Ex Parte Hoover et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 2, 2012

10053673 (B.P.A.I. May. 2, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte RICK P. HOOVER and SHELL S. SIMPSON
____________________

Appeal 2010-002995
Application 10/053,673
Technology Center 2600

____________________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, DAVID M. KOHUT, and BRYAN F.
MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.

MOORE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-002995
Application 10/053,673

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal from a final rejection of claims 1, 4-7, 9, 16, 17, 19,
22, 54, 57-60, 62, 67, 68, and 93-98 under authority of 35 U.S.C. § 134(a).
The Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI) has jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Claims 2, 3, 8, 20, 21, 23-26, 55, 56, 61, 71, and 72
are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be
allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of
the base claim and any intervening claims. Claims 10-15, 18, 27-53, 63-66,
69, 70, 73-92, and 99-101 were cancelled.
We AFFIRM.

Invention
Appellants’ invention relates to mobile printing via an On-the-Go
Print Queue on the internet. (See Spec. 2-3).

Claim
Claim 1 is exemplary:
1. A method for mobile printing, comprising:

creating print data on a client computer;

transferring the print data from the client computer to an
On-the-Go Print Queue on the Internet for storage;

recording a reference to the On-the-Go Print Queue on a
portable computing device connected to the client computer;

Appeal 2010-002995
Application 10/053,673

3
connecting the portable computing device to a printer
having Internet access capability and programmed to read
references from portable computing devices;

reading with the printer the reference to the On-the-Go
Print Queue from the portable computing device;

accessing the On-the-Go Print Queue with the printer;

receiving with the printer the print data stored on the On-
the-Go Print Queue; and printing the print data on the printer.

Prior Art
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Matsubayashi US 2003/0093670 May 15, 2003

Mazzagatte US 6,862,583 B1 Mar. 1, 2005

Examiner’s Rejection
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 4-7, 9, 54, 57-60, 62, and 93-96
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Mazzagatte. The Examiner
rejected claims 1, 4, 9, 16, 17, 19, 22, 54, 57, 62, 67, 68, 93, 97, and 98
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Matsubayashi.
ISSUE
Whether the Examiner has erred in rejecting claims 1, 4-7, 9, 16, 17,
19, 22, 54, 57-60, 62, 67, 68, and 93-98 as being anticipated by Mazzagatte
and/or Matsubayashi because the references fail to teach the claim limitation
of “recording a reference to the On-the-Go Print Queue . . . ?” (Claim 1).
Appeal 2010-002995
Application 10/053,673

4
ANALYSIS
In all the rejections, Appellants’ arguments focus on how to interpret
the term “reference to the On-the-Go Print Queue.” Appellants do not
dispute the teachings of the references relevant to the claims at issue.
However, Appellants argue, with respect to independent claim 1, that
Mazzagatte does not disclose the “reference to” a print queue as claimed
(App. Br. 7-8). According to Appellants, the Examiner, in applying the
Mazzagatte reference, has construed the term “reference to” in a manner
which is inconsistent with the ordinary meaning of the term and the usage of
the term in the Specification (App. Br. 9).1 In Appellants’ view, the
Examiner erred in equating Mazzagatte's disclosure of “unique identification
information” which is used to look up information in the print queue with
the claimed reference to the print queue (App. Br. 9; Reply Br. 2).

We do not agree with Appellants. We find no error in the Examiner's
determination that Mazzagatte's disclosure (col. 10, lines 13-24) that a
“printer utilizes the [unique identification] information presented by the
smart-card and compares it to the identification information stored in the
print queue” is consistent with Appellants’ characterization of the accepted
ordinary meaning of “reference to.” (Ans. 12-15). As explained by the
Examiner, “Mazzagatte teaches that the unique identification information is
used for referencing the print queue.” (Ans. 14).

1 Appellant cites Merriam Webster's Online Dictionary in support of the
contention that the ordinary meaning of the term “reference to” is “allusion
to” or “refers a reader or consulter to another source of information.” App.
Br. 9.

Appeal 2010-002995
Application 10/053,673

5
Appellants make the same arguments discussed above regarding
Matsubayashi. We agree with the Examiner’s response that similar to
Mazzagatte, Matsubayashi teaches that unique identification information is
used for referencing the print queue (Ans. 17).

CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in determining that rejected claim 1 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) is anticipated by Mazzagatte and Matsubayashi.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. §102 rejections of claim
1 and claims 4-7, 9, 16, 17, 19, 22, 54, 57-60, 62, 67, 68, and 93-98, not
separately argued2, that fall therewith.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 4-7, 9, 16, 17, 19, 22, 54,
57-60, 62, 67, 68, and 93-98 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).

AFFIRMED
tj

2 Appellants argue claim 1, 4-7, 9, 16, 17, 19, and 22 as a group (Br. 7-11
and 15-18). Appellants argue independent claims 54 and 93 separately.
However, Appellants make the same argument regarding those claims as
was made with regard to claim 1. (Br. 13-15, and 18-19.) Based on the
absence of a specific argument directed to claims 54 and 93, we treat claims
1, 4-7, 9, 16, 17, 19, 22, 54, 57-60, 62, 67, 68, and 93-98 as standing or
falling together.