Ex Parte Ramadei et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 23, 201611512527 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 23, 2016) 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. 11/512,527 08/30/2006 Michael J. Ramadei G-223 1361 919 7590 12/28/2016 PITNEY BOWES INC. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & PROCUREMENT LAW DEPT. 37 EXECUTIVE DRIVE MSC 01-152 DANBURY, CT 06810 EXAMINER CLARK, DAVID J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3628 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/28/2016 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): iptl@pb.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte MICHAEL J. RAMADEI, DAVID R. WELCH, JAMES A. FAIRWEATHER, WESLEY A. KIRSHNER, and DAVID J. EATON Appeal 2014-009679 Application 11/512,527 Technology Center 3600 Before ANTON W. FETTING, JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, and BIBHU R. MOHANTY, Administrative Patent Judges. MOHANTY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the final rejection of claims 21—24 which are all the claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). SUMMARY OF THE DECISION We REVERSE. Appeal 2014-009679 Application 11/512,527 THE INVENTION The Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to a system that generates mail pieces and manages differences in operating rates in the system (Spec., para. 1). Claim 21, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal. 21. A system comprising: a data source device that generates print data for individual pages to be printed; a printer operatively coupled to the data source to receive the print data and to use the print data to print the individual pages; a buffer coupled to the printer for receiving the printed individual pages from the printer and temporarily storing the printed individual pages; a mail-assembling device including a controller that controls operation of the mail assembling device, the controller operatively coupled to the buffer to determine on a continuous basis the number of printed individual pages in the buffer and operatively coupled to the data source to throttle on a continuous basis the release of individual pages of print data generated by the data source to the printer based on the determined number of pages in the buffer. THE REJECTION The following rejection is before us for review: Claims 21—23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Van Der Werff (US 6,338,479 Bl, iss. Jan. 15, 2002). 2 Appeal 2014-009679 Application 11/512,527 FINDINGS OF FACT We have determined that the findings of fact in the Analysis section below are supported at least by a preponderance of the evidence1. ANALYSIS The Appellants argue that the rejection of claim 21 is improper because the prior art fails to disclose: throttl[ing] on a continuous basis the release of individual pages of print data generated by the data source to the printer based on the determined number of pages in the buffer. (App. Br. 3, 4; Reply Br. 1—3). In contrast, the Examiner has determined that cited claim limitation is found in Van Der Werff at Figure 1, column 3, lines 36-47, column 7, lines 30-35, and claim 3 (Final Act. 4; Ans. 3—5). We agree with the Appellants. Here, Van Der Werff at the above cited portions does not disclose the cited claim limitation which requires “throttling] on a continuous basis the release of individual pages of print data generated by the data source to the printer based on the determined number of pages in the buffer” (emphasis added). For example, Van Der Werff at column 3, lines 36-47 does disclose that documents are printed in accordance with printing instructions, but there is no specific disclosure of any throttling in the specific manner claimed. Van Der Werff at column 7, lines 30—35 does disclose that a buffer station can receive a temporary excess of sheets, and that after the cause of the delay has been removed, can 1 See Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1427 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (explaining the general evidentiary standard for proceedings before the Patent Office). 3 Appeal 2014-009679 Application 11/512,527 dispense these again, which could be considered throttling. However, there is no specific disclosure that this throttling is done based on the determined number of pages in the buffer. As the cited claim limitation has not been shown in the prior art, the rejection of claim 21 and its dependent claims is not sustained. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW We conclude that Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting the claims as listed in the Rejection section above. DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 21—24 is reversed. REVERSED 4 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation