Ex Parte Fukushima et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 23, 2018

14456918 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 23, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/456,918 08/11/2014 54072 7590 03/27/2018 SHARP KABUSHIKI KAISHA C/O KEA TING & BENNETT, LLP 1800 Alexander Bell Drive SUITE 200 Reston, VA 20191 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Atsuhiko Fukushima 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 70404.2302/dk 8809 EXAMINER PACHOL, NICHOLAS C ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2672 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/27/2018 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): JKEATING@KBIPLA W.COM uspto@kbiplaw.com epreston@kbiplaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ATSUHIKO FUKUSHIMA, YUJI OKAMOTO, TOSHIHIRO YAMANAKA, TOSHIHIKO FUKUHARA, SHUHJI FUJII, TATSUO NOMURA, SYOUICHIROU YOSHIURA and TSUTOMU YOSHIMOTO Appeal2017-003665 Application 14/456,918 Technology Center 2600 Before JEAN R. HOMERE, DEBRA K. STEPHENS, and JOHN A. EVANS, Administrative Patent Judges. HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from a Non-Final Rejection of claims 18-29, which constitute all claims pending in this application. 1 App. Br. 1. Claims 1-17 have been canceled. Claims App. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We reverse. 1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Sharp Kabushiki Kaisha. App. Br. 2. Appeal2017-003665 Application 14/456,918 Introduction According to Appellants, the claimed subject matter relates to a digital multifunctional device (e.g., all in one printer/ scanner/ copier) connected via a network (15) to a plurality of personal computers ( 60). Fig. 1. In particular, the multifunctional device (1) includes a memory (12) that temporarily stores image data input from an input unit (2) so as to allow a process unit ( 6) to process the data, and a data erasing unit (8) to subsequently erase the data from storage when processing is completed. Spec. 1, 11-12, Fig. 1. Further, the data erasing unit includes an erase count setting unit which sets in advance a number of times of data erase with respect to the stored data wherein the number of times is selected from a plurality of candidates during a standby state of the image processing device, and wherein the standby state is after warm-up of the image processing device and before the input of job instruction data. Id. at 19. Representative Claim Independent claim 18 is representative, and reads as follows: 18. An image processing device comprising: an image data input unit which input image data; a data storage unit which stores the data inputted through the image data input unit; a data processing unit which outputs the data stored in the data storage unit; and the data erasing unit which erases the data stored in the data storage unit; wherein the data erasing unit includes an erase count setting unit which sets in advance a plurality of candidates of a number of times of data erase with respect to the data stored in the data storage unit, and an erase control unit which executes an erase procedure with respect to the data stored in the 2 Appeal2017-003665 Application 14/456,918 date storage unit for the number of times set in advance by the erase count setting unit, the number of times of data erase set in advance by the erase count setting unit is selected from the plurality of candidates during a standby state of the image processing device, and the standby state is after warm-up of the image processing device and before input of job instruction data. Hashimoto Bunker Prior Art Relied Upon US 2002/0012453 Al US 6,731,447 B2 Rejection on Appeal Jan. 31, 2002 May4, 2004 Claims 18-29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Hashimoto and Bunker. Non-Final Act. 3-14. ANALYSIS We consider Appellants' arguments as they are presented in the Appeal Brief, pages 5-11. 2 Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Hashimoto and Bunker teaches or suggests selecting from a plurality of candidates during a stand-by state the number of times of data erase set in advance by an erase count setting unit, wherein the stand-by state is after warm-up of the image processing device and before input job instruction data, as recited in claim 18. App. Br. 6. In particular, Appellants 2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed April 13, 2016), and the Answer (mailed September 28, 2016) ("Ans.") for the respective details. 3 Appeal2017-003665 Application 14/456,918 argue that Hashimoto discloses a clear controller that performs a clear operation after completion of an input of job instruction data (instruction for print job). Id. at 6-7 (citing i-f 161). Further, Appellants argue that Hashimoto discloses a CPU enabling an address buffer unit and a data buffer unit to clear a band memory upon confirming that the data stored in the band memory is transferred. Id. at 7 (citing i-f 187). According to Appellants, the transfer confirmation must come after the input of job instruction data that dictates the data destination, and how the data is to be processed. Id. Furthermore, Appellants argue that Hashimoto' s disclosure of a data latch storing initialization data upon the system starting up is distinct from the disclosed clearing operation, which is performed by the clear controller after the band memory is transferred. Id. In other words, Appellants argue that the disclosed initialization operation at startup is a preparation for the clearing operation after data transfer. Id. Additionally, Appellants argue that although Bunker discloses an administrator, or the user creating a particular print job data can reconfigure a default number to set the number of times for overwriting data, such reconfiguration is not performed during a stand-by state after warmup of the image processing system and before inputting job instruction data. Id. at 7-8. These arguments are persuasive. At the outset, we note our agreement with the Examiner that Hashimoto teaches a data erasure operation that takes place subsequent to the initialization operation at start- up. Ans. 16 (citing Hashimoto i-f 187). However, as persuasively argued by Appellants, Hashimoto' s initialization and data erasure are disclosed as two separate and distinct processes, whereby initialization is performed at start- up, and consists in resetting the data stored in the band memory to "00", 4 Appeal2017-003665 Application 14/456,918 whereas the disclosed data erasure is performed to clear data previously written to the band memory. Further, we do not agree with the Examiner that because there are a finite number of possibilities to perform the data erasure (e.g., before or after the initialization of the print job), it would have been obvious to perform the erasure before the print job was initialized. Id. As correctly argued by Appellants, such a conclusion is not supported by the explicit disclosure of Hashimoto, which plainly indicates that the clear controller clears the band memory after the data is transferred from the band memory to the printer. Hashimoto i-f 152. Because Appellants have shown at least one reversible error in the Examiner's rejection, we need not reach Appellants' remaining arguments. Accordingly, we are persuaded or error in the Examiner's rejection of claim 18. Because claims 19-29, recite the disputed limitations discussed above, we do not sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of the cited claims for the same reasons. DECISION We reverse the Examiner's rejections of claims 18-29, as set forth above. REVERSED 5