Ex Parte Murakami

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 29, 2018

14378660 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 29, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/378,660 08/14/2014
127226 7590 10/31/2018
BIRCH, STEW ART, KOLASCH & BIRCH, LLP
8110 Gatehouse Road
Suite 100 East
Falls Church, VA 22042-1248
Koichi Murakami
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.
4492-0208PUS 1 8619
EXAMINER
DULANEY, BENJAMIN 0
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2676
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/31/2018 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 KOICHI MURAKAMI
Appeal2018-003919
Application 14/378,660
Technology Center 2600
Before: CARLA M. KRIVAK, HUNG H. BUI, and
JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judges.
LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner's decision to reject claims 8, 9, and 11-13, the only claims
pending in the application on appeal. We have jurisdiction over the pending
claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Sharp Kabushiki
Kaisha. Br. 1.
Appeal2018-003919
Application 14/378,660
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant's Invention
Appellant's invention generally relates to "image forming apparatuses
provided with an image forming section that operates in accordance with the
charge state." Spec. ,r 1. Claims 8 and 9, which are illustrative, read as
follows with disputed limitation in italics:
8. An image forming apparatus that reads image data to form
an image, compnsmg:
a coin vendor; and
an multi-function printer (MFP), wherein
the coin vendor includes a coin insertion processing
section configured to accept money and then to execute charge
processing so as to permit image formation by the MFP;
the MFP includes
a first image formation section configured to form
an image based on read image data when the coin insertion
processing section executes the charge processing; and
an in-body copy receiving section provided
internally in the MFP and configured to load a sheet on
which the image has been formed in the first image
formation section;
the in-body copy receiving section is disposed close to a
right or left lateral side of a front face of the MFP; and
the coin vendor is disposed on the lateral side of the MFP
and has a height greater than a height of the in-body copy
receiving section.
9. An image forming apparatus that reads image data to form
an image, compnsmg:
a coin vendor; and
a multi-function printer (MFP), wherein
2
Appeal2018-003919
Application 14/378,660
the coin vendor includes a coin insertion processing
section configured to accept insertion of money and then to
execute charge processing so as to permit image formation by the
MFP·
'
the MFP includes
a first image formation section configured to form
an image based on read image data when the coin insertion
processing section executes the charge processing; and
an in-body copy receiving section provided
internally in the MFP and configured to load a sheet on
which the image has been formed in the first image
formation section;
the in-body copy receiving section is disposed close to a
right or left lateral side of a front face of the MFP;
the coin vendor is disposed on the lateral side of the front
face of the MFP; and
the coin insertion processing section is disposed at a
height equal to a height of the in-body copy receiving section.
References
The Examiner relies on the following prior art in rejecting the claims:
Maruta et al.
Hasebe et al.
Nomura et al.
US 6,516,157 Bl
US 2004/0012636 Al
US 7,286,782 B2
Rejections
Feb.4,2003
Jan.22,2004
Oct. 23, 2007
Claims 8 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Nomura and Maruta. Final Act. 3--4.
Claims 9 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Nomura and Hasebe. Final Act. 5-7.
3
Appeal2018-003919
Application 14/378,660
Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Nomura, Maruta, and Hasebe. Final
Act. 7.
ANALYSIS
We consider Appellant's arguments seriatim as they are presented in
the Appeal Brief, pages 3-10.
Claim 8
Appellant contends the combination of Nomura and Maruta fails to
teach or suggest "an in-body copy receiving section provided internally in
the MFP and configured to load a sheet on which the image has been
formed in the first image formation section," as recited in claim 8. Br. 4--5.
The Examiner finds Nomura teaches ejecting printed sheets to a top
tray and "a conveyance path and the housing connecting the tray to the other
parts of the MFP [multifunction printer], are inherently 'internal' to the
MFP." Final Act. 3--4. The Examiner finds these features ofNomura's
MFP teach or suggest the claimed "in-body receiving section" because:
Upon review of the specification, an "internal" copy receiving
section is provided no specific definition or even general detail,
therefore examiner has interpreted "provided internally" as any
portion of the copy receiving section being "internal" in the
MFP. That is to say, even if output sheets rest in an open-air
discharge tray, the conveyance to the discharge tray and the
housing of the tray where it is integrally connected to the rest of
the MFP is all a part of the "copy receiving section" and is
certainly "internal" to the MFP. Further description would be
required to narrow the scope of the claims to define the copy
receiving section as only a closed drawer inside of the MFP that
is not accessible without opening the drawer to obtain printed
4
Appeal2018-003919
Application 14/378,660
sheets; however, examiner notes that there does not appear to be
support in the specification for defining the output tray in this
manner.
Final Act. 2; see also Ans. 7-8 (citing Spec. ,r,r 39-40; Nomura, Fig. 1).
According to Appellant, "claim 8 recites that the in-body copy
receiving section is provided internally in the MFP, i.e. completely within
the MFP" (Br. 4) and that "[t]he identifier 'in-body' means that the copy
receiving section in its entirety is provided internally in the MFP" (Br. 5
(citing Spec. ,r 35). Appellant argues "[t]he 'top tray' of Nomura clearly
projects outside of the MFP and therefore, cannot reasonably be found to be
provided completely internal to the MFP," as required by claim 8. Br. 4
(citing Nomura, Fig. 1).
We do not find Appellant's arguments persuasive. Appellant's
Specification provides that the in-body copy receiving section "loads a sheet
164 that is subjected to image formation at an electrophotography printer
130 and is discharged from a sheet outlet 162." Spec. ,r 35. Consistent with
the Specification, the broadest reasonable interpretation of "in-body
receiving section" includes an internal mechanism that receives a printed
sheet and conveys the printed sheet to a sheet outlet for discharge from the
MFP. We agree with the Examiner that Nomura's MFP inherently includes
an internal conveyance path connecting the tray to other parts of the MFP
and, therefore, teaches or suggests the disputed limitation. Final Act. 3--4.
We note for emphasis that Maruta also teaches that a MFP includes an
internal mechanism that receives a printed sheet and conveys the printed
sheet to a sheet outlet where it is discharged onto the output tray. Maruta
Fig. 13, col. 14:48-57. As such, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred.
Appellant further contends the combination of Nomura and Maruta
5
Appeal2018-003919
Application 14/378,660
fails to teach or suggest "the coin vendor is disposed on the lateral side of
the MFP and has a height greater than a height of the in-body copy receiving
section," as recited in claim 8. Br. 5. Appellant argues:
Br. 5.
Although Fig. 13 of Maruta appears to disclose coin vendor 200
positioned on a lateral side of an MFP and having a height greater
than a height of an output tray 3 1, the Examiner erred in finding
that the output tray 31 ofMaruta was an "in-body copy receiving
section" as recited in claim 8.
We do not find Appellant's argument persuasive. As discussed above,
the broadest reasonable interpretation, consistent with Appellant's
Specification, of "in-body copy receiving section" includes Maruta's internal
mechanism for receiving a printed sheet and conveying the printed sheet to a
sheet outlet where it is discharged onto the output tray. See Spec. ,r 35;
Maruta Fig. 13, col. 14:48-57. We agree with the Examiner that Maruta
teaches or suggests a coin vendor having a height greater than a height of the
in-body receiving section. Final Act. 4 (citing Maruta Fig. 13).
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred.
For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in
rejecting claim 8; and claim 13, which depends from claim 8 and is not
argued separately with particularity. See Br. 5.
Claim 9
Appellant contends the combination of Nomura and Hasebe fails to
teach or suggest "an in-body copy receiving section provided internally in
the MFP and configured to load a sheet on which the image has been formed
in the first image formation section," as recited in claim 9, for reasons
similar to the reasons discussed above with respect to claim 8. Br. 6-7.
6
Appeal2018-003919
Application 14/378,660
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred for the reasons
discussed supra.
Appellant further contends the combination of Nomura and Hasebe
fails to teach or suggest "the coin insertion processing section is disposed at
a height equal to a height of the in-body copy receiving section," as recited
in claim 9. Br. 7-8. Appellant argues the cited references do not teach or
suggest the disputed limitation because Hasebe's paper ejection section is
positioned above and outside the inkjet-type forming section 117 and,
therefore, does not teach or suggest the claimed "in-body copy receiving
section." Br. 7-8 ( citing Hasebe Fig. 2).
Appellant is arguing the references separately. The Examiner relies
on Nomura, not Hasebe, for teaching or suggesting the claimed "in-body
receiving section." Final Act. 5 (citing Nomura Fig. 1). Appellant's
argument also does not address the Examiner's finding and, therefore, is
unpersuasive of error. Further, we agree with the Examiner (Ans. 9) that
Figure 2 of Hase be depicts an internal conveyance means that receives a
printed sheet and conveys the printed sheet to a sheet outlet where it is
discharged onto an output tray.
Appellant further argues Hasebe does not teach or suggest the claimed
"coin insertion processing section." Br. 8. Appellant argues:
As discussed in paragraph [0123] of Hasebe, the portable
telephone 130 is a portable communication terminal which the
user takes with him or her. Therefore, Hase be cannot reasonably
be found to disclose or suggest that any of the elements of image
forming apparatus 110 are designed/provided to a specific
relationship with respect to the height of the portable telephone
130 because the portable telephone 130 is not provided with the
device. Furthermore, the Examiner erred in finding that the
portable telephone 130 was analogous to the coin vendor 70 of
7
Appeal2018-003919
Application 14/378,660
Br. 8.
Nomura because (1) the portable telephone 130 is [not] provided
as part of the image processing apparatus and (2) nowhere in
Hasebe is there any disclosure or suggestion of the portable
telephone 130 functioning as a coin vendor.
Appellant's arguments are not persuasive. The Examiner finds
Nomura teaches "that 'in the collection of the fee by the coin dispenser, the
fee is not limited to money' and can be 'electronic money."' Ans. 10
( quoting Nomura 4:7-8). The Examiner finds Hasebe teaches improving the
convenience to the user by not requiring the user to use cash to pay for the
provided service. Id. ( citing Hase be ,r 17 5). The Examiner reasons the
combination of Nomura and Hasebe teaches or suggests the disputed
limitations because "Nomura provides a base device with a coin vendor
(figure 1, item 70) that can be improved (as Nomura readily acknowledges)
by the cashless fee collector of Hasebe (portable phone 130) at the height
described in Hase be" and "the result of the combination would be
completely predictable as enabling cash vs. cashless charges are extremely
well-known in the printing art." Id. As such, the Examiner relies on the
combined teachings of Nomura and Hasebe for teaching or suggesting the
disputed limitation. Appellant argues the references separately and the
arguments do not persuasively address the Examiner's findings regarding the
combined teachings of the references: therefore, are unpersuasive of error.
For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in
rejecting claim 9.
Claim 12
Claim 12 depends from claim 9 and recites that the image forming
8
Appeal2018-003919
Application 14/378,660
apparatus further comprises:
a second image formation section arranged independently
of the first image formation section and configured to form an
image based on the read image data, wherein
the first image formation section is an electrophotography
printer; and
the second image formation section is a sublimation
printer disposed on a lower side of the coin insertion processing
section.
Br., Claims App. 2. Appellant contends the cited references fail to teach or
suggest the limitations recited in claim 12 because: (1) Hasebe's portable
telephone does not teach or suggest the claimed coin insertion processing
section because "the portable telephone 130 of Hasebe is not 'configured to
accept insertion of money' as claimed" (Br. 9); and (2) Hasebe's inkjet-type
forming section is not disposed below the portable telephone, as required by
claim 11, but, instead, "is disposed on the tower attached laterally to the
electrophotography-type image forming section 118 and is disposed at the
same height as the portable telephone 130" id. ( citing Hasebe Fig. 2).
We find Appellant's arguments regarding the first contention
unpersuasive because the Examiner relies upon Nomura, not Hasebe, for
teaching a coin vendor including a charge processing section configured to
accept money. Final Act. 5 ( citing Nomura Fig. 1 ). Appellant's arguments
fail to address the express findings of the Examiner and, therefore, are
unpersuasive of error.
We also find Appellant's arguments regarding the second contention
unpersuasive. Instead, we agree with the Examiner that Hasebe teaches:
[T]he two image forming sections can be a variety of different
systems including a "thermal transcription system" (i.e. a
sublimation printer), and in addition could be arranged in either
9
Appeal2018-003919
Application 14/378,660
the figure 2, item 117 location ( at a height were some of the
components are slightly below charge processor 130) or the
figure 2, item 118 location ( at a height well below charge
processor 130). Therefore the thermal printing system (i.e.
sublimation) could be the "second image formation section" at
the location shown in figure 2, item 118. However even if the
sublimation printer could not be image formation section 118 and
had to be interpreted as formation section 11 7, examiner notes
that the claim language states "sublimation printer disposed on a
lower side of the coin insertion processing section" which in the
broadest reasonable interpretation would mean that printing unit
117 rests upon a lower section than charge processor 130 rests
upon. Figure 2 clearly shows that printing system 11 7 rests upon
housing that is clearly lower than the connector 1120a in which
charge processor 130 is "disposed on."
Ans. 11 (citing Hasebe Fig. 2; ,r 177).
For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in
rejecting claim 12.
Claim 11
Claim 11 depends from claim 8 and recites limitations corresponding
to the limitations recited in claim 12. Appellant's arguments regarding the
patentability of claim 11 are substantially similar to the arguments presented
regarding the patentability of claim 12, discussed above. Accordingly, we
are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 11 for the reasons
discussed supra with respect to claim 12.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejections of claims 8, 9, and 11-13.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
10
Appeal2018-003919
Application 14/378,660
AFFIRMED
11