Ex Parte Hankins et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 28, 2016

13279996 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 28, 2016)

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. 13/279,996 10/24/2011 John L. Hankins 008185.P127 1011 76073 7590 06/28/2016 InfoPrint Solutions/ Blakely 1279 Oakmead Parkway Sunnyvale, CA 94085-4040 EXAMINER SARPONG, AKWASI ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2675 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/28/2016 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 JOHN L. HANKINS, GENE SPINELLI, and BRIAN P. DOYLE ____________________ Appeal 2014-009382 Application 13/279,9961 Technology Center 2600 ____________________ Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, JOHN D. HAMANN, and STACY B. MARGOLIES, Administrative Patent Judges. HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants file this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1–24. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. THE CLAIMED INVENTION Appellants’ claimed invention relates “to processing print jobs received from a public network.” Spec. ¶ 1. Claim 6 is illustrative of the subject matter of the appeal and is reproduced below. 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is InfoPrint Solutions Company LLC. App. Br. 3. Appeal 2014-009382 Application 13/279,996 2 6. A workflow server, comprising a workflow engine to receive print job data via a cloud computing network, download the print job data to from the cloud computing network a local print server in a client printing network if the print job data indicates that it is to be printed at the client printing network and download the print job data from the cloud computing network to a local print server in a third-party printing network if the print job data indicates that it is to be printed at the third-party printing network. REJECTION ON APPEAL The Examiner rejected claims 1–24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Hansen (US 2010/0309510 A1; Dec. 9, 2010) and Jahn et al. (US 2012/0314246 A1; Dec. 13, 2012) (hereinafter “Jahn”). ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’ contentions that the Examiner erred. In reaching our decision, we consider all evidence presented and all arguments made by Appellants. We disagree with Appellants’ arguments, and we incorporate herein and adopt as our own the findings, conclusions, and reasons set forth by the Examiner in (1) the January 17, 2014 Final Office Action (Final Act. 2–12) and (2) the August 5, 2014 Examiner’s Answer (Ans. 2–5). We highlight and address, however, specific findings and arguments below for emphasis. (1) Cloud computing network server Appellants argue the combination, and Hansen in particular, fails to teach or suggest downloading print job data from a cloud computing network server, in accordance with each of the independent claims — claims 1 , 6, 11, and 20. See App. Br. 11. Specifically, Appellants argue Hansen fails to Appeal 2014-009382 Application 13/279,996 3 teach a cloud computing server, but instead teaches a conventional print server that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize “is a physical server, not a cloud server.” See App. Br. 10–11 (citing Hansen ¶ 30, Fig. 1B (remote print server 110)). The Examiner finds Hansen teaches a cloud computing server. Ans. 4. The Examiner finds “cloud computing” is defined as “shared computing devices,” and thus, a cloud computing network server is a shared computing server. See Ans. 4 (citing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_computing). The Examiner then concludes Hansen’s remote print server 110 is a cloud computer server because it is shared among Hansen’s other computing devices, such as network 105 and network 103. See Ans. 4 (citing Hansen Fig. 1B). We agree with the Examiner that Hansen teaches a cloud computing network server. Claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation “in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Upon reviewing Appellants’ Specification, we fail to find an explicit definition for the claim term “cloud computing network server.” Further, we find the Examiner’s construction — “a shared computing server” — is an appropriate construction, which is supported by the cited Wikipedia entry and is consistent with the Specification. See Spec. ¶ 15 (referring to Fig. 1, “network 106 is a public network, such as the Internet or cloud computing network, while networks 110 and 112 are local area networks (LANs)”); see also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_computing (last visited June 28, 2016). Appeal 2014-009382 Application 13/279,996 4 Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that Hansen teaches a cloud computing server in accordance with the claim language. See, e.g., Hansen Fig. 1B (shared remote print server 110, which is coupled to printing device 130 and enterprise printer 150 via network 101); ¶ 22 (teaching “network 101 may comprise, for example, the Internet, a wide area network, another network or a combination of such networks”), ¶ 26 (teaching “each of the devices 110, 120 and 130 may communicate directly or indirectly, via a wired or wireless medium such as the Internet, LAN, WAN . . . , or via any appropriate communications means or combination of communications means”)). (2) Downloading print job data to local print servers Appellants argue the combination, and Hansen in particular, fails to teach or suggest downloading print job data from a cloud computing network server to (i) a local print server in a client printing network and (ii) a local print server in a third-party printing network, in accordance with each of the independent claims — claims 1 , 6, 11, and 20. See App. Br. 10– 11; Reply Br. 2–3. Specifically, Appellants argue Hansen does not teach or suggest that the remote print server (110 or 200) “is capable of transmitting print data to the enterprise server 140 for printing at printer 150.” Reply Br. 2. According to Appellants, Hansen merely teaches that mobile device 120 (i) can be coupled to the enterprise network 105 to print to printer 150 — but no downloading of print job data from remote server 110 for printing on printer 150 is taught —, and (ii) can print to printing device 130 via the remote print server 110. See Reply Br. 2–3 (citing Hansen ¶¶ 29, 30; Figs. 6, 7). Appellants thus contend that the combination fails to teach or suggest the disputed limitations. See id. Appeal 2014-009382 Application 13/279,996 5 The Examiner finds and we agree Hansen teaches downloading print job data from a cloud computing network server (i.e., remote print server 110) to (i) a local print server (printing device 130) in a client printing network and (ii) a local print server (enterprise server 140) in a third-party printing network. See Final Act. 4 (citing Hansen ¶¶ 18, 30; Fig. 1B); Ans. 2–4. As to the third-party printing network, the Examiner finds, contrary to Appellants’ assertion, and we agree that Hansen teaches that the print job data to be printed on printer 150 can be downloaded from remote print server 110 to enterprise server 140. See Ans. 2–3 (citing Hansen ¶¶ 79 (finding Hansen teaches the remote print server cannot transmit a document for printing to a printing device unless and until the printing device first queries the remote print server, including when downloading from the remote print server 200 to enterprise network 105 for enterprise printer 150), ¶¶ 93, 94 (finding the teaching of querying the remote print server 110 for print jobs includes querying by enterprise server 140 for enterprise printer 150), ¶¶ 98, 99; Fig. 7). We also note Hansen teaches or suggests that the remote print server can communicate with mobile devices, such as mobile device 120, for printing. See Hansen ¶ 31 (teaching the remote print server 110 can be “operable to communicate with (a) one or more mobile devices, [and/or] (b) one or more printing devices”). As to the client printing network, the Examiner finds and we agree that Hansen teaches that the print job data can be downloaded from remote print server 110 to printing device 130 (which can be a local print server) for printing on a communicatively coupled printer. See Ans. 3 (citing Hansen ¶ 25 (“The printing device 130 may comprise . . . a computing device (e.g., a Appeal 2014-009382 Application 13/279,996 6 desktop computer) that is operable to cause a printer it is in communication with to print a document, [and is] operable to communicate via network 101 . . . .”), 103); see also Final Act. 4 (citing Hansen ¶ 30, Fig. 1B). The Examiner also finds and we agree that it is well known that a computer directing a printing device can be termed a “print server.” See Jahn ¶ 19 (finding a computer configured to control a printer for printing a print job is also called a print server), ¶ 24. CONCLUSION Based on our findings above, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1,2 6, 11, and 20. We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2–5, 7–10, 12–19, and 21–24 for which Appellants did not provide separate arguments for patentability. DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–24. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED 2 In the event of further prosecution, we suggest that the Examiner consider whether either or both (if the conditions do not cover the universe of possible triggering events) of the conditional steps of method claim 1 need not be performed under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language.