Ex Parte Haines

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 22, 2012

09738795 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 22, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte ROBERT E. HAINES
____________________

Appeal 2009-012557
Application 09/738,795
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, ROBERT E. NAPPI, and
MICHAEL R. ZECHER, Administrative Patent Judges.

MacDONALD, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2009-012557
Application 09/738,795

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Introduction
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims
1-32. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Appellant’s Invention (Spec. 11-12)
Processing circuitry 44 controls operations of consumable
management device 14 including processing of first messages
regarding imaging consumables received within consumable
management device 14 and formulation of one or more second
message responsive thereto.
Exemplary first messages received within consumable
management device 14 include a first designation identifying an
imaging consumable used by the image forming device 10 to
form hard images. The first designation is, in one example, a
manufacturer part number for the imaging consumable requiring
replenishment. For example, if an image forming device 10
comprising a printer runs low on toner, the first message
includes a first designation comprising a manufacturer part
number identifying the appropriate toner.
According to aspects of the present invention, processing
circuitry 44 is configured to convert the first designation
identifying the imaging consumable to a second designation
identifying the imaging consumable. According to one described
example, an exemplary second designation is a customer part
number for the respective imaging consumable.
In an arrangement wherein image forming system 11 is
provided within customer premises, the first designation may
correspond to the manufacturer of components or devices within
image forming system 11 and the second designation
corresponds to identifiers used within an existing order system
(or equivalent entity) used by the given customer owning the
application or installed image forming system 11. The described
first and second designations are exemplary and designations
corresponding to other identifiers of imaging consumables are
possible.
Appeal 2009-012557
Application 09/738,795

3
Exemplary Claim
Exemplary independent claim 1 under appeal reads as follows:
A consumable management device comprising:
an interface configured to receive a first message
including a first designation identifying an imaging consumable
used by an image forming device to form hard images; and
processing circuitry coupled with the interface, the
processing circuitry being configured to convert the first
designation identifying the imaging consumable to a second
designation identifying the imaging consumable, to generate a
second message including the second designation, and to forward
the second message to the interface for communication to an
entity for assisting with replenishment of the imaging
consumable.
Rejections on Appeal
1. The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3-4, 7-9, 11, 13, 14, 16, 17,
and 19-32 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Hayward (US
6,798,997 B1).
2. The Examiner rejected claims 2, 5, 6, 10, 12, 15, and 18 as
being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of
Hayward and Hogge (US 5,983,194).

Appellant’s Contentions
Appellant contends that the Examiner erred in rejecting the claims
under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(e) and 103(a) for numerous reasons. Appellant
presents over fifteen allegations of Examiner error in the rejections.
Essentially, Appellant argues that: (a) the Examiner has erred in fact finding
as to nearly every element of every claim, and (b) the Examiner has erred in
every rationale for combining the applied references.
Appeal 2009-012557
Application 09/738,795

4

Issues on Appeal
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1, 3-4, 7-9, 11, 13, 14, 16,17,
and 19-32 as being anticipated because Hayward fails to teach the claim
limitations at issue?
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 2, 5, 6, 10, 12, 15, and 18 as
being obvious because the references fail to teach or suggest the claim
limitations at issue?

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments that the Examiner has erred.
We disagree with Appellant’s conclusions. We adopt as our own
(1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from
which this appeal is taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in
the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellant’s Appeal Brief. We
concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner.

CONCLUSIONS
(1) The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 1, 3, 4, 7-9, 11, 13,
14, 16, 17, and 19-32 as being anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
(1) The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 2, 5, 6, 10, 12, 15,
and 18 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
(2) Claims 1-32 are not patentable.
Appeal 2009-012557
Application 09/738,795

5

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1-32 are 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).

AFFIRMED
tj