Ex Parte Newell et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 15, 2012

10455588 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 15, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte LAWRENCE B. NEWELL, JR., KIM BROWN, and
ROBERT J. LAVEY
____________

Appeal 2009-013320
Application 10/455,588
Technology Center 2600
____________

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

KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-15 and 38-43. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

Appeal 2009-013320
Application 10/455,588

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to printing device having
media path flushing (Spec. 1:9).
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the
subject matter on appeal.
1. A printing device for use with a peripheral
media-handling device defining a peripheral media path with a
first sensor therealong comprising:

a print engine coupled with the peripheral media-
handling device to accommodate conveyance of media
therebetween, the print engine defining an engine media path
between an inlet and an outlet thereof, and including a second
sensor therealong; and

a processor configured to calculate a greatest distance
collectively along the media paths that media can travel without
reaching one of the sensors, the processor being further
configured to command substantially simultaneous flushing of
the peripheral media-handling device and the print engine to
advance media the calculated greatest distance.

REFERENCES and REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claims 1-15 and 38-43 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) based upon the teachings of Farrell (U.S. Patent Number 6,762,856
B2 (filed October 4, 2001)), Masuda (U.S. Patent Number 5,003,346 (filed
January 17, 1989)), and Brewster (U.S. Patent Number 5,639,171 (filed
February 2, 1995)).

Appeal 2009-013320
Application 10/455,588

3
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds Farrell discloses a printing device as claimed
except for a processor for calculating a greatest distance along a media path
(Ans. 4). The Examiner cites Masuda for this feature and finds neither
Farrell nor Masuda disclose control means that commands simultaneous
flushing of the system when a sensor senses a jam (Ans. 4-5). The Examiner
then finds Brewster discloses this feature (Ans. 5-6).
Appellants assert none of Farrell, Masuda, or Brewster, alone or in
combination, disclose simultaneous flushing of a print engine and a
peripheral media-handling device, as claimed (App. Br. 8; Reply Br. 2).
Further, Appellants contend Brewster does not disclose flushing a system,
rather, Brewster “merely indicates that ‘jam recovery’ is to be initiated”
(App. Br. 9). Additionally, Appellants state claim 1 recites nothing in
response to sensing a jam, as found by the Examiner. Instead, when paper is
jammed, it cannot be moved along a media path; thus, it cannot be flushed,
contrary to the Examiner’s findings (App. Br. 9; Reply Br. 3-4; see also, for
example, Spec. 6)
We agree with Appellants. Particularly, we agree that Brewster does
not disclose “simultaneous flushing of a print engine and a peripheral media-
handling device” as claimed (App. Br. 8; Reply Br. 2). Neither Farrell nor
Masuda remedy this deficiency. Thus, claims 1-15 and 38-43 are not
obvious over the cited references.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-15 and 38-43 is reversed.

Appeal 2009-013320
Application 10/455,588

4
REVERSED

Llw/peb