10808224 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 30, 2010)

Ex Parte Teo et al

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesMar 30, 2010

10808224 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 30, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________________ Ex parte CHERNG LINN TEO and DENNIS CHUA ____________________ Appeal 2009-005919 Application 10/808,224 Technology Center 3600 ____________________ Decided: March 31, 2010 ____________________ Before WILLIAM F. PATE III, STEVEN D.A. McCARTHY and STEFAN STAICOVICI, Administrative Patent Judges. McCARTHY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL The Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s 1 decision rejecting claims 18-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being 2 anticipated by Sakuma (US 2006/0164491, issued Jul. 27, 2006). We have 3 jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). 4 We REVERSE.5 Appeal 2009-005919 Application 10/808,224 2 Claim 18 is the sole independent claim on appeal: 1 18. An inkjet printer comprising: 2 a printhead for printing a media sheet; 3 a front duplex module comprising: (i) a 4 media path entry where a media sheet to be printed 5 can enter; (ii) a linefeed-roller assembly 6 configured to transport the media sheet entering 7 the media path entry toward the printhead to 8 enable printing on a first side of the media sheet; 9 (iii) an output-roller assembly configured to 10 advance the media sheet in a forward direction or 11 to reverse the media sheet in a reverse direction, 12 wherein a simplex media path is defined between 13 the linefeed-roller assembly along the simplex 14 media path but upstream from the output roller 15 assembly; and 16 a back duplex module detachably coupled to 17 the front duplex module, said back duplex module 18 being configured to provide a single, unidirectional 19 loop path for flipping the media sheet one time to 20 thereby enable printing on a second side of the 21 media sheet, wherein said loop path has an entry 22 portion that is positioned next to the media path 23 entry for receiving the media sheet from the front 24 duplex module and an exit portion that is aligned 25 to the simplex media path, 26 wherein the front duplex module and the 27 back duplex module are configured to provide a 28 duplex media path that includes said loop path, and 29 a duplex path entry that is positioned adjacent to 30 the output-roller assembly but downstream from 31 the printhead so as to enable a trailing edge of the 32 media sheet to enter the duplex media path, and 33 wherein a portion of the linefeed-roller 34 assembly is positioned adjacent to the duplex 35 media path such that, after the trailing edge of the 36 Appeal 2009-005919 Application 10/808,224 3 media sheet entered through the duplex path entry, 1 the trailing edge must bypass said portion of the 2 linefeed-roller assembly and the media path entry 3 before entering the loop path. 4 Sakuma discloses an ink-jet recording apparatus with a carriage 3 5 including a recording head 4; a conveying part for conveying each sheet of 6 paper 12 below the recording head 4; and a duplex paper feed unit 51. 7 (Sakuma 3, ¶ 0047; 4, ¶ 0052; and 5, ¶ 0067). The conveying part includes a 8 conveyor belt 21 mounted on a conveying roller 27 and a tension roller 28. 9 (Sakuma 4, ¶¶ 0052 and 0053). The apparatus also includes a paper ejection 10 part including paper ejection rollers 42, 43. (Sakuma 5, ¶ 0066). 11 The conveyor belt 21 is driven by the conveying roller 27 beneath a 12 driven counter roller 22 aligned with the conveying roller 27. (Sakuma 5, ¶ 13 0069). Sheets of paper 12 fed from a paper feed part are conveyed by the 14 conveying belt 21 below the recording head 4. (Sakuma 4, ¶ 0052). In the 15 case of duplex printing, the conveyor belt 21 is then rotated in an opposite 16 direction toward the duplex paper feed unit 51. The rotation of the 17 conveying belt 21 is reversed again to convey the sheet of paper 12 received 18 from the duplex paper feed unit 51 below the recording head 4. (Sakuma 6, 19 ¶ 0079). 20 The Examiner finds that Sakuma’s ink-jet printing apparatus has a 21 front duplex module including the conveying feed part; the paper ejection 22 rollers 42, 43 and a paper ejection tray 44. (Ans. 3). The Examiner also 23 finds that Sakuma’s apparatus includes a back duplex module, namely, the 24 duplex paper feed unit 51. (Ans. 4). More specifically, the Examiner finds 25 that Sakuma’s apparatus includes a linefeed-roller assembly comprising a 26 paper feed roller 13 and the conveying roller 27. The Examiner also finds 27 Appeal 2009-005919 Application 10/808,224 4 that Sakuma’s apparatus includes an output-roller assembly including one or 1 more of the tension roller 28 and the paper ejection rollers 42, 43. (Ans. 3). 2 The Examiner interprets the limitation requiring “a duplex path entry 3 that is positioned adjacent the output-roller assembly but downstream from 4 the printhead” functionally. That is, the Examiner observes that Sakuma 5 reverses the direction of the sheet of paper 12 when conveying the paper 6 toward the duplex paper feed unit 51. Consequently, the Examiner interprets 7 the term “downstream from the printhead” in the fourth indented clause of 8 the body of claim 18 as indicating the side of the printhead opposite the 9 output-roller assembly. (Ans. 9). The Examiner finds that Sakuma’s 10 apparatus includes a duplex path entry near an edge pressure roller 25 11 located approximately at the apex of the conveying roller 27. (Ans. 4). This 12 “duplex path entry” is located at the opposite side of the recording head 4 13 and of the conveying belt 21 from the tension roller 28 and the paper 14 ejection rollers 42, 43 which the Examiner identifies as the output-roller 15 assembly. 16 A claim under examination is given its broadest reasonable 17 interpretation consistent with the underlying specification. In re Am. Acad. 18 of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). In the absence of 19 an express definition of a claim term in the specification or a clear 20 disclaimer of scope, the claim term is interpreted as broadly as the ordinary 21 usage of the term by one of ordinary skill in the art would permit. In re 22 ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007); In re 23 Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Properties of preferred 24 embodiments described in the specification which are not recited in a claim 25 do not limit the reasonable scope of the claim. E-Pass Techs., Inc. v. 3Com 26 Appeal 2009-005919 Application 10/808,224 5 Corp., 343 F.3d 1364, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Nevertheless, where possible, 1 claim language should be construed sufficiently broadly to encompass at 2 least one preferred embodiment disclosed in the specification. Hoechst 3 Celanese Corp. v. BP Chems. Ltd., 78 F.3d 1575, 1581 (Fed. Cir. 1996). 4 If the Examiner’s interpretation of claim 18 were applied to the 5 embodiments disclosed in the Appellants’ Specification and drawing figures, 6 none of the Appellants’ preferred embodiments would be covered. Each 7 would have a duplex path entry 326 located on the wrong side of the print 8 head 306. Since the claims are susceptible of a reasonable interpretation 9 which does cover the Appellants’ preferred embodiment, the Examiner’s 10 interpretation of the limitation requiring “a duplex path entry that is 11 positioned adjacent the output-roller assembly but downstream from the 12 printhead” is unreasonable. A more reasonable interpretation of the 13 limitation, consistent with the Appellants’ Specification, would define the 14 terms “upstream” and “downstream” consistently throughout claim 18, 15 interpreting the term “downstream from the printhead” as implying a 16 position beyond the printhead in the direction in which paper travels while 17 the printhead is actively printing the paper. 18 When the limitation requiring “a duplex path entry that is positioned 19 adjacent the output-roller assembly but downstream from the printhead” is 20 interpreted in this manner, the limitation is not met by the elements of 21 Sakuma’s apparatus identified by the Examiner. The Examiner has 22 identified no other elements of Sakuma which this limitation might cover. 23 Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 18 or of its 24 dependent claims 19-22 under § 102(e) as being anticipated by Sakuma. 25 26 Appeal 2009-005919 Application 10/808,224 6 DECISION 1 We REVERSE the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 18-22. 2 3 REVERSED 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 mls 14 15 HEWLETT PACKARD COMPANY 16 INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ADMINISTRATION 17 3404 E. HARMONY ROAD 18 MAIL STOP 35 19 FORT COLLINS, CO 80528 20