Ex Parte Ferlitsch et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 30, 2012

10870817 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 30, 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.
10/870,817 06/17/2004 Andrew Rodney Ferlitsch SLA1594 8982
7590 08/30/2012
Gerald W. Maliszewski
P.O. Box 270829
San Diego, CA 92198-2829
EXAMINER
SARPONG, AKWASI
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2625
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/30/2012 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 ANDREW RODNEY FERLITSCH,
RON NEIL PATTON, and SCOTT CRAIG KOSS
____________________

Appeal 2010-004802
Application 10/870,817
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before: MARC S. HOFF, CARLA M. KRIVAK, and
ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judges.

MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-004802
Application 10/870,817

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-7, 9-24, and 26-32.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

THE INVENTION
Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to a client device having a
User Interface (UI) 204 which presents image job options represented by the
adaptive universal symbols from a list of supported symbols received on line
222. See Spec. 9:1-3, 12:18-19, Fig. 2 and Br. 5.
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative.
1. A method for processing an imaging job using adaptive
universal symbols, the method comprising:

at a client device job source, establishing a user interface
(UI) representing imaging job options with adaptive universal
symbols as follows, where an adaptive universal symbol is
defined as a non-text graphic icon representing a function
associated with imaging:

establishing a bi-directional communication path between
the job source and a symbol storage device external to the client
device;

at the job source, receiving a list of supported adaptive
universal symbols from the symbol storage device, supported
by an imaging device external to the client device;

displaying the list of supported symbols;

accepting adaptive universal symbol selections from the
UI;

1 Claims 8 and 25 have been cancelled.
Appeal 2010-004802
Application 10/870,817

3
sending an imaging job to the imaging device, in an
imaging device-specific format, along with the adaptive
universal symbol selections; and,

at the imaging device, processing the imaging job in
response to the selected adaptive universal symbols.

REFERENCES and REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1-32 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) based on
the teachings of Kato (US 6,795,663 B2, Sep. 21, 2004) and Wong (US
Patent App. Pub. No. 2004/0246511 A1, Dec. 9, 2004).

ISSUE
The pivotal issue is whether Appellants have shown that the Examiner
erred in finding that:
Kato teaches the limitation of “at a client device job source,
establishing a user interface (UI) representing imaging job options with
adaptive universal symbols . . . defined as non-text graphic icon representing
a function associated with imaging . . . at the job source, receiving a list of
supported adaptive universal symbols from the symbol storage device,
supported by an imaging device external to the client device . . .sending an
imaging job to the imaging device . . . along with the adaptive universal
symbol selections” as recited in claim 1.

ANALYSIS
Appellants argue, inter alia, that contrary to the Examiner’s assertions
(Ans. 4-5, referring to col. 6, ll. 15-40), “Kato does not disclose a system
where a client device initially accesses a repository to discover a list of
Appeal 2010-004802
Application 10/870,817

4
universal job option symbols supported by an external imaging device
connected to the client device” (Br. 8).
We are persuaded by Appellants’ arguments. The Examiner relied on
column 6, lines 15-40, of Kato. The cited section of Kato, however, gives
examples of Kato’s touch panel 401 depicted in Figure 3 as part of the
control panel 206 of the copying apparatus 110, rather than of the client PC
101 required by the claim (see col. 5, ll. 36-39 and also see col. 3, ll. 20-28,
referring to Figures 4-6 as examples of template windows of the Figure 3
embodiment).
Wong does not cure the above noted deficiency. Accordingly, we
reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 and for the same reasons the
rejections of claims 2-7, 9-24, and 26-32.

CONCLUSION
Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in finding that:
Kato teaches the limitation of “at a client device job source, establishing a
user interface (UI) representing imaging job options with adaptive universal
symbols . . . defined as non-text graphic icon representing a function
associated with imaging . . . at the job source, receiving a list of supported
adaptive universal symbols from the symbol storage device, supported by an
imaging device external to the client device . . . sending an imaging job to
the imaging device . . . along with the adaptive universal symbol selections”
as recited in claim 1.

Appeal 2010-004802
Application 10/870,817

5
ORDER
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-7, 9-24, and 26-32 is
reversed.
REVERSED

Judges’ Initials:

pgc