Ex Parte WilkDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 29, 201310606697 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 29, 2013) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ________________ Ex parte TOMASZ FRANCISZEK WILK ________________ Appeal 2010-009677 Application 10/606,697 Technology Center 2600 ________________ Before JASON V. MORGAN, ERIC B. CHEN, and JOHN G. NEW, Administrative Patent Judges. MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-009677 Application 10/606,697 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7 – 12, 16 – 18, 20, 21, 23, and 24. Claims 3, 6, 13 – 15, 19, and 22 have been canceled. App. Br. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b)(1). We affirm. Invention The invention is directed to a system for effectively monitoring print jobs in a network environment to prevent users from monopolizing printer resources and using large amounts of paper and ink. Spec. p. 1, ll. 17 – 18. Exemplary Claim (Emphasis and Indentation Added) 1. A data processing network, comprising: a first printer connected to a network medium; a set of print clients connected to the network medium, wherein each print client is enabled to permit a user to submit a print job to the first printer; a first print job table to store information indicative of first printer capacity available to the user, the first print job table being stored in a computer readable medium; and computer code means for: determining whether to accept a new print job submitted by the user based on a comparison of the size of the new print job and the user’s available first printer capacity, and updating the available capacity information, including deleting a first print job table entry corresponding to the user responsive to determining that Appeal 2010-009677 Application 10/606,697 3 the user’s available first printer capacity is equal to or greater than a predetermined threshold. Rejections The Examiner rejects claims 1, 5, 7, 8, 10, 12, 17, 21, and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Takimoto (US 6,202,092 B1; Mar. 13, 2001).1 Ans. 3 – 5. The Examiner rejects claims 2, 9, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Takimoto and Bauer (US 5,819,047; Oct. 6, 1998). Ans. 5 – 6. The Examiner rejects claims 4 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Takimoto and Salgado (US 5,777,882; July 7, 1998). Ans. 7. The Examiner rejects claims 11 and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Takimoto and Homma (US 2001/0017700 A1; Aug. 30, 2001). Ans. 8. The Examiner rejects claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Takimoto and Sommer (US 7,158,244 B2; Jan. 2, 2007; filed Mar. 19, 2002). Ans. 8 – 9. ISSUE Did the Examiner err in finding that Takimoto discloses “updating the available capacity information, including deleting a first print job table entry corresponding to the user responsive to determining that the user’s available 1 The Examiner incorrectly lists canceled claims 19 and 22 in the statement of the rejection. Appeal 2010-009677 Application 10/606,697 4 first printer capacity is equal to or greater than a predetermined threshold,” as recited in claim 1? ANALYSIS The Examiner finds that Takimoto, which is directed to a print system managing the security of a printer shared on a network, discloses all of the recitations of claim 1. See Ans. 3 – 4. In particular, the Examiner finds that Takimoto discloses “updating the available capacity information, including deleting a first print job table entry corresponding to the user responsive to determining that the user’s available first printer capacity is equal to or greater than a predetermined threshold,” as recited in claim 1. See id. at 4 (citing Takimoto col. 5, ll. 16 – 19 and 30 – 35). Appellant contends the Examiner erred because Takimoto “does not disclose deleting any entry from the print job table.” App. Br. 8. In particular, Appellant submits that the claimed recitation of “deleting an entry from the print job table as claimed is an indication that a user or client has all of their maximum printer capacity.” Id. at 9 (citing Spec. p. 4, l. 7 – p. 5, l. 7). However, the claim does not include any recitations directed to deletion of an entry to indicate that a user has maximum printer capacity. We agree with the Examiner that the broadest reasonable interpretation, consistent with the Specification, of “deleting a first print job table entry corresponding to the user” encompasses making a print job table entry no longer available in the print job table. See Ans. 10. In Takimoto, print data (i.e., the print job table entry) is stored in a temporary file (i.e., a file to be deleted) when printing is authorized. See Takimoto col. 5, ll. 20 – 23. Thus, Appeal 2010-009677 Application 10/606,697 5 the Examiner correctly finds that Takimoto discloses “deleting a first print job table entry,” as recited in claim 1. See Ans. 10 – 11. Appellant further contends that the claimed “print job table [entry] corresponds to a particular user or client” and “Takimoto’s print driver does not contain entries corresponding to users or clients.” App. Br. 9. However, Takimoto includes a security validating portion 22b that determines whether printing is authorized for requests “based on the stored authority and statistical information of the user in the security data base.” Takimoto col. 5, ll. 12 – 13 (emphasis added). To make this determination, the print requests themselves must correspond to a user to ascertain whether the user has the requisite authority. Thus, the Examiner correctly finds that the print request (i.e., print job table entry) of Takimoto corresponds to a particular user. See Ans. 4. Appellant argues that the Examiner “incorrectly characterizes Takimoto’s rejecting a print request as analogous to deleting an entry from the print job table as claimed.” App. Br. 8. That is, Appellant argues that the rejection (i.e., deletion) of a print request in Takimoto is not “responsive to determining that the user’s available first printer capacity is equal to or greater than a predetermined threshold,” as recited in claim 1, because the job is being rejected. However, Appellant’s argument is not responsive to the Examiner’s findings. The Examiner correctly finds that Takimoto deletes an entry from the print job table as part of authorizing printing and thus transmitting a print job to the printer for printing. See Ans. 10 (citing Takimoto col. 5, ll. 20 – 23). The print job is transmitted (and the print job table entry is deleted) if the user’s available print quota (i.e., first printer capability) is greater than the number of pages in the print job (i.e., a Appeal 2010-009677 Application 10/606,697 6 predetermined threshold). See Ans. 10 (citing Takimoto col. 5, ll. 9 – 10). Thus, the Examiner correctly finds that the print job table entry deletion in Takimoto is “responsive to determining that the user’s available first printer capacity is equal to or greater than a predetermined threshold,” as recited in claim 1. Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that Takimoto discloses “updating the available capacity information, including deleting a first print job table entry corresponding to the user responsive to determining that the user’s available first printer capacity is equal to or greater than a predetermined threshold,” as recited in claim 1. Appellant further contends that Takimoto does not enable each and every element of the claimed invention. See App. Br. 9 – 10. Appellant has the burden to show lack of enablement in a prior art reference. See In re Sasse, 629 F.2d 675, 681 (CCPA 1980). Here, Appellant merely contend that “Takimoto does not disclose each and every element and limitation,” see id. at 9, of claim 1. As discussed above, we do not agree with this contention. Therefore, Appellant does not persuasively rebut the presumption that Takimoto is enabled. Accordingly, we find the Examiner did not err in rejecting claim 1, and claims 5, 7, 8, 10, 12, 17, 21, and 24, which are not argued separately with sufficient specificity. See App. Br. 10. Appellant also contends that the Examiner failed to make explicit the factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deer Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966), in rejecting claims 2, 4, 9, 11, 16, 18, 20, and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). See App. Br. 10 – 15. However, the Examiner’s provides sufficient factual findings to support the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections. See Fin. Rej. 5 – 9; Ans. 5 – 9. Moreover, Appellant fails to persuasively identify error in these Appeal 2010-009677 Application 10/606,697 7 factual findings or to provide persuasive arguments or evidence to support the conclusory statement that the Examiner’s rejection does not make explicit the factual inquiries made. See App. Br. 10 – 15. Accordingly, we also find the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 2, 4, 9, 11, 16, 18, 20, and 23. DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7 – 12, 16 – 18, 20, 21, 23, and 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 peb Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation