Ex Parte Tomita et alDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardApr 19, 201913455289 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 19, 2019) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation