffer. As the cited claim limitation has not been
shown in the prior art, the rejection of claim 21 and its dependent claims is
not sustained.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
We conclude that Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in
rejecting the claims as listed in the Rejection section above.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 21—24 is reversed.
REVERSED
4