Ex Parte Winburne et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 16, 201713894508 (P.T.A.B. May. 16, 2017) Copy Citation 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. 13/894,508 05/15/2013 Robert Lawrence Winburne 83263992 7928 22879 HP Tnr 7590 05/18/2017 EXAMINER 3390 E. Harmony Road Mail Stop 35 GOKHALE, PRASAD V FORT COLLINS, CO 80528-9544 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3653 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/18/2017 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): ipa.mail@hp.com barbl@hp.com y vonne.bailey @ hp. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ROBERT LAWRENCE WINBURNE, KIERAN B. KELLY, KEITH JARIABKA, and JUAN D. RAMOS Appeal 2015-0057551 Application 13/894,5082 Technology Center 3600 Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, and MATTHEW S. METERS, Administrative Patent Judges. HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of claims 1—17. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). 1 Our decision references Appellants’ Specification (“Spec.,” filed May 15, 2013), Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.,” filed Dec. 8, 2014), and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed May 12, 2015), as well as the Final Office Action (“Final Action,” mailed Aug. 22, 2014) and the Examiner’s Answer (“Answer,” mailed Mar. 16, 2015). 2 According to Appellants, “[t]he real party in interest is Hewlett-Packard Development Company, LP, . . . (hereinafter ‘HPDC’). HPDC ... is a wholly-owned affiliate of Hewlett-Packard Company .... The general or managing partner of HPDC is HPQ Holdings, LLC.” Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2015-005755 Application 13/894,508 We AFFIRM. According to Appellants, their invention is directed to “improving pick reliability and media loading in media stacks.” Spec. 111. Independent claims 1, 7, and 13 are the only independent claims on appeal. Appeal Br., Claims App. We reproduce independent claim 1, below, as illustrative of the claims on appeal. 1. A system, comprising: a first assembly configured to transition a paddle between a load position and a retracted position, wherein the paddle compresses a media stack during the transition; and a second assembly coupled to the first assembly, the second assembly configured to actuate a pick mechanism to move media in the media stack through a media path. Id. REJECTION AND PRIOR ART The Examiner rejects claims 1—17 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Sonoda (US 6,877,738 B2, iss. Apr. 12, 2005). ANALYSIS With respect to the rejection of claim 1, Appellants argue that the rejection is in error because Sonoda does not disclose a first assembly configured to transition a paddle between a load position and a retracted position, wherein the paddle compresses a media stack during the transition. Appeal Br. 5—9. More specifically, Appellants argue that Sonoda’s return lever 13 does not “press or squeeze” (i.e., compress) a stack of paper so that “it is smaller or fills less space.” Id. at 6 (citation omitted). We disagree 2 Appeal 2015-005755 Application 13/894,508 with Appellants, however, and agree with the Examiner that when comparing Sonoda’s Figures 9 and 10, it is noted that lever 13 does press/squeeze the stack of sheets since [lever 13] moves towards them to contact, press and align them. Due to its angled shape, lever 13 further exerts a downward compressive force on the sheets (especially when the stack is high). Additionally, it is noted that[, in Fig. 10,] the sheet shown in Fig. 9 is pressed and moved backwards and down onto the existing sheet stack, such that the stack is smaller and fills less space. Answer 4. Appellants argue that “[a]s illustrated in FIGS. 9 and 10 of Sonoda, the return lever 13 does not appear to even contact the stack of material P. Rather, as illustrated in FIG. 9 of Sonoda, the return lever 13 is positioned] to contact exactly one sheet of material P, and one sheet of material does not form a stack.” Appeal Br. 7. Notwithstanding that Appellants’ paddle 102 appears to contact a single sheet of paper in media stack 106 (see, e.g., Figs. 1 A, IB, 1C), claim 1 does not require that the paddle contact multiple sheets of media, but only that the paddle contact a stack of media (i.e., a stack that is made up of multiple sheets). Thus, Appellants’ argument exceeds the scope of the claim. Further, for the reasons discussed above, we agree with the Examiner that by moving one sheet in a media stack so that the media stack is smaller, Sonoda’s return lever 13 compresses the media stack. Based on the foregoing, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 1. We also sustain the rejection of claims 2—5 that depend from claim 1 and which Appellants do not argue separately. Appellants separately argue the rejection of dependent claim 6, stating that Sonoda fails to teach a paddle configured to engage the media stack and 3 Appeal 2015-005755 Application 13/894,508 limit an amount of media in the media stack. Appeal Br. 9—10. We do not agree with Appellants, however, but instead agree with the Examiner that return lever 13 does indeed engage the media stack from Fig. 9 to Fig. 10 and limits the amount of media at least by defining (by its tapered shape) the upper bounds of the stack which is sandwiched between 13 and the lower tray surface. It further prevents additional sheets from being inserted into the stack, thereby also limiting it. Answer 6. Thus, we sustain the rejection of claim 6. Appellants’ arguments regarding independent claims 7 and 13 are substantively the same as those discussed above for independent claim 1. Appeal Br. 10-12. Thus, we sustain the rejection of the independent claims for the same reasons we sustain the rejection of claim 1. Further, Appellants do not argue separately the rejection of dependent claims 8—12 and 14—17, and, therefore, we also sustain the rejection of these dependent claims. DECISION We AFFIRM the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—17. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED 4 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation