SHARP KABUSHIKI KAISHADownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardMay 19, 20212020000869 (P.T.A.B. May. 19, 2021) 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. 15/255,541 09/02/2016 Masafumi OKIGAMI 0023-2203PUS1 6406 2292 7590 05/19/2021 BIRCH STEWART KOLASCH & BIRCH, LLP 8110 Gatehouse Road Suite 100 East Falls Church, VA 22042-1248 EXAMINER PACHOL, NICHOLAS C ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2699 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/19/2021 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 MASAFUMI OKIGAMI ________________ Appeal 2020-000869 Application 15/255,541 Technology Center 2600 ________________ Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., JASON V. MORGAN, and IRVIN E. BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judges. MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–6. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as SHARP KABUSHIKI KAISHA. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2020-000869 Application 15/255,541 2 SUMMARY OF THE DISCLOSURE Appellant’s claimed subject matter relates to communications of image data from a mobile terminal to an image forming device. Abstract. REPRESENTATIVE CLAIM (disputed limitations emphasized and bracketing added) 1. A communication method with a mobile terminal and an image forming device, the image forming device receiving image data from the mobile terminal and printing an image based on received image data, comprising: performing a first process of executing a wireless connection between the mobile terminal and the image forming device based on an establishment of a non-contact communication by approaching the mobile terminal to the image forming device; [1] performing a second process of executing a series of procedures of a wireless connection between the mobile terminal and the image forming device, a transmission of selected image data from the mobile terminal to the image forming device, and a printing of image based on received image data by the image forming device, based on an establishment of a non-contact communication by approaching the mobile terminal to the image forming device after an image based on the selected image data is displayed; and switching the first process and the second process with each other by receiving an operation of a user at a mobile terminal side. Appeal 2020-000869 Application 15/255,541 3 REFERENCES The Examiner relies on the following references: Name Reference Date Strobel et al. (“Strobel”) US 2003/0014651 A1 Jan. 16, 2003 Kato US 2009/0066998 A1 Mar. 12, 2009 Kimura et al. (“Kimura”) WO 2007/026938 A1 Mar. 8, 2007 REJECTION The Examiner rejects claims 1–6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Kimura, Strobel, and Kato. Final Act. 4–7. ADOPTION OF EXAMINER’S FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS We agree with and adopt as our own the Examiner’s findings as set forth in the Answer and in the Final Action from which this appeal was taken, and we concur with the Examiner’s conclusions. We have considered Appellant’s arguments, but we do not find them persuasive of error. We provide the following explanation for emphasis. ANALYSIS In rejecting claim 1 as obvious, the Examiner finds that Strobel’s teaching of an encrypted document and key sent from a mobile device to a destination printing device teaches or suggests recitation [1]: performing a second process of executing a series of procedures of a wireless connection between the mobile terminal and the image forming device, a transmission of selected image data from the mobile terminal to the image forming device, and a printing of image based on received image data by the image forming device, based on an establishment of a non-contact communication by approaching the mobile terminal to the Appeal 2020-000869 Application 15/255,541 4 image forming device after an image based on the selected image data is displayed. Ans. 8 (citing Strobel ¶ 28). Appellant contends the Examiner erred because in Strobel, “unlike the claimed invention, an operation of selecting printing data on a server is required when printing the same.” Appeal Br. 5. Thus, according to Appellant, “Strobel fails to teach performing a second process as claimed” in recitation [1]. Id. Appellant’s argument is not persuasive of error because it is not commensurate with the scope of the claimed invention. Nothing in recitation [1] precludes the claimed method from further including operations on a server such as selecting printing data. Appellant further contends the Examiner erred because Strobel’s transmission of “a decryption key is not equivalent to transmitting selected image data.” Id. That is, Appellant argues that in Strobel the mobile device merely transmits “an identification of the desired documents and an associated decryption key created by the data center 12 to the printing device.” Id. (citing Strobel ¶ 21) (emphasis added). Appellant’s argument is not persuasive of Examiner error because Strobel discloses an embodiment in which “encrypted document(s) and [a] key are sent to the mobile device” and then “the encrypted document(s) 14 and key are sent from the mobile device 20 to the destination printing device 22” (id. ¶ 28 (cited in Ans. 8)). Thus, Strobel teaches a mobile device that does more than just identify a desired document (i.e., image data) to print. Rather, Strobel teaches a mobile device or terminal that transmits the desired document—encrypted, but paired with a decryption key. Appellant further submits that the process of recitation [1] “includes a series of procedures, including inter alia, transmitting a selected image data Appeal 2020-000869 Application 15/255,541 5 from the mobile terminal to the image forming device, . . . performed based on establishment of a non-contact communication by approaching the mobile terminal to the image forming device.” Reply Br. 1–2. That is, recitation [1] includes establishing communications between the mobile terminal and the image forming device by bringing the mobile terminal within proximity of the image forming device. Appellant contends the Examiner erred because “Strobel discloses only wireless communication” and “the boundary of the wireless communication range is unclear to the user, thus explicit operation by the user is not possible.” Id. at 2. Appellant’s argument is not persuasive because the Specification discloses “wireless communication section 16 is a device that supports a Bluetooth communication protocol, for example,” that “connects by radio with another device supporting the Bluetooth communication protocol” such as a mobile terminal’s wireless communication section. Spec. 8:6–10. Such connections would constitute non-contact communication that are established by bringing the mobile terminal within proximity to (i.e., within range of) the image forming device (i.e., the wireless communication section of the image forming device) because wireless communications such as Bluetooth do not require physical contact and have limited range. The Specification discloses embodiments in which a separate communication mechanism, such as a radio-frequency identification (RFID), is used to transmit a Bluetooth address to enable further communications. E.g., id. 9:18–20, 23:20–24:2. But recitation [1] does not include limitations requiring the use of any such separate communication mechanism and we do not read in unclaimed limitations from the Specification. In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321 (Fed. Cir. 1989). Appeal 2020-000869 Application 15/255,541 6 For these reasons, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Strobel, Kato, and Kimura teaches or suggests recitation [1]. Appellant bases the remaining arguments on the premise that the prior art does not teach or suggest recitation [1]. See, e.g., Appeal Br. 5 (“As the second process is not disclosed, the cited combination cannot reasonably be found to disclose ‘switching the first process and the second process with each other by receiving an operation of a user at a mobile terminal side.’”). Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 1, and claims 2–6, which Appellant argues are patentable for similar reasons. Id. 6– 7. CONCLUSION Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–6 103(a) Strobel, Kato, Kimura 1–6 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE No time period for taking subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation