Ex Parte Snyder

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 24, 2017

11689114 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 24, 2017)

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.
11/689,114 03/21/2007 Trevor James Snyder 20060108USNP/106681.17001 1297
75313 7590 04/26/2017
YKROY TORPOR ATTON T/O FONT ROTHSOHTT D T T P
EXAMINER
Princeton Pike Corporate Center
997 Lenox Drive, Building 3
BECKLEY, JONATHAN R
Princeton, NJ 08648-2311 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2672
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/26/2017 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):
ipdocket @ foxrothschild. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte TREVOR JAMES SNYDER
Appeal 2016-008351
Application 11/689,114
Technology Center 2600
Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, JAMES R. HUGHES, and
SCOTT E. BAIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
COURTENAY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final
Rejection of claims 1—4, 6, 9, 20-23, 25—27, 29, and 31—33, which are all the
claims pending in this application. Claims 5, 7, 8, 10-19, 24, 28, 30, and 34
are cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appeal 2016-008351
Application 11/689,114
Invention
The disclosed and claimed invention on appeal is directed to:
A method of monitoring at least one printing device via a
communication network is disclosed. An error identifier and a
usability identifier are received from the printing device.
The printing device is commanded to display a fault code. A
service occurs as a response to the error identifier and the
usability identifier. The level of service is dependent on the
error identifier and the usability identifier.
(Abstract.)
Representative Claim 1
1. A method comprising:
monitoring, by a monitoring server, a printing device 2 via a
communication network;
determining, by one of either the monitoring server or the
printing device, a usability identifier for the printing device;
receiving, by the monitoring server from the printing device, an
error identifier;
[L4] displaying, by the printing device, a fault code comprising
the usability identifier and the error identifier,
[LI] determining, by the printing device, whether the usability
identifier exceeds a threshold value',
1 Contested limitations LI, L2, L3, and L4 are emphasized in italics and
bracketed with numbers in the order argued in the principal Brief.
2 See Spec. 113: “Printing devices may include, but are not limited to,
printers, copiers, faxes, scanners or other devices using ink or toner.”
(emphasis added).
2
Appeal 2016-008351
Application 11/689,114
[L2] in response to the usability identifier exceeding the
threshold value, selecting a remote service center from a
plurality of remote service centers based upon the fault code;
displaying, on a display of the printing device, contact
information for the selected remote service center;
[L3] determining whether an input device that is integrated in
the printing device is enabled for the fault code;
in response to determining that the input device is enabled for
the fault code, automatically sending, via an external
communication network to which the printing device is
operably connected, the fault code from the input device to the
selected remote service center.
Anticipation Rejection over Landau 3
Claims 1—4, 6, 9, 20-23, 25—27, 29, and 31—33 are rejected under pre-
AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Landau et al. (US Patent
7,355,730 B2; Apr. 8, 2008) (hereinafter “Landau”).
Grouping of Claims
Based upon Appellant’s arguments, we decide the appeal of all
rejected claims, except for independent claim 23, on the basis of
representative claim 1. We address claim 23 separately, infra. To the extent
Appellant has not advanced separate, substantive arguments for particular
rejected claims or other issues, such arguments are waived. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
3 We note the Examiner withdrew previous rejections under § 101 (Final
Act. 2), and under § 103(a) (Ans. 20-21).
3
Appeal 2016-008351
Application 11/689,114
ANALYSIS
We have considered all of Appellant’s arguments and any evidence
presented. We find Appellant’s arguments unpersuasive for the reasons
discussed infra. We adopt as our own: (1) the findings and legal
conclusions set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is
taken, and (2) the findings, legal conclusions, and explanations set forth in
the Answer in response to Appellant’s arguments. (Ans. 21—29.) We
highlight and address specific findings and arguments for emphasis in our
analysis below.
Anticipation Rejection of Representative Claim 1 over Landau
Issues
Under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), did the Examiner err by finding
Landau expressly or inherently discloses contested limitations LI, L2, L3,
and L4, within the meaning of representative claim 1? 4
Contested Limitation LI of Representative Claim 1
Appellant contends “Landau does not disclose ‘determining . . .
whether the usability identifier exceeds a threshold value.” (App. Br. 9.)
Regarding the contested limitation LI, Appellant refers to the support in the
4 We give the contested claim limitations the broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the Specification. See In re Morris, 111 L.3d
1048, 1054 (Led. Cir. 1997); cf Spec. 139 (“It will be appreciated that
various of the above-disclosed and other features and functions, or
alternatives thereof, may be desirably combined into many other different
systems or applications. Also that various presently unforeseen or
unanticipated alternatives, modifications, variations or improvements therein
may be subsequently made by those skilled in the art which are also intended
to be encompassed by the following claims.”).)
4
Appeal 2016-008351
Application 11/689,114
Specification, reproduces Landau (15:43—46), and contends: “Landau is
silent on what [the] service requirement is and makes no mention[] of [a]
usability identifier. Nor does Landau mention any type of threshold value
and determining whether a usability identifier exceeds a threshold value.”
(App. Br. 10 (emphasis added).)
At the outset, we note a literal mention in Landau of a “usability
identifier” or “a threshold value” (or “fault code” or “error identifier” —
claim 1) is not required, because anticipation “is not an ‘ipsissimis verbis’
test.” In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832—33 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (citing Akzo N.V.
v. U.S. Inti Trade Comm’n, 808 F.2d 1471, 1479 n.ll (Fed. Cir. 1986)).
“An anticipatory reference . . . need not duplicate word for word what is in
the claims.” Standard Havens Prods., Inc. v. Gencor Indus., Inc., 953 F.2d
1360, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
Claim Construction
We further note method claim 1 recites conditional language:
[LI] determining, by the printing device, whether the usability
identifier exceeds a threshold value',
[L2] in response to the usability identifier exceeding the
threshold value, selecting a remote service center from a
plurality of remote service centers based upon the fault code',
[L3] determining whether an input device that is integrated in
the printing device is enabled for the fault code',
in response to determining that the input device is enabled
for the fault code, automatically sending, via an external
communication network to which the printing device is
operably connected, the fault code from the input device to the
selected remote service center.
5
Appeal 2016-008351
Application 11/689,114
(Emphasis added.)
Thus, method claim 1 recites the contested steps or acts of “selecting a
remote service center” and “automatically sending ... the fault code” that
are conditionally performed “in response to” the respective condition
precedents being satisfied. (Emphasis added.)
However, we conclude these conditional steps or acts are not required
to be performed within the scope of claim 1, in the event the usability
identifier does not exceed the threshold value, or if it is determined that the
input device is not enabled for the fault code.
We note that conditional steps employed in a method claim need not
be found in the prior art if, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the
method need not invoke those steps. See Ex parte Schulhauser, No. 2013-
007847, 2016 WL 6277792, at *4 (PTAB April 28, 2016) (precedential)
(holding “[t]he Examiner did not need to present evidence of the
obviousness of the remaining method steps of claim 1 that are not required
to be performed under a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim . .
see also Ex parte Katz, No. 2010-006083, 2011 WL 514314, at *4—5 (BPAI
Jan. 27, 2011).5
5 See also Applera Corp. v. Illumina, Inc., 375 F. App’x 12, 21 (Fed. Cir.
2010) (unpublished) (affirming a district court’s interpretation of a method
claim as including a step that need not be practiced if the condition for
practicing the step is not met); Cybersettle, Inc. v. Nat’l Arbitration Forum,
Inc., 243 F. App’x 603, 607 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (unpublished) (“It is of course
true that method steps may be contingent. If the condition for performing a
contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not
be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed.”).
6
Appeal 2016-008351
Application 11/689,114
Applying this reasoning here, we conclude the broadest reasonable
interpretation of method claim 1 includes situations that fail to satisfy the
recited condition precedents. In these situations, we conclude the contested
language following the condition precedent is not required to be performed.
See Schulhauser, No. 2013-007847, at *4—5 (precedential).
Therefore, we find unavailing Appellant’s arguments that Landau
does not disclose the conditional steps or acts of claim 1, because such
arguments are not commensurate with the broadest reasonable interpretation
of method claim 1. {Id.)
Even assuming, arguendo, that our reviewing court were to conclude
that the contested conditional limitations are required to be performed within
the scope of method claim 1, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments
in the Briefs, for the following reasons.
Regarding contested limitation LI, we agree with the Examiner’s
broad but reasonable claim construction of the recited “usability identifier”
which may exceed a threshold value. (Ans. 21—22.) The Examiner
concludes the scope of the recited “usability identifier” (claim 1) covers
“any data or information indicating the use of a printing device.” (Ans.
21 (emphasis added).) The Examiner further concludes the scope of the
recited exceeding “a threshold” (claim 1) covers “a value that is within a
range which has exceeded any distinguishable amount. . . .” {Id.
(emphasis added).)
Turning to Appellant’s Specification for context, we find Appellant
has not set forth a definition for the contested claim terms which consist
entirely of data: “a fault code comprising the usability identifier and the
error identifier,” as recited in claim 1. (Emphasis added.) We find
7
Appeal 2016-008351
Application 11/689,114
Appellant’s Specification (e.g., 1 5 (emphasis added)) merely describes
exemplary, non-limiting embodiments for the contested data elements:
The usability identifier may represent usage of the printing
device or multiple devices in the communication network over
a period of time. The commanding may include, for example,
displaying the fault code in a display area of the printing
device and/or printing the fault code. The fault code may be
dependent upon the usability identifier and the error
identifier. In an embodiment, the error identifier represents
a maintenance issue in the printing device.
See also Spec. (1 20):
The fault code may be a combination of both the error
identifier and the usability identifier. The error identifier
and usability identifier may each be displayed as part of the
fault code as part as a symbol, number, letter, image, bar graph
or a pie chart. The usability identifier may be a percentage
displayed by an image, graph, chart or a number between 0 and
100. Alternatively, the fault code may be an alphanumeric
code that is based on both the error identifier and the usability
identifier.
(Emphasis added.)
We find no supporting limiting definition or disclaimer in the
originally-filed Specification 6 that would preclude the Examiner’s broader
reading, nor has Appellant argued specific supported definitions for the
respective data claim terms. (Ans. 21; see n.3, supra.)
In reviewing the record, we understand the Examiner’s mapping to
broadly but reasonably read the “fault code”7 recited in claim 1 on Landau’
6 See also Spec. 117: “The usability identifier may be an indicator of the
usage of a printing device 100.” Given this context, we find Landau’s
counters of paper or toner usage (e.g., col. 3,11. 6—16), are “usability
identifiers” under a broad but reasonable interpretation of claim 1.
7 See Spec. 112: “The fault code may comprise an error identifier, a
8
Appeal 2016-008351
Application 11/689,114
internal data, which includes a number of diagnostic counters (each a
“usability identifier” within the meaning of claim 1) which provide data to
trigger error messages that are used to indicate specific errors: e.g., paper or
toner is low, or empty. See Landau, col. 3,11. 1—16:
at least some of the following internal data may be read out
over the computer network serial number of the device and/or at
least one internal component of the device, counter reading of
a total counter assigned to all paper sources and/or
duplicating units of the device, at least one counter reading of a
servicing counter and/or accounts counter and/or at least one
other counter, optionally at least one counter reading
assigned to an individual paper source of the device and/or
at least one counter reading assigned to an individual
duplicating unit of the device, error messages and/or other
status data (for example “paper low” (or “cassette empty”)
and “toner low” information).
(Emphasis added.)
Thus, we find a preponderance of the evidence cited by the Examiner
(e.g., Landau, col. 2,1. 63—col. 3,1. 24) supports the Examiner’s findings
(Ans. 22) that the contested “usability identifier” is disclosed “at least from
[Landau’s] internal data [(“fault codes”— claim 1)] comprising one of the
stated counters.” (i.e., “usability identifier” — claim 1). (See Landau, col 3,
1. 67—col. 4,1. 4, in which such internal data (i.e., “fault codes”) include
“current information” such as “information about counter readings, toner
usability identifier, or a combination of both.” See Genentech, Inc. v. Chiron
Corp, 112 F.3d 495, 501 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“‘Comprising’ is a term of art
used in claim language which means that the named elements are essential,
but other elements may be added and still form a construct within the scope
of the claim.”). See Claim 1: “displaying ... a fault code comprising the
usability identifier and the error identifier; . . . .”
9
Appeal 2016-008351
Application 11/689,114
and paper supplies, machine availability together with error messages and
error history relating to the assigned office machines” and a paper source
counter (emphasis added).)
Consistent with our discussion above, we find Landau’s counter data
(“usability identifier” — claim 1 (emphasis added)) is used to generate an
error message (“error identifier” — claim 1 (emphasis added)) when a
given counter exceeds a threshold, such as “‘paper low’ (or ‘cassette
empty’) and ‘toner low’ information),” whereby such indicators
communicate to the customer service technician that the office printer or
copier will soon become unusable due to lack of paper or toner. (Col. 3,11.
14—16.)
We note Landau’s invention “relates to an office machine which
comprises an electronic control unit and a data communication interface,
wherein internal data of the office machine may be read out and/or
internal data of the office machine are settable via the data communication
interface.” (Col. 1,11. 11—16 (emphasis added).) Although a technician may
carry “out the repair/servicing, possibly on the basis of the data which have
been read out from the device 10” (col. 18,11. 50-52), “[d]ata transmission
or retrieval may be made fully automatic. The information computer
system 226c [(Fig. 2)] may furthermore transmit information of relevance to
the servicing of the assigned office machines by data communication to the
assigned servicing computer systems . . . [(i.e., plural systems — see Fig.
4)].” (Col. 17,11. 20-25 (emphasis added).)
Given this evidence {id.), and given the absence of any definition for
the contested data elements (“a fault code comprising the usability
identifier and the error identifier” and “a threshold value” — claim 1
10
Appeal 2016-008351
Application 11/689,114
(emphasis added)), on this record, we are not persuaded the Examiner’s
reading of these contested limitations of claim 1 on the corresponding cited
portions of Landau is overly broad, unreasonable, or inconsistent with
Appellant’s Specification.8 Therefore, we find unpersuasive Appellant’s
contentions regarding contested limitation LI of claim 1.
Contested Limitation L2 of Representative Claim 1
Regarding contested limitation L2, Appellant contends “Landau does
not teach ‘selecting a remote service center from a plurality of remote
service centers based upon the fault code,”’ as recited in claim 1. (App. Br.
10.) Appellant further contends, “[n]or does Landau teach making a
selection based on the fault code, as required by Appellant’s claim 1.” (Id.
at 11.)
We disagree, because Landau’s figure 4 expressly depicts a plurality
of servicing computer systems (226b, 226b’, 226b” and 226c), of the type
depicted as 226b in figure 2, that are selected. Such selection is made “as a
function of the internal data” that has been read, as described in Landau (col.
6,11. 31—44 (emphasis added)):
the notification functionality is designed, as a function of the
internal data which have been read out, to select between
two or more assigned communication devices and/or two or
more assigned further computer units to which the data
and/or messages relating to preventive and/or acute
servicing operations on at least one of the office machines
are to be provided or sent. This proposed development relates
8 Because “applicants may amend claims to narrow their scope, a broad
construction during prosecution creates no unfairness to the applicant or
patentee.” In re ICON Health and Fitness, Inc., 496 L.3d 1374, 1379 (Led.
Cir. 2007) (internal citation omitted).
11
Appeal 2016-008351
Application 11/689,114
to the possibility already described that, as a function of
machine status, a selection is made between various routes of
communication and thus between the recipients of the
notification or data, in order consequently to provide a
response which is appropriate to the circumstances.
Given this evidence (Landau, Figs. 2, 4, col. 6,11. 31—44), we find
unpersuasive Appellant’s contentions regarding contested limitation L2 of
claim 1.
Contested Limitation L3 of Representative Claim 1
Appellant contends “Landau does not teach ‘determining whether an
input device that is integrated in the print device is enabled for the fault
code’ and if so, ‘automatically sending ... the fault code ... to the selected
remote service center,”’ as recited in claim 1. (App. Br. 11.)
We agree with and adopt the Examiner’s findings, as articulated in the
Answer (26), pointing to the cited portions of Landau in columns 15—18, and
Figures 5 and 6. Regarding the broadest reasonable interpretation of the
claimed “input device” recited in the condition precedent step L3 we find a
broad supporting description in the Specification (| 26):
The input device 160, as depicted in FIG. 1, is a structural
element of the printing device 100 that allows a customer to
enter a command into the device. The input device 160 may
include, but is not limited to, a button, lever, keyboard, or touch
screen. . . . The input device 160 may be used by a customer of
the printing device 100 to contact the service center 170. In one
embodiment, the printing device 100 may connect through a
communication device to the service center 170. In one
embodiment, the customer may then enter information into the
printing device 100 to relay to the service center 170. In
another embodiment, the printing device 100 may automatically
send the fault code, error identifier, and/or usability identifier,
to the service center 170 after the input device 160 is used by a
12
Appeal 2016-008351
Application 11/689,114
customer. The printing device 100 may also send the service
center 170 other pertinent information such as, but not limited
to, the location of the printing device 100 and a person to
contact regarding the printing device 100.
Given this description (id.), we find Landau (col. 12,11. 30-38)
describes an “input device” integrated into an office machine (e.g., printer),
within the meaning of claim 1:
By means of the computer unit (computer unit 20 in the case of
copier 10) integrated into the office machine or connected
thereto, it is preferably possible for the assigned servicing
computer system 26 to retrieve from a particular office machine
not only data of relevance to servicing (in particular counter
readings, error states etc.) but also data of relevance to users
(such as paper supply exhausted, toner supply exhausted, paper
supply below a threshold value, toner supply below a threshold
value etc.).
Landau further describes (col. 12,11. 11—15): “ It may be provided
that reading out or setting of internal data may alternatively also proceed
‘locally’ on the office machine itself or via the LAN or an Ethernet, for
instance by a service technician by means of a portable computer 102 or the
like.”
We note method claim 1 does not specify who or what performs the
L3 step of “determining whether an input device that is integrated in the
printing device is enabled for the fault code;...” (emphasis added).
The Examiner’s finding of anticipation regarding the subsequent
conditional limitation of “automatically sending . . . the fault code from the
input device to the selected remote service center” is further buttressed by
Landau’s description (col. 14,11. 47—55):
13
Appeal 2016-008351
Application 11/689,114
An external servicing computer system 226b is furthermore
provided which, subject to permission by a firewall 230, can
access the first-stated servicing computer system 226a over the
Internet 24 and, either directly without involving the servicing
computer system 226a, or indirectly, namely by the
intermediary of said servicing computer system 226a, has read
and/or write access by means of the particular office machine
computer unit to the internal data of the connected office
machines.
Therefore, on this record, and for the reasons discussed above, we find
a preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner’s finding of
anticipation regarding contested limitation L3 of claim 1.
Contested Limitation L4 of Representative Claim 1
Appellant contends, “Landau does not disclose ‘displaying, by the
printing device, a fault code comprising the usability identifier and the error
identifier,’” as recited in claim 1. (App. Br. 12.)
We agree with the Examiner’s findings (Ans. 27), noting that Landau
(col. 18,11. 50-53) expressly describes: “The technician then carries out the
repair/servicing, possibly on the basis of the data which have been read out
from the device 10.” Moreover, as previously discussed regarding limitation
L3, Landau describes (col. 12,11. 11—15): “It may be provided that reading
out or setting of internal data may alternatively also proceed ‘locally’ on
the office machine itself or via the LAN or an Ethernet, for instance by a
service technician by means of a portable computer 102 or the like.” Our
claim construction regarding the contested data elements is explained above.
Given our aforementioned mapping of the recited “fault code” (claim
1) to Landau’s internal data that further comprises a “usability identifier”
14
Appeal 2016-008351
Application 11/689,114
(corresponding to Landau’s counters) and “an error identifier”
(corresponding to Landau’s error messages), the Examiner’s findings are
buttressed by Landau’s express description directed to: “import of internal
device data . . . from a device (for example a copier or printer; internal
data comprise, for example, counter readings and error messages);
acceptance and display of detailed customer and machine/ device data;”
(Landau, col. 19,11. 55-60).
Therefore, on this record, and for the reasons discussed above, we find
a preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner’s finding of
anticipation regarding limitation L4 of claim 1.
For at least the aforementioned reasons, we are not persuaded of error
regarding the Examiner’s finding of anticipation over Landau for all
contested limitations (LI, L2, L3, and L4), as recited in representative claim
1. We note the associated grouped claims (not separately argued) fall with
claim 1. See Grouping of claims, supra.
Anticipation Rejection of Independent Claim 23 over Landau
Regarding claim 23, Appellant contends (App. Br. 13):
In particular, Landau fails to disclose, among other things, at
least the following limitations of claim 20:
• select a remote service center from the plurality of remote
service centers based upon the fault code;
• determine whether the input device is enabled for the fault
code; and
• in response to determining that the input device is enabled
for the fault code, automatically communicate, via the
15
Appeal 2016-008351
Application 11/689,114
external communication network, the fault code from the
input device to the selected remote service center.
Further regarding claim 23, Appellant contends:
As such, the usability identifier of claim 23 provides a user with
information about the operation of the printing device over
three distinct periods of time. Landau provides that “[cjurrent
information about counter readings, toner and paper supplies,
machine availability together with error messages and error
history relating to the assigned office machines can
permanently be available to the servicing computer unit.”
Landau at 3:67-4:4. But this generalized statement does not
disclose or inherently teach the specific components of a
usability identifier required by claim 23.
(Id. at 15.)
Turning to the support in the Specification (| 18) for context (as noted
by the Examiner — Ans. 28), Appellant describes the temporal aspects of
the contested limitations:
One part may be the current usage, such as usage over the past
week or the usage over the past month. The second part may be
the usage over a past period of time such as, but not limited to,
the usage over the past two or three months. The third part may
be the usage over a more extended period of time such as, but
not limited to, usage over the past six months or usage the past
year or even since the printers start of life, etc. In one
embodiment, these parts may be displayed in any order. In one
embodiment, there may be more or less than three parts that
comprise the usability identifier.
(Spec. 118).
Given this context (id.), we broadly but reasonably interpret the
contested limitations of claim 23 as requiring the determination of a
particular “usability identifier” that includes the current print usage value
over a first time period, and older print usage values corresponding to two
16
Appeal 2016-008351
Application 11/689,114
past time periods. Given our claim construction, and the portions of Landau
cited by the Examiner, we are not persuaded of error regarding the
Examiner’s finding of anticipation (Ans. 28—29):
As stated above, Landau discloses counter readings and values
which are made to date or within a period of time. Further,
Landau discloses that the values can be over a lifetime, since
the last servicing, since the history of a plurality of servicing, or
since any change from a last query, (Column 11, lines 56-
Column 12 lines 10).
As described by Landau (col. 11,1. 60-col 12,1. 3),
[t]he following data may be taken into consideration in
connection with copiers or the like:
machine serial number, total counter, configuration data, error
messages (optionally with detailed description), counter
readings for assemblies (for instance heater unit or fuser/fixer
unit) or components (e.g. drum, heated rollers, feed spindles
etc.). In this manner it is possible, for example, to query the
number of prints, copies, faxes or scans which have been made
to date or within a period of time. Internal data of the office
machines can moreover be set by data communication over the
Internet.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of
independent claim 23 over Landau.
Reply Brief
To the extent Appellant advances new arguments in the Reply Brief
not in response to a shift in the Examiner’s position in the Answer, we note
arguments raised in a Reply Brief that were not raised in the Appeal Brief or
are not responsive to arguments raised in the Examiner’s Answer will not be
considered except for good cause. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2).
17
Appeal 2016-008351
Application 11/689,114
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—4, 6, 9, 20-23,
25-27, 29, and 31-33 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED
18