Ex Parte Tsujimoto

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 25, 2016

14274327 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 25, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/274,327 05/09/2014
127226 7590 10/27/2016
Birch, Stewart, Kolasch & Birch, LLP
P.O. Box 747
Falls Church, VA 22040-0747
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Kunihiko TSUJIMOTO
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.
1248-1293PUS2 5686
EXAMINER
YANG, QIAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2674
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/27/2016 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 KUNIHIKO TSUJIMOTO and SHARP KABUSHIKI KAISHA
Appeal2016-000220
Application 14/274,327
Technology Center 2600
Before STEPHEN C. SIU, JOHN D. HAMANN, and
JOYCE CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judges.
SIU, Administrative Patent Judge
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1 and 3-12. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
The disclosed invention relates generally to a multifunction peripheral
control system. Spec. 1:16-17. Independent claim 3 reads as follows:
3. A multifunction peripheral control system
compnsmg:
a server that executes an application program; and
a multifunction peripheral that is communicably
connected to the server over a communications network and
that executes a process according to an instruction by the
application program,
Appeal2016-000220
Application 13/274,327
the multifunction peripheral including:
a display section that displays an information display
screen which allows a user to input an instruction to the
application program;
a storage section that stores information display screen
setting data including default conditions for preparing said
information display screen;
an information display screen preparation section that
prepares said information display screen on a basis of the
information display screen setting data; and
an image forming section that executes an image forming
process for forming, on a recording material, an image
corresponding to second image data,
said information display screen being a preview screen
for, before the image forming process is executed, presenting a
user with the image corresponding to the second image data,
the server transmitting an instruction to the multifunction
peripheral in order to change at least one of the default
conditions included in the information display screen setting
data,
the information display screen preparation section, when
causing the display section to display said information display
screen, causing the display section to display, as the preview
screen, said information display screen prepared by combining,
with the second image data, first image data which is image
data of a display screen prepared by changing, in accordance
with the instruction transmitted from the server, at least one of
the default conditions included in the information display
screen setting data.
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 3, 5, 7-9, 11, and 12 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Uchida et al. (US 2009/0310180 Al, pub.
Dec. 17, 2009) and Maeda (US 2011/0157636 Al, pub. June 30, 3011) and
2
Appeal2016-000220
Application 13/274,327
claims 4, 6, and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Uchida,
Maeda, and Mitsunari (US 2007/025808, pub. Feb. 1, 2007).
ISSUE
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1 and 3-12?
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue that Uchida fails to disclose a "preview screen" that
"is prepared by combining first image data and second image data, where it
is the first image data that is prepared by changing, in accordance with the
instruction transmitted from the server, a default condition(s), as required in"
claim 3. App. Br. 11.
1A..s the Examiner indicates, Uchida discloses a l\1FP (l\1ulti-Function
Peripheral) and a private PC (or server). Uchida i-fi-15, 32, 56. The MFP
includes "a storage unit 119 ... which stores image data ... " and also
"collects ... setting information ... [from the PC and] generates a display
content in the operation/display unit ... based on the acquired setting
information" such that a "dynamic screen customizing function" is
performed, which is "a function of reflecting the settings in the ... PC to the
settings in the MFP." Uchida i-fi-136, 47, 62. Uchida further discloses that
the "MFP changes the settings for the operation panel in the MFP ... based
on the setting information acquired [from the PC]." Uchida i165. In other
words, Uchida discloses a "preview screen" (image corresponding to the
3
Appeal2016-000220
Application 13/274,327
operation panel in the MFP) that is prepared by combining second image
data (i.e., settings data for the operation panel in the MFP) and first image
data (i.e., settings data of a display screen modified by setting information
acquired from the PC) where the first image data (i.e., image data of a
display screen modified by settings data acquired from the PC) is prepared
by changing (i.e., MFP changes the settings data corresponding to the
second image data based on settings data acquired from the PC), in
accordance with the instruction transmitted from the server (i.e., settings
data acquired by the MFP from the PC), as required in claim 3.
Appellants argue that Uchida fails to disclose or suggest "combining
first image data with second image data" (App. Br. 11) but do not adequately
explain a difference between changing MFP settings data by incorporating
settings data acquired from the PC into the MFP settings data to acquire one
set of modified image data of a display screen of Uchida and the claim
feature of "combining" data. Appellants further argue that "Maeda does not
make up for deficiencies in Uchida." App. Br. 11. Appellants, however, do
not sufficiently demonstrate a specific deficiency of Uchida.
Therefore, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner's rejection
of claim 3.
Regarding claim 12, Appellants argue that Uchida and Maeda fail to
teach or suggest "'simultaneously' executing an image data obtaining
process for obtaining the second image data (allegedly taught in Maeda) and
preparing first image data (allegedly taught in Uchida)." App. Br. 13. We
are not persuaded by Appellants' argument.
4
Appeal2016-000220
Application 13/274,327
As previously described, Uchida discloses obtaining second image
data (i.e., data acquired from the PC) and first image data (i.e., settings in the
MFP). An artisan of ordinary skill would have understood that there are a
finite number of possibilities in obtaining second data and obtaining (or
preparing) first data. One of ordinary skill in the art, not being an
automaton, would have understood that second data and first data may be
obtained or prepared simultaneously or not simultaneously (two known
finite possibilities). Performing the known steps of obtaining or preparing
different data simultaneously would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art at least because doing so would have resulted in no more than
the predictable result of obtaining or preparing desired data in a known
fashion and would be well within the purview of one of skill in the art to
select between one of two known possibilities. Such a predictable result
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. "The
combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be
obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results." KSR Int 'l Co.
v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
For these reasons, the Examiner did not err in rejecting claim 12.
Appellants do not provide additional arguments with respect to the
other claims on appeal.
SUMMARY
We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 3, 5, 7-9, 11, and 12
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Uchida and Maeda and
5
Appeal2016-000220
Application 13/274,327
claims 4, 6, and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Uchida,
Maeda, and Mitsunari.
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
6