Ex Parte Dauer et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 21, 2012

10000692 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 21, 2012)

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.
10/000,692 11/15/2001 Lucia Dauer A-2876 9341
24131 7590 08/22/2012
LERNER GREENBERG STEMER LLP
P O BOX 2480
HOLLYWOOD, FL 33022-2480
EXAMINER
LETT, THOMAS J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2625
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/22/2012 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte LUCIA DAUER, ANDREAS DETMERS, JURGEN FITZER,
MARCEL KIESSLING, KLAUS KREMER,
PETER MARTEN, and GOTTHARD SCHMID
____________________

Appeal 2010-002643
Application 10/000,692
Technology Center 2600

____________________

Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, DEBRA K. STEPHENS, and JASON V.
MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2010-002643
Application 10/000,692

2
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) (2002) from a non-final
rejection of claims 1-11 and 13-19. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b). Claims 12 and 20 are canceled.
We AFFIRM.
Introduction
According to Appellants, the invention relates to a method and
diagnostic device for a printing press, wherein data is automatically
transmitted by the printing press central data processor to a locally distanced
central processor when a threshold value is upwardly or downwardly
transgressed or reached. (Abstract).

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Exemplary Claim
Claim 1 is an exemplary claim and is reproduced below:
1. A method for transmitting data, which comprises the
steps of:

acquiring data relating to a printing press from a sensor
connected to a first central data processor located with the
printing press and controlling the printing press via a control
line;

the sensor transmitting the acquired data to a first central
data processor allocated to the printing press;

comparing the acquired data to at least one threshold
value with the first central data processor; and

transmitting the data and an identification key of the
printing press automatically over the internet to a second central
Appeal 2010-002643
Application 10/000,692

3
data processor locally distanced from the first central data
processor when the threshold value is upwardly transgressed,
downwardly transgressed or reached.

References
Sampath US 6,892,317 B1 May 10, 2005
(filed Dec. 16, 1999)

Rejections
Claims 1-11 and 13-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
being anticipated by Sampath.

GROUPING OF CLAIMS

Based upon Appellants’ arguments, we select representative claim 1
to decide this appeal for the group consisting of claims 1-11 and 13-19. (See
Br. 5-11).
We have only considered those arguments that Appellants actually
raised in the Briefs. Arguments Appellants could have made but chose not
to make in the Briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be
waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).

ISSUE
35 U.S.C. § 102(e): claims 1-11 and 13-19
Appellants argue their invention is not anticipated by Sampath (Br. 5-
11). Specifically, Appellants contend Sampath does not teach (i) a first
central data processor that is located with a printing press; (ii) a second
central data processor locally distanced from the first central data processor;
Appeal 2010-002643
Application 10/000,692

4
(iii) the first central data processor controlling the printing press via a
control line; and (iv) transmitting the data over the internet to a second
central data processor (id.). Appellants assert that since the diagnostic server
100 is separated from each monitored electronic system 200 by a link and by
one or more networks 25, the diagnostic server 100 is not located with one
of the electronic systems 200 (Br. 6 and 9-10). Appellants further argue
since the term “server” has a “well accepted meaning,” the server is not
located with multiple clients being serviced via one or more networks (id.).
Thus, according to Appellants, Sampath does not teach a first central data
processor that is located with a printing press (id.).
Appellants next argue, the repair planning circuit 165 (second central
data processor) is not locally distanced from the diagnostic server 100 (first
central data processor) because the repair planning circuit 165 is part of the
diagnostic server 100 (Br. 6-7 and 9). Therefore, Sampath does not teach
that the second central data processor is locally distanced from the first
central data processor (Br. 7 and 9).
In addition, Appellants contend the diagnostic server 100 of Sampath
sends control commands to an electronic system 200 (printer) over the
network 25, and the diagnostic server 100 also transmits information to the
“other entity” over the network 25 (Br. 8 and 11). Thus, according to
Appellants, Sampath teaches the diagnostic server 100 (first central data
processor) sends control commands to the electronic system 200 via a
network 25 and does not teach the first central data processor controls a
printing press via a control line (id.).
Nor, Appellants assert, does Sampath teach the second central data
processor is connected to the first central data processor through the internet
Appeal 2010-002643
Application 10/000,692

5
(Br. 10 and 11). Appellants argue the repair circuit 165 is connected to other
parts of the diagnostic server 100 by the link 75 and not by the network 25
(Br. 11).
According to Appellants the Examiner has equated the networks 25
with the claimed internet and thus, the data path formed by the networks 25
cannot satisfy both the claimed control line and the claimed Internet (id.).

Issues: Has the Examiner erred in finding Sampath discloses:
(i) a first central data processor that is located with a printing
press;
(ii) a second central data process locally distanced from the first
central data processor;
(iii) the first central data processor controlling the printing press via
a control line; and
(iv) transmitting the data over the internet to a second central data
processor
as recited in claim 1 and commensurately recited in claim 14?

ANALYSIS
We agree with the Examiner’s findings and adopt them as our own.
We highlight and address specific findings and arguments regarding claim 1
for emphasis. Initially, we note Appellants have not explicitly defined the
terms “located with” and “locally distanced from” in their Specification.
The Examiner has adopted a broad but reasonable interpretation in light of
the Specification for the terms (Ans. 12-14). Appellants have not persuaded
us the interpretation is in error. Specifically, the phrase “located with” does
Appeal 2010-002643
Application 10/000,692

6
not indicate any geographic limitations. Therefore, Sampath describes the
first central data processor located with the printing press in the same room,
building, city, etc., as noted by the Examiner (Ans. 14).
Further, as set forth by the Examiner (Ans. 14), Sampath describes the
diagnostic server being incorporated into a printer (col. 9, ll. 40-54) – the
monitored electronic system located with the diagnostic server. Thus, in
light of the evidence before us, we find Sampath discloses “a first central
data processor that is located with a printing press.”
Sampath describes status data being sent to the diagnostic server 100
and to one or more service and/or parts supplier or other entity on the
network (col. 5, ll. 43-48). We agree with the Examiner (Ans. 16) the other
entity and/or service or parts supplier is a second central data processor.
Similarly, Appellants have not persuaded us the Examiner’s interpretation of
“locally distanced” is in error (id.). Appellants have not explicitly defined
“locally distanced” as having a specific geographic region and thus, the first
and second central data processors being in the same room or local building
would be “locally distanced.”
We further agree with the Examiner that Sampath describes an
automatic repair mode in which the diagnostic server (first central data
processor) can forward command and control signals back to the electronic
system (Ans. 17-18; see col. 6, l. 66- col. 7, l. 8). Therefore, Sampath
describes controlling the printing press. We further agree with the Examiner
to send such signals to the printing press would inherently involve use of a
control medium such as a control line (Ans. 18). Since, as discussed above,
the diagnostic server and monitored electronic system may be located
together in a printer, while the control line would be internal to the printer.
Appeal 2010-002643
Application 10/000,692

7
Accordingly, Appellants have not persuaded us of any deficiencies in the
Examiner’s findings and reasoning; therefore, we find Sampath discloses
“the first central data processor controlling the printing press via a control
line.”
Appellants’ argument that Sampath does not describe transmitting the
data and an identification key over the internet to a second central data
processor is similarly unpersuasive. As discussed above, Sampath discloses
a second central data processor communicating with the first central data
processor through the network 25 which can be the internet (col. 4, ll. 6-10).
Therefore, we find Sampath discloses transmitting the data and the
identification key over the internet to a second central data processor.
Appellants’ further argument that the Examiner is equating the
network 25 as both the Intranet and control line is also not persuasive.
Sampath discloses “[t]he network 25 can be anyone of, or combination of, a
direct serial connection, … the Internet, or the like” (col. 4, ll. 6-10).
Therefore, regardless of whether the diagnostic server is incorporated into
the monitored electronic system, Sampath discloses the network can be a
combination of connections; therefore, the network can be both the control
line and the internet.
Accordingly, based on the record before us, we find the Examiner did
not err in finding Sampath discloses the invention as recited in independent
claim 1; commensurately recited independent claim 14; and claims 2-11, 13,
and 15-19, not separately argued. Therefore, the Examiner did not err in
rejecting claims 1-11 and 13-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) for anticipation by
Sampath.

Appeal 2010-002643
Application 10/000,692

8

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-11 and 13-19 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as being anticipated by Sampath is affirmed.

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)(iv) (2010).

AFFIRMED

ELD