Ex Parte Lee et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 28, 2019

15258941 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Feb. 28, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
15/258,941 09/07/2016
22879 7590 03/04/2019
HP Inc.
3390 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 35
FORT COLLINS, CO 80528-9544
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Ethan Lee
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
84515457 1217
EXAMINER
SANDERS, HOW ARD J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3658
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/04/2019 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):
ipa.mail@hp.com
barbl@hp.com
yvonne.bailey@hp.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ETHAN LEE, DEVIN UEHLING, and PETER J. BOUCHER
Appeal2018-006583 1
Application 15/258,941 2
Technology Center 3600
Before BIBHU R. MOHANTY, KENNETH G. SCHOPPER, and
TARA L. HUTCHINGS, Administrative Patent Judges.
SCHOPPER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the rejection of claims
1-5, 7-12, and 17-21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Our decision references the Appeal Brief ("Appeal Br.," filed Jan. 30,
2018), the Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed June 8, 2018), the Examiner's
Answer ("Ans.," mailed May 15, 2018), and the Final Office Action ("Final
Act.," mailed Nov. 8, 2017).
2 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Hewlett-Packard
Development Company, L.P. ("HPDC"), which is "a wholly-owned affiliate
of HP Inc .... [ and t ]he general or managing partner of HPDC is HPQ
Holdings, LLC." Appeal Br. 4.
Appeal2018-006583
Application 15/258,941
BACKGROUND
The Specification discloses "[a] sheet media pick mechanism for a
printer may include a separator pad or roller to help separate the top sheet in
a stack from next-to-top sheets as the top sheet is picked from the stack and
fed into the printer." Spec. ,r 1.
CLAIMS
Claims 1, 7, and 1 7 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1 is
illustrative of the appealed claims and recites:
1. A torque control system for a sheet media pick
mechanism to move a top sheet of media from a stack of media
sheets into a nip between a pick roller and a separator roller, the
torque contro 1 system comprising:
a sensor to sense a number of consecutive pick failures;
and
a controller operatively connected to the sensor, the
controller to reduce a torque applied to the separator roller
during a pick attempt after each pick failure in an amount
corresponding to the number of consecutive pick failures
sensed by the sensor.
Appeal Br. 20.
REJECTION
The Examiner rejects claims 1-5, 7-12, and 17-21 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(a)(l) as anticipated by Yasukawa. 3
3 Yasukawa et al., US 2006/0214356 Al, pub. Sept. 28, 2006.
2
Appeal2018-006583
Application 15/258,941
DISCUSSION
Claims 1-5 and 17-21
We are persuaded of reversible error by Appellants' argument that
Y asukawa does not disclose a controller that reduces the torque applied to a
separator roller by an amount corresponding to the number of consecutive
pick failures ( claim 1) or a method including a step in which the torque
applied to a separator roller is reduced in an amount corresponding to the
number of consecutive pick failures ( claim 17).
With respect to claim 1, the Examiner finds that Yasukawa's brake
roller is a separator roller, as claimed, and that the torque applied to the
separator roller is lowered in an amount corresponding to the number of
consecutive pick failures sensed a sensor. Final Act. 2-3 ( citing Y asukawa
,r 28). In support, the Examiner asserts that the term "pick failure" should be
construed broadly "to include all steps not leading to a successful pick
attempt of a single sheet," which would include "a pick attempt failing
because of slip between the pick roller ( called the separator roller in
Yasukawa) and the sheet." Ans. 4--5. The Examiner also asserts that
Y asukawa discloses "torque reductions [that] occur after slip is present
between the separating roller and the sheet, thus after a pick failure. The
reductions further occur at consecutive pick failures when occurring at the
next iteration of the control sequence illustrated in Figure 8 for a subsequent
sheet that is fed." Id. at 5.
Appellants argue, inter alia, that Y asukawa does not disclose
reduction in the torque applied to the separator roller in an amount
corresponding the number of consecutive pick failures. Appeal Br. 13-14.
We agree. The Examiner identifies only the detection of slip between the
3
Appeal2018-006583
Application 15/258,941
pick roller and the sheet as any pick failure disclosed in Yasukawa. See
Final Act. 5; Ans. 4. Further, the Examiner identifies the torque reduction
from "small" to "minimum" at step S8 in Yasukawa's Figure 8 as the only
reduction in torque that occurs as a result of slip detection. Thus, the
Examiner has identified only a single amount for the reduction in torque and
has not explained or pointed to any portion of Y asukawa that shows a
reduction in torque by an amount that corresponds to the number of
consecutive pick failures. Rather, the cited portions of Y asukawa show only
that torque is reduced by the same amount, i.e., from small to minimum,
whenever a slip is detected.
Based on the foregoing, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1.
Similarly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 17 because the Examiner
has not established that Y asukawa discloses a method in which torque is
reduced by an amount corresponding to a number of consecutive pick
failures. We also do not sustain the rejection of dependent claims 2-5 and
18-21 for the same reasons.
Claims 7-12
Independent claim 7 does not recite a controller. Rather, claim 7
requires, inter alia, a motor that includes a torque limiter. Appeal Br. 21.
The Examiner finds that Y asukawa discloses a torque limiter because
Yasukawa discloses situations in which torque is limited. Final Act. 3
( citing Yasukawa Fig. 4; ,r 65). Appellants assert that the Examiner has not
established that Yasukawa discloses a torque limiter, which should be
interpreted according to its plain meaning as a device that limits torque to
avoid damage from mechanical overload. Appeal Br. 16-17. We are
persuaded by Appellants' argument. We find that the plain meaning
4
Appeal2018-006583
Application 15/258,941
provided by Appellants is consistent with how the term is used in the
Specification to the extent that the Specification describes or indicates that
the torque limiter is a device that keeps the torque below a certain threshold.
See, e.g., Spec. ,r,r 12, 18, 24. Thus, we determine that the broadest
reasonable interpretation of the term at least requires a device that limits the
torque to keep it below a certain threshold. Further, we find that the
Examiner has neither identified any specific structure disclosed in Y asukawa
that is a torque limiter, nor adequately explained how any structure of
Y asukawa acts as a device that limits torque to keep it below a certain
threshold. Rather, we agree with Appellants that the Examiner only
identifies portions of Yasukawa that disclose torque control, i.e., "setting a
particular torque for [Yasukawa's] break roller to apply)" instead of
identifying a device that keeps torque below a certain threshold. Thus, we
do not sustain the rejection of claim 7 or dependent claims 8-12.
CONCLUSION
We REVERSE the rejection of claims 1-5, 7-12, and 17-21.
REVERSED
5