Ex Parte ITOH

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 22, 2019

14834497 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 22, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/834,497 08/25/2015
54072 7590 03/26/2019
SHARP KABUSHIKI KAISHA
C/0 KEA TING & BENNETT, LLP
1800 Alexander Bell Drive
SUITE 200
Reston, VA 20191
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Kenji ITOH
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.
70404.2704 4594
EXAMINER
THERRIEN, CARLA J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2852
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/26/2019 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 KENJI ITOH
Appeal2018-006710
Application 14/834,497
Technology Center 2800
Before KAREN M. HASTINGS, JAMES C. HOUSEL, and
JEFFREY R. SNAY, Administrative Patent Judges.
SNAY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 filed an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-11. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). 2
We AFFIRM.
BACKGROUND
The subject matter on appeal relates to image forming, such as
1 Appellant is the Applicant, Sharp Kabushiki Kaisha, which, according to
the Appeal Brief, is the real party in interest. Appeal Brief (Appeal Br. 2)
filed Jan. 22, 2018.
2 Our Decision additionally refers to the Specification filed Aug. 25, 2015
("Spec."), the Examiner's Answer dated Apr. 13, 2018 ("Ans."), and the
Reply Brief dated June 11, 2018 ("Reply Br.").
Appeal2018-006710
Application 14/834,497
copying and printing. Spec. ,r,r 1, 2. According to the Specification, an
image forming apparatus can limit functions for a given user ( e.g., by
restricting a user to black-and-white printing or limiting the number of
recording media used for printing) to reduce cost. Id. ,r 3. The Specification
discloses an image-forming apparatus that displays limit information
indicating details of the limitation. Id. ,r 7.
Claim 1 is illustrative and is reproduced below from the Claims
Appendix of the Appeal Brief. Limitations in dispute are italicized.
1. An image forming apparatus having a user authentication
function and able to limit use of the image forming apparatus by
a user who has passed user authentication, the image forming
apparatus comprising:
a storage that stores a limiting condition set for each user,
the limiting condition being a condition for limiting use of the
image forming apparatus;
an input that accepts input of an instruction from the user;
a display; and
a controller; wherein
the controller determines, in response to the input
accepting the instruction from the user, whether the storage
stores a limiting condition set for the user;
the controller controls the display to display, in response
to the controller determining that the storage stores the limiting
condition set for the user, limit information indicating details
about a limitation corresponding to the limiting condition
determined to be stored in the storage;
the storage is able to store, for each user, a plurality of
limiting conditions; and
when the limiting condition includes information for
limiting a number of sheets to be printed, the controller controls
the display to display a start key differently from how the start
key is displayed when the limiting condition does not include the
2
Appeal2018-006710
Application 14/834,497
information for limiting the number of sheets to be printed.
REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
I. claims 1, 2, 5, 6, and 8-11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Akutsu3 in view of Tani; 4
II. claims 3 and 4 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 over Akutsu and Tani and further in view of
Kaneko; 5 and
III. claim 7 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over
Akutsu.
DISCUSSION
Rejection I
Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, and 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Akutsu in view of Tani.
The Examiner finds Akutsu discloses an image forming apparatus
comprising, among other things, a controller that controls a display such that
an operation key is displayed differently depending on whether limit
information corresponding to a limit condition is displayed. Ans. 2-3.
Particularly, the Examiner finds that Akutsu discloses displaying an
operation screen, including operation keys, which is grayed out and overlaid
with a message box containing limit information. Id. at 3 ( citing Akutsu ,r,r
117, 123). The Examiner finds that Akutsu does not expressly state that the
3 Akutsu, US 2011/0188073 Al, published Aug. 4, 2011 ("Akutsu").
4 Tani et al., US 2012/0099131 Al, published Apr. 26, 2012 ("Tani").
5 Kaneko, US 2014/0098400 Al, published Apr. 10, 2014 ("Kaneko").
3
Appeal2018-006710
Application 14/834,497
operation screen includes a start key. Id. The Examiner finds Tani discloses
an operation screen for an image forming apparatus that includes start keys,
and determines it would have been obvious to include a start key in Akutsu's
operation screen. Id. at 3--4.
Appellant acknowledges that Akutsu's operation screen may include a
print start key. Appeal Br. 9 ("[I]t is possible that the image forming
apparatus of Akutsu does include a single screen that allows the user to start
a print operation and input a number of desired copies."). However,
Appellant argues the Examiner has not identified evidence to support
particularly locating a start key in Akutsu's operation screen such that it
would have been grayed and/or partially overlapped by Akutsu's limit
information box. Id. at 9-10. Appellant contends if Akutsu's limit message
completely covers a start key, the start key is not displayed and, for that
reason, would not be displayed differently as claimed. Id. at 11; Reply Br. 2.
Appellant's arguments are unpersuasive. Akutsu's disclosure
suggests that the limit message 192 appears when a user makes a print
request (e.g., via a start key) and the user has exceeded a limit. Akutsu ,r 69.
Tani's disclosure demonstrates it was known to use start keys 232, 234 in an
image forming apparatus to make a print request. Tani ,r 62, Fig. 3. Thus,
the record supports the Examiner's determination that it would have been
obvious to include a start key in Akutsu's operation screen.
To the extent Akutsu' s start keys, whether alone or in combination
with Tani, would have been obscured by the messages 192, 282 in Figures
6B and 14 of Akutsu, we agree with the Examiner that covering a start key
with limit information constitutes displaying the start key differently. See
Ans. 16 ("A start key that is completely covered is still displayed, but the
4
Appeal2018-006710
Application 14/834,497
display has been changed."). As noted, Appellant does not persuasively
dispute that it would have been obvious to include a start key in Akutsu's
operation screen. Appellant does not persuade us of error in the Examiner's
finding that displaying a text box over an operation screen that contains a
start key constitutes displaying the operation screen, and therefore the start
key, differently. Because the Examiner's obviousness determination is
supported by a preponderance of the evidence irrespective of where a start
key is located within Akutsu' s operation screen, Appellant's argument that
the Examiner has not identified a reason to particularly locate a start key at
the border edge of the limit information text box is not persuasive of
reversible error.
In view of the above, the Examiner has set forth a prima facie case of
obviousness and Appellant's arguments do not identify a reversible error in
the rejection of claim 1.
Appellant does not argue claims 2, 5, 6, and 8-11 separately from
claim 1. Appeal Br. 15.
For these reasons and those set forth in the Examiner's Answer, we
sustain the Examiner's§ 103 rejection of claims 1, 2, 5, 6, and 8-11 over
Akutsu and Tani.
Rejection II
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 over Akutsu and Tani and further in view of Kaneko.
Appellant argues that claims 3 and 4 depend from claim 1 and are
allowable for the same reasons as claim 1. Id. As discussed above,
Appellant's arguments do not identify a reversible error in the rejection of
5
Appeal2018-006710
Application 14/834,497
claim 1. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner's § 103 rejection of claims 3
and 4 over Akutsu, Tani, and Kaneko.
Rejection III
Claim 7 is rejected as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over
Akutsu.
Citing Figure 6B and other portions of Akutsu, the Examiner finds
Akutsu discloses a terminal apparatus comprising, among other things, a
controller, wherein the controller controls the display to display a key used
to input an instruction to perform printing, and to display the key differently
when limit information is displayed. Ans. 13-14. The Examiner finds
Akutsu does not explicitly teach that the terminal displays the key in a print
setup window, but concludes this would have been obvious in view of
Akutsu's disclosure. Id. at 14--15.
Appellant asserts the Examiner's interpretation of the "key" in claim 7
is unreasonable in view of Appellant's Specification because such a key
"should be interpreted as a key used to start a printing operation" ( citing
Spec. ,r 91 ), and Akutsu does not disclose such a key for Figure 6B. Appeal
Br. 12-15; Reply Br. 6-8.
Appellant's arguments do not identify a reversible error in the
rejection of claim 7. The Examiner finds that function keys displayed in
Akutsu' s operation screen correspond to those associated with the operation
panel, and that Akutsu teaches the operation panel is used to implement each
function of the image forming device. Ans. 14 (citing Akutsu ,r 44). As
discussed above with regard to the rejection of claim 1, Appellant
acknowledges that Akutsu's operation screen 190 may include a start key.
6
Appeal2018-006710
Application 14/834,497
Appeal Br. 9. Akutsu also recognizes the provision of start keys, such as
OK button 196, the selection of which causes printing to proceed. Akutsu ,r
71, Fig. 6B. Such a start key is analogous to Appellant's OK key 606,
which is "a key used to input an instruction to perform printing." Spec. ,r 91.
As discussed above with regard to the rejection of claim 1, Akutsu's start
key would be displayed differently whether the start key is totally obscured
by the message 192 in Akutsu' s Figure 6B or not.
For these reasons and those set forth in the Examiner's Answer, we
sustain the Examiner's § 103 rejection of claim 7 over Akutsu.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
7