Ex Parte Ward et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 29, 2018

14629846 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 29, 2018)

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.
9503P039 7680
EXAMINER
GARCIA, GABRIEL I
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2676
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
14/629,846 02/24/2015
76073 7590 01/29/2018
InfoPrint Solutions/ Blakely
1279 Oakmead Parkway
Sunnyvale, CA 94085-4040
David Ward
01/29/2018 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DAVID WARD, KATIE ASHLEY ENG, and
ARITRA BANDYOPADHYAY
Appeal 2017-009106
Application 14/629,8461
Technology Center 2600
Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, DANIEL J. GALLIGAN, and
DAVID J. CUTITTAII, Administrative Patent Judges.
CUTITTAII, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1—20, which are all of the claims pending in the application. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Ricoh Company, Ltd.
Br. 3.
Appeal 2017-009106
Application 14/629,846
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
According to Appellants, the claims are directed to re-preflighting a
print job in response to changes made to the print job. Abstract.2 Claim 1,
reproduced below, is representative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A non-transitory machine-readable medium including
data that, when accessed by a machine, cause the machine to
perform operations comprising:
receiving print job data at a printing system;
performing a first preflight of the print job data to collect
job attribute data;
detecting that one or more changes have been made to the
print job data; and
performing a second preflight of the print job data using
the job attribute data collected during the first preflight based on
the one or more changes.
REFERENCE AND REJECTION
Claims 1—20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (b) as being
anticipated by Sheldon (US 2014/0085665 Al; published Mar. 27, 2014).3
Final Act. 2—5.
2 This Decision refers to: (1) Appellants’ Specification filed February 24,
2015 (Spec.); (2) the Final Office Action (Final Act.) mailed March 15,
2016; (3) the Advisory Action (Adv. Act) mailed April 27, 2016; (4) the
Appeal Brief (Br.) filed August 12, 2016; and (5) the Examiner’s Answer
(Ans.) mailed November 23, 2016.
3 Although we agree Sheldon anticipates the claims, the Examiner’s
rejection of the claims under pre-AIA § 102(b) over Sheldon appear to be a
typographical error. Sheldon was published on March 27, 2014. The
present application was filed February 24, 2015. Accordingly, pre-AIA
§ 102(b) is not applicable because Sheldon was published less than a year
before the priority date of this Application. Because the present application
2
Appeal 2017-009106
Application 14/629,846
Our review in this appeal is limited only to the above rejections and
the issues raised by Appellants. Arguments not made are waived. See
MPEP § 1205.02; 37 C.F.R. §§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv) and 41.39(a)(1).
CONTENTIONS AND ANALYSIS
Appellants contend Sheldon does not disclose “performing a second
preflight of the print job data using the job attribute data collected during the
first preflight based on the one or more changes,” as recited in claim 1 and
similarly recited in claims 9 and 17. Br. 7—9. Specifically, Appellants
argue, in Sheldon, “there is simply no disclosure that attributes are kept from
a preflight” and then “using [those] attributes ... to execute a second
preflight.” Id. at 9.
We are not persuaded. The Examiner finds, and we agree, Sheldon
discloses a Raster Image Processor (RIP) performs a first preflight that
“collects] [print] job ticket data” to “depict[] how the [print] job is
prepare[d] before sending the print job] to the printer.” Ans. 3 (citing
Sheldon 145, Figs. 1—3); Final Act. 2—3 (citations omitted); see Sheldon
11 123—132. Collected job ticket data includes processing parameters, i.e.,
attributes, such as “Media[, i.e., paper,] information,” “Ink set definition,”
“Output parameters (size, duplex),” and “Numbers of copies.” Sheldon
11123—131. The Examiner further finds (Ans. 3^4; Final Act. 2—3), and we
agree, Sheldon “allow[s] an operator to change processing parameters after
the creation and submission of the [print] job.” Sheldon 140. For example,
was filed February 24, 2015, we also disagree the application should be
examined under pre-AIA § 102. However, because Sheldon still anticipates
under post-AIA § 102, we agree with the Examiner’s determination of
anticipation as described herein.
3
Appeal 2017-009106
Application 14/629,846
Sheldon’s system can “update the job at the printer to have 120 banners
printed instead of only 100 banners as originally requested.” Id. The
Examiner further finds, and we agree, those print job “changes do not
require . . . changes to all the previously submitted attributes before the job
is sen[t] to the printer, therefore using the attributes used during the first
preflighf ’ for a second, subsequent printing preflight. Ans. 3^4 (citing
Sheldon || 40-41); Adv. Act. 2.
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument that “there is simply
no disclosure” that Sheldon uses attributes collected in a previous preflight
to perform a subsequent preflight (Br. 9) because the Examiner’s finding
that unchanged print job attributes are used in a subsequent preflight
(Ans. 3^4; Adv. Act. 2) is supported by Sheldon’s disclosure. Appellants
only address the embodiment in Sheldon in which printing media is changed
and requires a job to be removed, re-processed, and re-submitted (Br. 8), but
Appellants do not address the embodiment in Sheldon in which the number
of printed copies is changed. See Sheldon 140. Sheldon discloses “/s]ome
changes might require re-processing of the job” and so do not use previous
print job attributes (Sheldon 141 (emphasis added)) — which implies that
other changes do not require re-processioning of the job and so use previous
print job attributes (compare id. 141 with id. 140). As the Examiner points
out (Ans. 3—4), Sheldon discloses that “it is simple to update the job ... to
have 120 banners printed instead of only 100 banners as originally
requested” (Sheldon 140). Indeed, Sheldon discloses
there are at least two different cases of applying changes to a
print job after the print job is submitted, i.e. the print job is
updated, but remains at the state which it reached, e.g. the
number of copies is changed', and the print job is to be rerouted,
4
Appeal 2017-009106
Application 14/629,846
which requires removing the print job from the current position
and resubmitting it.
Id. 1275 (emphasis added); see id. claim 25. As such, we agree with the
Examiner that, when changing the number of printed copies, Sheldon
discloses unchanged print attributes from an original preflight are used in a
subsequent preflight.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding
Sheldon discloses “performing a second preflight of the print job data using
the job attribute data collected during the first preflight based on the one or
more changes,” as recited in claim 1 and similarly recited in claims 9 and 17.
We, therefore, sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 102 rejection of independent claims 1,
9, and 17, as well as dependent claims 2—8, 10-16, and 18—20, which are not
argued separately. See Br. 9.
DECISION
For the reasons above, we affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting
claims 1—20.
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
5