Ex Parte Sampath et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 24, 2013

11522171 (P.T.A.B. May. 24, 2013)

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.
11/522,171 09/15/2006 Meera Sampath 20051335USNP-XER1382US01 3939
61962 7590 05/24/2013
FAY SHARPE LLP / XEROX - PARC
1228 EUCLID AVENUE, 5TH FLOOR
THE HALLE BUILDING
CLEVELAND, OH 44115
EXAMINER
RIAD, AMINE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2113
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/24/2013 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte MEERA SAMPATH, MARKUS P.J. FROMHERZ,
DUSAN G. LYSY, RAJINDERJEET SINGH MINHAS,
NAVEEN SHARMA, WILLIAM JOSEPH HANNAWAY,
and WHEELER RUML
____________

Appeal 2010-010417
Application 11/522,171
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, CAROLYN D. THOMAS, and
JOHN A. EVANS, Administrative Patent Judges.

RUGGIERO, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection
of claims 1-28, which are all of the pending claims. Claim 29 has been
canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
Appeal 2010-010417
Application 11/522,171

2
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner,
we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed Oct. 23, 2009), the Answer (corrected,
mailed Feb. 18, 2010), and the Reply Brief (filed Mar. 17, 2010).

Appellants’ Invention
Appellants’ invention relates to fault management in printing systems
in which print media is transferred between a plurality of print media
processing modules. A fault management agent is associated with each of
the modules and is in communication with a fault management system which
receives fault-related data from the fault management agents. Upon analysis
of the fault-related data and identification of faults, a reconfiguration agent
can reconfigure the printing system to mitigate an impact of at least one of
the identified faults. See generally Abstract.

Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and reads as follows:
1. A printing system comprising:

a plurality of print media processing modules which transfer
print media therebetween during printing, a fault management agent
associated with each of the modules for acquiring fault-related data from the
respective processing module, each fault management agent including a data
logging component comprising memory for logging sensed information and
a fault detection unit for providing preliminary analysis of the logged
information, the preliminary analysis including detection of a fault in the
respective processing module; and

a fault management system in communication with the fault
management agents which receives fault-related data from the fault
management agents, the fault management system processing the fault
related data from the fault management agents to identify faults in the
printing system.
Appeal 2010-010417
Application 11/522,171

3
The Examiner’s Rejections
The Examiner’s Answer cites the following prior art references:
Thieret US 5,923,834 Jul. 13, 1999
Kikuchi US 2005/0141013 A1 Jun. 30, 2005

Claims 1-28, all of the appealed claims, stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Thieret in view of Kikuchi.

ANALYSIS
Claims 1-19
Appellants initially contend, with respect to independent claims 1, 3,
and 17, that Thieret does not teach or suggest a fault management system as
claimed. In particular, Appellants contend that Thieret has no teaching or
suggestion of a fault management system which communicates with fault
management agents associated with each of a plurality of print media print
processing modules to acquire fault-related data (App. Br. 14-16; Reply Br.
7-8). Appellants further direct attention to the limitation of claims 1, 3, and
17 which requires that the print media processing modules transfer print
media between the modules during printing.
We agree with Appellants as our interpretation of the disclosure of
Thieret coincides with that of Appellants. The Examiner initially makes
reference to the Figure 4 embodiment of Thieret and the included monitor,
analysis, and diagnostics components 202, 204, and 206 (Ans. 4-5). As
argued by Appellants, however, Thieret’s diagnostic component 206 does
not process fault-related from a plurality of print media module associated
fault management agents as claimed, but, instead, receives fault-related data
for a machine 222 from a single monitor 202.
Appeal 2010-010417
Application 11/522,171

4
We also agree with Appellants that the Examiner’s additional citation
(Ans. 12-13) to the Figure 6 embodiment of Thieret and the included
machine servers 234, 242, 250, 270, and 278 and network servers 256, 284,
and 290 does not correspond to the claimed fault management system (App.
Br. 15; Reply Br. 7-8). To whatever extent the Examiner’s contention that
Thieret’s machine servers correspond to the claimed fault management
agents and the network servers correspond to the claimed fault management
system has any merit, these servers are linked to independent printing
machines 232, 240, 248, 260, 268, and 276, not to print media processing
modules which transfer print media during printing as claimed.
We further agree with Appellants that the Examiner’s reliance (Ans.
12) on Kikuchi does not overcome the above-discussed deficiencies of
Thieret. As argued by Appellants (App. Br. 18-19; Reply Br, 9-10), in
addition to Kikuchi’s failure to teach or suggest the claimed fault
management agent feature, Kikuchi’s disclosure is directed to a redirect-on-
error system in which data in the form of a “print job” is redirected from one
stand-alone printer to another stand-alone printer. Thus, in Kikuchi, no print
media is transferred between printers during printing as claimed.
In view of the above discussion, since we are of the opinion that the
proposed combination of references set forth by the Examiner does not
support the obviousness rejection, we do not sustain the rejection of
independent claims 1, 3, and 17, nor the rejection of claims 2, 4-16, 18, and
19 dependent thereon.

Appeal 2010-010417
Application 11/522,171

5
Claims 20-28
We also do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
independent claims 20 (and its dependent claims 21-27) and 28, each of
which includes limitations directed to the identification of a first processing
module which is a source of a fault detected by a second processing module.
In addressing the requirements of independent claims 20 and 28, the
Examiner directs attention to steps 1305 and 1307 in the flow chart of
Kikuchi’s Figure 13 (Ans. 5).
We agree with Appellants (App.Br. 22), however, that, while Kikuchi
may identify a fault in a particular printing apparatus, there is no
identification of a fault which is causing a fault that has been detected in
another printing apparatus as claimed. The Examiner’s additional reference
(Ans. 13) to the trend predicting suggestion in the Abstract of Thieret is
equally unpersuasive. As argued by Appellants (Reply Br. 11), the
machines of Thieret operate independently and there is no teaching or
suggestion that a fault can be identified in one machine which is causing a
fault in another machine.

Appeal 2010-010417
Application 11/522,171

6
CONCLUSION OF LAW
Based on the analysis above, we conclude that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claims 1-28 for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).1

DECISION
The Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 1-28, all of the
appealed claims, is reversed.

REVERSED

pgc

1 We have decided the appeal before us. However, should there be
further prosecution with respect to claim 27, the Examiner’s attention is
directed to In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2007), and Subject Matter
Eligibility of Computer Readable Media, 1351 OFF. GAZ. PAT. OFFICE
212 (Feb. 23, 2010); see also U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, Interim
Examination Instructions for Evaluating Subject Matter Eligibility Under
35 U.S.C. § 101,at 2 (Aug. 2009), available at
http://www.uspto.gov/patents/law/comments/2009-08-
25_interim_l0l_instructions.pdf.