Ex Parte Tomita et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 19, 2019

13455289 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 19, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/455,289 04/25/2012
127226 7590 04/23/2019
BIRCH, STEW ART, KOLASCH & BIRCH, LLP
8110 Gatehouse Road
Suite 100 East
Falls Church, VA 22042-1248
Norio Tomita
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.
0951-0268PUS 1 7823
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, QUANG X.L.
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2854
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/23/2019 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):
mailroom@bskb.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte NORIO TOMITA, Y ASUAKI FUKADA, HIDETOSHI ATSUMI,
KOJI WAKAMOTO, ATSUSHI OGO, and RYOSUKE SAKAI
Appeal2017-007189
Application 13/455,289
Technology Center 2800
Before CHRISTOPHER C. KENNEDY, JULIA HEANEY, and
DEBRA L. DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
HEANEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL 1
Appellants2 request review pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1-17 of Application 13/455,289. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm-in-part.
1 This Decision refers to the Specification dated Apr. 25, 2012 ("Spec."),
Final Rejection dated Jan. 25, 2016 ("Final Act."), Appeal Brief dated Sept.
19, 2016 ("Br."), and Examiner's Answer dated Jan. 13, 2017 ("Ans.").
2 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Sharp Kabushiki Kaisha.
Br. 1.
Appeal2017-007189
Application 13/455,289
BACKGROUND
The subject matter on appeal relates to an image forming apparatus
for correcting the print position of an image, in order to prevent shifted
printing of the image on recording paper. Spec. ,r 2.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal and is
reproduced below:
1. An image forming apparatus, comprising:
a plurality of paper feed units;
a print unit for forming an image and printing the formed
image on a recording paper;
a registration roller, arranged between the paper feed
units and the print unit, for receiving a recording paper
transported from one of the paper feed units and transporting
the recording paper to the print unit;
a sheet leading end sensor provided downstream, in a
transport direction of the recording paper, of the registration
roller, for detecting a leading end of the recording paper;
a time measuring unit for measuring a time from a start
point of transportation of the recording paper by the registration
roller to a point of detection of the leading end of the recording
paper by the sheet leading end sensor;
a memory unit for storing a reference image forming
time, which is a reference value of a length of an image forming
period from an image formation start point in the print unit to
the start point of transportation of the recording paper by the
registration roller and a reference time, which is a reference
value of a time from the start point of transportation to the point
of detection of the leading end of the recording paper by the
sheet leading end sensor;
2
Appeal2017-007189
Application 13/455,289
a print control unit for adjusting, when a recording paper
is fed from an arbitrary paper feed unit among the paper feed
units, a print position of an image on the recording paper by
controlling the print unit and the registration roller to adjust the
length of the image forming period; and
an arithmetic unit for obtaining, as a comparative time, a
time detected by the time measuring unit when the leading end
of the recording paper is detected by the sheet leading end
sensor, obtaining a time difference between the obtained
comparative time and the reference time stored in the memory
unit every time a recording paper is fed from the paper feed
unit, and storing the time difference in the memory unit in
association with the paper feed unit from which the recording
paper is fed,
wherein the print control unit adjusts, when the recording
paper is fed from a specific paper feed unit among the paper
feed units, the length of the image forming period in accordance
with an adjusted image forming time obtained by subtracting
the time difference, previously obtained by the arithmetic unit
and stored in the memory unit in association with the specific
paper feed unit from which the recording paper is fed before the
recording paper is fed, from the reference image forming time
stored in the memory unit.
Claims App. 1-2. Independent claim 9 is directed to an image forming
apparatus comprising many of the same components as claim 1, but the
arithmetic unit of claim 9 obtains a positional difference between a
comparative side end position and reference side end position of the
recording paper, and stores the positional difference in memory in
association with the paper feed unit from which the recording paper is fed,
and the print control unit adjusts the image forming position in accordance
with the positional difference obtained by the arithmetic unit. Id. at 4--5.
3
Appeal2017-007189
Application 13/455,289
THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner maintains the following rejections on appeal:
1. Claims 1---6, 9-14, and 17 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 (b) as anticipated by Shiroichi. 3 Final Act. 3.
2. Claims 7, 8, 15, and 16 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Shiroichi and
Nakazawa. 4 Id. at 9.
DISCUSSION
Claim 1
The Examiner finds that Shiroichi discloses an image forming
apparatus comprising all of the elements of claim 1, and in particular, a print
control unit ( corresponding to a part of sensor drive control means 8 and
CPU 35) that adjusts the length of the image forming period in accordance
with an adjusted image forming time obtained by subtracting the time
difference previously obtained by an arithmetic unit ( corresponding to
comparator 83) and stored in the memory unit in association with the
specific paper feed unit from which the recording paper is fed before the
recording paper is fed, from the reference image forming time stored in the
memory unit. Final Act. 4 ( citing Shiroichi ,r,r 15, 64---68). Appellants argue
that Shiroichi does not disclose a print control unit that adjusts an image
forming time period, but merely discloses "performing an image writing
3 Shiroichi, JP 2005-283675; Oct. 13, 2017. Citations herein are to the
corresponding paragraphs of the translation provided by Appellants which is
of record. See Ans. 2. We note, however, that the translation of record
includes only paragraphs 41-73 of Shiroichi.
4 Nakazawa et al., US 2007/0280764 Al; Dec. 6, 2007.
4
Appeal2017-007189
Application 13/455,289
position correction," which is not based on the specific paper feed unit from
which the recording paper is fed. Br. 5. Appellants further argue that
Shiroichi does not disclose an arithmetic unit that obtains a comparative
time, and a time difference between the comparative time and a reference
time, and storing the time difference in the memory unit in association with
paper feed unit from which a recording paper is fed. Id. at 5-6.
The Examiner responds by finding that Shiroichi' s image writing
position is "shifted on the surface of drum 71 in order to change the image
writing position on the substrate or paper" and that because "the writing
position of the laser on the drum 71 is fixed to the dotted line as in Fig. 4,
the drum is needed to rotate a certain amount to accommodate the shifted
image, thus a delay in time for writing onto the drum by the laser." Ans. 3.
The Examiner finds that
as the drum is rotated having the image on its surface and the
substrate being fed to the transfer section 7 5 at a predetermined
velocity, a corrected image on the drum would inherently result
in the having the adjusted image forming time (i.e. the time for
when the substrate receive the image) by either
(computationally) adding or subtracting the time difference (i.e.
the time it takes for the first portion of the image to be
transferred onto the substrate is delayed or quicken due to
positional changes on the drum) and/ or adding or subtracting
the positional difference.
Id. The Examiner further finds that Shiroichi teaches the adjustment of the
image writing position on the drum is associated with each paper feed tray.
Id. ( citing Shiroichi ,r,r 46, 109-111 ).
Having considered Appellants' arguments in light of this appeal
record, we are persuaded that Appellants identify reversible error. The
Examiner does not identify any disclosure in Shiroichi relating to the timing
5
Appeal2017-007189
Application 13/455,289
of forming an image on paper. Rather, the Examiner finds that Shiroichi
necessarily discloses that the print control unit adjusts the timing of the
image forming period, i.e., there is "a delay in time for writing onto the
drum by the laser" and "a corrected image on the drum would inherently
result in the having the adjusted image forming time ... by either
(computationally) adding or subtracting the time difference ... and/or
adding or subtracting the positional difference." Ans. 2-3 (citing Shiroichi
,r,r 64---65). These findings do not adequately support the rejection, because
anticipation requires that Shiroichi disclose inter alia arithmetic and print
control units that perform the functions recited for those limitations in claim
I. See Typhoon Touch Techs., Inc. v. Dell, Inc., 659 F.3d 1376, 1380 (Fed.
Cir. 2011) (discussing Fantasy Sports Props., Inc. v. Sportsline.com, Inc.,
287 F.3d 1108, 1117-18 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (Where a claim is directed to an
apparatus that must be specifically programmed in order to perform a
function recited in the claim, infringement may not be based upon a finding
that an accused product is merely capable of being modified in a manner that
infringes.). On this record, the Examiner has not adequately established that
Shiroichi' s image position correction mode would "inherently" result in
performing the function of adjusting the image forming time as recited in the
final paragraph of claim 1. Therefore, we reverse the rejection of claim 1.
Claim 9
The Examiner finds that Shiroichi discloses an image forming
apparatus comprising all of the elements of claim 9, and in particular, a print
control unit ( corresponding to a part of sensor drive control means 8 and
CPU 35) that adjusts the image forming position by either adding or
subtracting from a reference position to acquire a new position. Final Act. 7
6
Appeal2017-007189
Application 13/455,289
( citing Shiroichi, Fig. 5, ,r,r 15, 64---68). The Examiner further finds that
Shiroichi discloses the position adjustment is performed based on the
corresponding tray from which the paper is sourced. Ans. 4 ( citing Shiroichi
,r,r 109-111 ).
Appellants argue that Shiroichi does not disclose a print control unit
that adjusts the image forming position in accordance with an adjusted
image forming position obtained by adding the positional difference (i.e. the
difference between the obtained comparative side end position and the
reference side end position), previously obtained by the arithmetic unit and
stored in the memory unit in association with the specific paper feed unit
from which the recording paper is fed, to the reference image forming
position. Br. 6. Appellants argue that the image writing position correction
process of Shiroichi paragraphs 64---65, relied upon by the Examiner, is not
equivalent to the position adjustment recited in claim 9. Id. at 7. Appellants
further argue that Shiroichi does not disclose an arithmetic unit that obtains a
positional difference between the obtained comparative side end position
and the reference side end position, and stores the positional difference in
the memory unit in association with the paper feed unit from which the
recording paper is fed. Id.
Appellants' argument is not persuasive of reversible error. Shiroichi's
disclosure of regions Hr as "writing position correction regions corrected
with the transfer paper position data D 1 + a reference position adjustment
value" (Shiroichi ,r 64) supports the Examiner's finding that Shiroichi
discloses adjusting the image based on the positional difference between the
comparative side end position and the reference side end position stored in
the memory unit every time a recording paper is fed, and storing the
7
Appeal2017-007189
Application 13/455,289
positional difference in the memory unit in association with the paper feed
unit. Ans. 4 (citing Shiroichi ,r,r 50, 64---65, 109-111). Further, although
Appellants argue that Shiroichi does not store the positional difference in
memory in association with the paper feed unit from which the recording
paper is fed (Br. 7), Appellants do not address the Examiner's finding in the
Answer that Shiroichi discloses this feature, and no reply brief was filed. 5
On this record, we discern no basis to reject the Examiner's relevant
findings. Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of claim 9.
Claims 2---8 and 10---17
Independent claim 2 is similar to claim 1 and recites arithmetic and
print control units that perform functions relating to the timing of forming an
image on paper, similar to the functions of the arithmetic unit and print
control units recited in claim 1. Claims App. 2. We find that the rejection of
claim 2 is based on the same findings as to Shiroichi as the rejection of claim
1, described above. Accordingly, we also reverse the rejection of claim 2.
Claims 3-8 depend from either claim 1 or claim 2, and the Examiner's
rejection of these claims is based on the same findings discussed above with
respect to claim 1. Accordingly, we reverse the rejections of claims 3-8.
Independent claim 10 is similar to claim 9 and recites arithmetic and
print control units that perform functions relating to adjusting the image
forming position in accordance with a calculation performed by the
arithmetic unit. Claims App. 5-6. Appellants do not present separate
5 We also note that although the Examiner relies on portions of Shiroichi
that are not included in the translation of record, i.e. paragraphs 15 and 109-
111 (see Final Act. 4), Appellants do not assert that any translation is
m1ssmg.
8
Appeal2017-007189
Application 13/455,289
argument with regard to the rejection of claim 10, or dependent claims 11-
17 that depend from either claims 9 or 10. Br. 7. Accordingly, we affirm
the rejections of claims 10-17.
SUMMARY
We reverse the rejections of claims 1-8.
We affirm the rejections of claims 9-1 7.
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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
9