Ex Parte Wilk

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 29, 2013

10606697 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 29, 2013)

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