Ernst, Larry et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 12, 2020

13042857 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Feb. 12, 2020)

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.
13/042,857 03/08/2011 Larry Ernst 8185P113 7765
76073 7590 02/12/2020
InfoPrint Solutions/ Blakely
1279 Oakmead Parkway
Sunnyvale, CA 94085-4040
EXAMINER
MORGAN, JEFFREY CHAD
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2864
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/12/2020 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):
eofficeaction@appcoll.com
mark.watson@jwmhlaw.com
paralegals@jwmhlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte LARRY ERNST and GEORGE PROMIS
Appeal 2019-004066
Application 13/042,857
Technology Center 2800
Before LINDA M. GAUDETTE, WESLEY B. DERRICK, and
LILAN REN, Administrative Patent Judges.
REN, 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, 5–12, 14–17, and 22–24.2 Final Act.
2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “Applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as “Ricoh
Company, Ltd.” Appeal Br. 3.
2 We note that the Appeal Brief, in multiple places, includes claim 4 in the
claims rejected. Appeal Br. 6, 11, 12. Appellant notes, however, that claim 4
has been canceled. Id. at 3. Claim 4 is therefore not before us.
Appeal 2019-004066
Application 13/042,857

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a mechanism for “maintaining ink jet
printing systems.” Spec. ¶ 1. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter:
1. A printing system comprising:
one or more print engines each having a plurality of ink jet
nozzles to print a flush line pattern on a medium during
production of a print job;
a reader to capture an image of the flush line pattern; and
a controller to analyze the image of the flush line pattern
during the production of the print job to extract print quality
information by detecting a density change and one or more color
value changes at a component of the flush line pattern
corresponding to an ink jet nozzle location.
Claims Appendix (Appeal Br. i).
REJECTION
Claims 1, 5–12, 14–17, and 22–24 are rejected under pre–AIA 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ino (US 2009/0189928 A1, Pub.
Date July 30, 2009) in view of Teshigawara (US 2011/0211008 A1, Pub.
Date Sept. 1, 2011). Final Act. 2.

OPINION
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellant and in light of the arguments and evidence produced
thereon. Cf. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010)
(precedential) (cited with approval in In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed.
Cir. 2011) (“[I]t has long been the Board’s practice to require an applicant to
identify the alleged error in the examiner’s rejections.”)). After having
Appeal 2019-004066
Application 13/042,857

3
considered the evidence presented in this Appeal and each of Appellant’s
contentions, we are not persuaded that reversible error has been identified,
and we affirm the Examiner’s § 103 rejection for the reasons expressed in
the Final Office Action and the Answer. We add the following primarily for
emphasis.
The Examiner rejects claim 13, finding that Ino teaches a recited
“controller to analyze the image of the flush line pattern during the
production of the print job.” Final Act. 3 (citing Ino ¶¶ 90, 99); Ans. 3
(citing Ino Fig. 5, ¶¶ 76–83). Appellant acknowledges that Ino “does
disclose an instruction given to a read sensor to read the nozzle-check
patterns” and that Ino “discloses a cursory analysis description in which a
determination is made as to whether or not a number of individual nozzles in
which poor ejecting is occurring is a specific value or above.” Appeal Br. 10
(citing Ino ¶¶ 74, 83); see also Reply Br. 3 (acknowledging that “the
disclosed nozzle-check pattern print processing is performed when an
instruction has been input by a control unit when carrying out image
forming” and that “[a]s a part of the nozzle-check pattern print processing a
sensor reads nozzle-check patterns and a controller processes the nozzle-
check patterns to process the results”) (citing Ino ¶¶ 74, 98).
Appellant, however, argues that Ino does not teach or suggest the
nozzle-check pattern analysis “during the production of the print job” as
recited in claim 1. Appeal Br. 10; Reply Br. 3. Although not clearly stated,

3 Appellant does not separately argue for the rejection of claims 5–12, 14–
17, and 22–24. See Appeal Br. 6–9, 11. We select claim 1 as representative.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Appeal 2019-004066
Application 13/042,857

4
Appellant’s argument is understood to be that the recited “print job”
excludes a print for the nozzle-check pattern itself. Appeal Br. 10.
We are not persuaded by Appellant for at least two reasons. First,
Appellant does not identify reversible error in the Examiner’s findings in
support of this limitation. More specifically, the Examiner points out that
Fig. 7A of Ino “shows the nozzle check pattern 91 printed between the
images of a print job.” Ans. 4 (citing Ino Fig. 7A, ¶ 99). Appellant disagrees
with the Examiner but does not provide sufficient explanation as to why the
Examiner reversibly erred here. Reply Br. 4 (stating only that “printing
nozzle check patterns during an image formation run [as taught in Ino] does
not suggest that the nozzle check patterns are printed during a production of
a print job”). “[M]ere statements of disagreement . . . do not amount to a
developed argument.” SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Apotex Corp., 439 F.3d
1312, 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
Second, we note that the Specification provides:
The term print job as used herein refers a print job or any
component thereof, including a page of print content, a page
including multiple print items or elements, such as checks,
pages, an element on a page, etc. The print job may further
include one or more pages, where each page has one or more
elements, e.g., checks. A page may include a unit of print
output, where the page may be outputted on a single piece of a
print medium or multiple pages may be outputted on a roll,
ribbon or web of a print medium.

Spec. ¶ 14. To the extent that Appellant attempts to exclude from the recited
“print job” a print for a nozzle-check pattern, the Specification does not
support such an argument. No reversible error has therefore been identified
in the Examiner’s findings here.
Appeal 2019-004066
Application 13/042,857

5
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejection is affirmed.
More specifically,
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 5–12, 14–
17, 22–24
103 Teshigawarah, Ino 1, 5–12, 14–
17, 22–24

FINALITY AND RESPONSE
No time period for taking any 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