Ex parte Uchiyama

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 27, 2000

08207370 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 27, 2000)

Application for patent filed March 7, 1994.1
1
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today
(1) was not written for publication in a law journal and
(2) is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 20
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________
Ex parte TADAMITSU UCHIYAMA
__________
Appeal No. 1997-3062
Application 08/207,3701
__________
ON BRIEF
__________
Before THOMAS, KRASS, and DIXON, Administrative Patent Judges.
KRASS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the final rejection of
claims 1 through 3, 7, 8, 10 through 12 and 19 through 24.
Claims 4 through 6, 9 and 13 through 18 have been indicated by
Appeal No. 1997-3062
Application No. 08/207,370
2
the examiner as being directed to patentable subject matter
and form no part of this appeal.
The invention pertains to printer systems. More
particularly, the start of operation of a computer is
recognized and a printer is set in a ready mode in response to
such recognition whereby the printer is capable of a faster
printing operation upon receiving the print command from the
computer.
Representative independent claim 1 is reproduced as
follows:
1. A printer system comprising:
a computer;
a printer disposed separately of said computer and
adapted to form an image on a recording paper in compliance
with image data received from said computer; and
recognizing means for recognizing a start of operation of
said computer;
said printer incorporating therein setting means for
setting said printer in a state capable of producing a
printing operation when the start of operation of said
computer is recognized by said recognizing means.
The examiner relies on the following references:
Nakanishi 4,740,096 Apr. 26, 1988
Appeal No. 1997-3062
Application No. 08/207,370
3
Fujii 5,381,242 Jan. 10, 1995
(filed Jan. 29, 1993)
Mese et al. (Mese) 5,396,443 Mar. 7, 1995
(filed Oct. 7, 1993)
Claims 1 through 3, 7, 8, 10 through 12 and 19 through 24
stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Mese
in view of Nakanishi and Fujii.
Reference is made to the brief and answer for the
respective positions of appellant and the examiner.
OPINION
We affirm.
With regard to independent claim 1, the examiner points
out that Mese clearly discloses an information processing
apparatus with means for sensing whether someone or something
is approaching the apparatus and, in response to such an
approach, a power saving control unit is activated. This
activation controls a controlled object. Lower power
consumption is achieved since the controlled object is not
activated if an operation medium has not approached the
apparatus or if there has been no movement for a set period of
time. The examiner recognizes that while Mese does not
Appeal No. 1997-3062
Application No. 08/207,370
4
specifically identify the controlled object as a printer, it
would have been obvious to the skilled artisan that the
controlled object may be a printer since Mese indicates that
the device relates to information processing apparatus of a
“wide variety of application fields of a pen-base personal
computer...” [column 1, lines 11-20]. A printer clearly falls
within such information processing apparatus. For good
measure, the examiner
identifies Nakanishi as disclosing a power saving printer
which may be the type of controlled object indicated by Mese.
We agree.
First, appellant argues [brief, page 7] that the claimed
invention is directed to a computer/printer combination which
includes “features that reduce the waiting time for receipt of
a printing output of the computer.” This argument is not
persuasive since we find nothing in the claims on appeal
directed to the reduction of such wait time and appellant has
pointed to no such language in the claims.
Next, appellant argues that while Mese discloses a
computer, there “is no disclosure and no suggestion of a
computer/printer combination, or the features permitting the
Appeal No. 1997-3062
Application No. 08/207,370
5
intercommunication to place the printer in a ready state and
reduce its warm-up time” [brief, page 7]. Again, appellant
has identified no claim language directed to the argued
“intercommunication” and placing the printer in a ready state
to reduce its warm-up time.
With regard to the computer/printer combination argument,
the examiner admits that there is no explicit mention of a
printer in Mese which is why the examiner relies on the
ordinary skill of the artisan faced with Mese’s teaching of a
generic “controlled object” and Nakanishi’s teaching of a
printer which may be used as a controlled object. The fact
that Nakanishi is “not concerned with two separate
interconnected components, such as a computer and printer,” as
argued by appellant [brief, page 8], is not controlling.
Nakanishi is cited merely as an example of a printer which
might be employed as the “controlled object” in Mese.
However, in our view, Mese, itself provides enough suggestion
to the skilled artisan to provide a printer as the controlled
object. Since Mese clearly shows the combination of a
computer and a “controlled object,” and the skilled artisan
would have recognized the use of a printer for such a
Appeal No. 1997-3062
Application No. 08/207,370
6
“controlled object,” appellant’s argument that Mese fails to
suggest a computer/printer combination is not found
persuasive.
At page 8 of the brief, appellant sets forth three
additional arguments, viz., that the cited references do not
teach or suggest a power-up wait-state mode for a printer
system operatively connected to a computer, for bringing the
printer into a ready state capable of a printing operation
when: 1. A computer peripheral has been manipulated; 2. A
sensor detects an approach of a user to the computer; and 3.
By controlling the scheduled use of the printer by a
registered user.
We disagree. Clearly, Mese is concerned with setting the
controlled object in either a power-saving state or a non-
power saving state, depending on whether a user has approached
the apparatus, the apparatus being, for example, a PC. When a
user approaches the computer, the controlled object is placed
in a non-power saving state, i.e., a ready state. When that
controlled object is a printer, which is an obvious variation
of the generic “controlled object,” for reasons discussed
Appeal No. 1997-3062
Application No. 08/207,370
7
supra, the printer will be set in a ready state in response to
the sensing of the approach of a computer user.
There can be no doubt that Mese teaches the sensing of an
approach of a user to the computer. See column 4, lines 2 et
seq. of Mese.
With regard to the “scheduled use” argument, the
“scheduled use” of the controlled object by a user in Mese is,
indeed, controlled. The controlled object is not placed in a
ready state until the approach of a user is sensed. At that
point, one can say that the controlled object, e.g., a
printer, is placed in a ready state in anticipation of a user
manipulating inputs to the computer. The time during which a
user employs the computer, or manipulates the keyboard, may be
said to be a “scheduled use,” as broadly claimed by claims 10
and 11. Similar to appellant’s invention, the sensing of an
approach by a user in the Mese system “assumes the presence of
the scheduled use of said [controlled object which may be a]
printer.”
Appellant’s arguments at pages 9-10 of the brief
regarding the missing features of Mese and Nakanishi amount to
arguments against the references individually and do not
Appeal No. 1997-3062
Application No. 08/207,370
8
address the combination of references, as applied by the
examiner. Clearly, if Mese disclosed the specific printer
claimed to be employed in exactly the same manner as set forth
in the instant claims, the examiner would have made a
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102 based on anticipation.
Instead, the rejection is under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on
obviousness.
With regard to the Fujii reference, this reference was
applied by the examiner in order to show the specifics of a
printer such as a fixing device, an image forming means, etc.
Appellant never argues that the printing mechanism itself in
appellant’s invention is anything but conventional and, in
fact, does not argue that Fujii is deficient in such a
showing. Appellant’s only argument regarding Fujii [brief,
page 11] is that Fujii does not show the recording of an image
in an apparatus which includes recognizing means for
recognizing a start of operation of a computer and means for
setting the printer in a state capable of producing a printing
operation. The examiner recognized such a deficiency in Fujii
and relied on Mese and Nakanishi for such teachings.
Appeal No. 1997-3062
Application No. 08/207,370
9
While the cited references may not explicitly teach
connection of a peripheral to a printer warm-up recognizing
apparatus, it was explained, supra, why it would have been
obvious to employ a printer as the controlled object in Mese,
placing that controlled object, or printer, in a ready state
upon detection of the approach of a user. Clearly, the
placement of a printer in a “ready state” implies that the
printer will be warmed up.
Appellant’s “arguments” at pages 11-13 of the brief,
citing claims 8, 10, 19, 23, 24, 2, 3, 11, 12, 7 and 20 are
merely general statements about the references not teaching
the invention and that there is “no basis” to combine the
references. However, since these “arguments” have no
substance, they are not regarded as arguments at all.
Appellant has failed to particularly point out how and why the
instant claims specifically differ from the applied
references, pointing to exact claim language on which
appellant relies. Accordingly, these claims will fall with
the claims treated supra.
Appeal No. 1997-3062
Application No. 08/207,370
10
We have addressed all of appellant’s arguments and do not
find any of them persuasive of patentability. Accordingly,
the examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1 through 3, 7, 8, 10
through 12 and 19 through 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is
affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
James D. Thomas )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
Errol A. Krass ) BOARD OF
PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
Joseph L. Dixon )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 1997-3062
Application No. 08/207,370
11
SIDLEY & AUSTIN
717 North Harwood, Suite 3400
Dallas, TX 75201