Ex Parte Winburne et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 16, 2017

13894508 (P.T.A.B. May. 16, 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.
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