Kodak Alaris Inc.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardMay 22, 202014579741 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 22, 2020) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 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 APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 14/579,741 12/22/2014 Bruce Link 041668-102012 1268 24633 7590 05/22/2020 HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP IP GROUP, COLUMBIA SQUARE 555 THIRTEENTH STREET, N.W. WASHINGTON, DC 20004 EXAMINER OLAMIT, JUSTIN N ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2853 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/22/2020 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): HLUSDocketing@hoganlovells.com dcptopatent@hoganlovells.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte BRUCE LINK Appeal 2019-002298 Application 14/579,741 Technology Center 2800 Before JEAN R. HOMERE, MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, and DAVID J. CUTITTA II, Administrative Patent Judges. HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE1 Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–28, which constitute all of the claims pending in this appeal.2 Appeal Br. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). An oral hearing was held in this appeal on May 13, 2020. 1 We refer to the Specification filed Dec. 22, 2014 (“Spec.”); the Final Office Action, mailed Aug. 30, 2017 (“Final Act.”); the Appeal Brief, filed Sept. 21, 2018 (“Appeal Br”); the Examiner’s Answer, mailed Nov. 27, 2018 (“Ans.”); and the Reply Brief, filed Jan. 25, 2019 (Reply Br.”). 2 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies Kodak Alaris as the real party-in- interest. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2019-002298 Application 14/579,741 2 A transcript of the oral hearing is being prepared and will be entered into the record in due course. We affirm. II. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER According to Appellant, the claimed subject matter is directed to a method and system for checking for medium (e.g. paper) jams along a pre- transport path, a transport path, and a post-transport path within a medium transport system (e.g., copier, scanner, facsimile) including multiple rollers and associated microphones for detecting the sound of the medium being transported. Spec. 2:6–9. Figure 2, discussed and reproduced below, is useful for understanding the claimed invention: Appeal 2019-002298 Application 14/579,741 3 Figure 2 above illustrates transport path (290) inside medium transport system (10) including rollers (120, 220, 223, 260, 265, and 140) with associated rollers (200a, 200b, 200c). Id. at 6:4–13. Upon receiving, from microphones (200a, 200b, 200c), sound signals representing detected sounds of a medium being transported, processor (270) produces, for each received signal, corresponding sound values, which it compares to a threshold value. Id. at 2:10–19, 6: 4–13. Upon detecting that the maximum computed values for a particular path is greater than the threshold value, the processor determines that a medium jam is present at the location where the sound was captured. Id. at 2:10–19, 17:3–20:6. Claims 1 and 15 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below with disputed limitations emphasized in italics, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A system for checking for medium jams along a medium transport path comprising: one or more rollers for use in conveying the medium along the medium transport path; at least one microphone for detecting the sound of the medium being transported and producing a signal representing the sound; a processor configured to produce sound values from the signal and further configured to: compute pre-transport path maximum values responsive to the sound values from the at least one microphone from a region within a pre-transport path before the medium transport path, including ignoring or weighting at least one of the sound values; compute transport path maximum values responsive to the sound values from the at least one microphone from a Appeal 2019-002298 Application 14/579,741 4 region within the medium transport path, including ignoring or weighting at least one of the sound values; compute post transport path maximum values responsive to the sound values from the at least one microphone from a region within a post transport path, including ignoring or weighting at least one of the sound values; compare the pre-transport path maximum values, transport path maximum values, and post-transport path maximum values to at least one threshold; and indicate the presence of a medium jam when at least one of the pre-transport path maximum values, transport path maximum values, or post-transport path maximum values is greater than the at least one threshold. Appeal Br. 14 (Claims Appendix) (emphasis added). III. REFERENCES The Examiner relies upon the following references.3 Name Reference Date Phinney US 2013/0140757 A1 June 06, 2013 Umi US 8,827,266 B2 Sept. 9, 2014 Shimazu US 8,955,840 B2 Feb. 17, 2015 IV. REJECTIONS4 The Examiner rejects claims 1–28 as follows: 1. Claims 1–10 and 15–24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Shimazu and Phinney. Final Act. 5–10. 3 All reference citations are to the first named inventor only. 4 The Examiner withdraws the written description rejection previously entered against claims 7, 8, 21, and 22. Ans. 3. Appeal 2019-002298 Application 14/579,741 5 2. Claims 11–14 and 25–28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Shimazu, Phinney, and Umi. Final Act. 10–11. V. ANALYSIS We consider Appellant’s arguments in the order they are presented in the Appeal Brief, pages 17–32 and the Reply Brief, pages 3–17.5 We are unpersuaded by Appellant’s contentions. 1. Claims 1–10 and 15–24 Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Shimazu and Phinney teaches or suggests computing separate maximum values for a pre-transport path, a transport path, and a post-transport path, and comparing the three separate maximum values to a threshold, as recited in independent claim 1. Appeal Br. 6. In particular, Appellant argues that, although Shimazu discloses a scanner path that can include the three paths (pre-transport, transport, and post-transport), it does not teach or suggest making the particular calculations or determinations for those areas. Id. at 7 (citing Shimazu 8:4–19). According to Appellant, Shimazu instead contemplates obtaining one set of maximum values from one set of sound collection data. Id. at 7. More particularly, Appellant argues that, “at best, Shimazu looks at the results of a Fourier Transform for sound data for the entire conveyance path, and compares particular frequency values in the sole data set to threshold values”, and that Shimazu 5 We have considered in this Decision only those arguments Appellant actually raised in the Briefs. Any other arguments Appellant could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2014). Appeal 2019-002298 Application 14/579,741 6 does not teach or suggest that these frequency values correspond to the maximum values for the three different regions in the paths. Id. (citing Shimazu 5:33–36, 8:4–19). According to Appellant, although Shimazu determines the presence of a jam, and the type thereof, it is silent on computing the maximum values for the three separate areas, as recited in the claim. Id. at 7–8. Further, Appellant argues that Phinney’s disclosure of a damage detection algorithm, which differentiates the sound frequencies of a page transported during normal operation of a document handling apparatus and the sound frequencies of a wrinkled page does not cure the noted deficiencies of Shimazu. Id. at 8–9 (citing Phinney ¶¶ 27, 28). Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive of reversible Examiner error. As an initial matter, we note that although Appellant’s claim 1 recites a processor configured to compute maximum values for the pre transport path, transport path, and post transport path in response to sound values captured by a microphone, the claim does not require a separate comparison of each of the calculated maximum values with a threshold. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the recitation a processor configured to “compare the pre-transport path maximum values, the transport path maximum values, and the post-transport path maximum values” reasonably can be construed as comparing the combined maximum values (a single data set) for the cited areas with the threshold value. We, thus, agree with the Examiner that Shimazu’s disclosure of a microphone for continually capturing the sound of a document as it is inserted in the input tray, travels along the transport path, and exits at the output tray teaches continuously computing maximum values corresponding to sounds produced at each of those locations. Ans. 4 (citing Shimazu 6:46–49). Further, because the Appeal 2019-002298 Application 14/579,741 7 disputed limitations do not preclude the computed values from being expressed in terms of frequency values, we likewise agree with the Examiner that Shimazu’s disclosure of comparing the computed values teaches at least comparing the combined values to a threshold consistent with our claim interpretation above. Id. at 4–6. Accordingly, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 over the combination of Shimazu and Phinney. Regarding the rejections of claims 2–14 and 15–24, Appellant has not presented separate patentability arguments or reiterated substantially the same arguments as those previously discussed for patentability of claim 1. As such, claims 2–10 and 15–24 fall therewith. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). 2. Claims 11–14, and 25–28 Appellant argues that Umi does not cure the noted deficiencies of the combination of Shimazu and Phinney as previously discussed in the rejection of claim 1. Appeal Br. 10. As noted in our discussion of claim 1 above, we find no such deficiencies in the proposed combination for Umi to cure. Accordingly, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 11–14 and 25–28. VI. CONCLUSION We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–28. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Appeal 2019-002298 Application 14/579,741 8 Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–10, 15–24 103 Shimazu, Phinney 1–10, 15–24 11–14, 25–28 103 Shimazu, Phinney, Umi 11–14, 25– 28 Overall Outcome 1–28 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). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation