11094964 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 10, 2012)

Ex Parte Willis et al

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesJan 10, 2012

11094964 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 10, 2012)

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. 11/094,964 03/31/2005 Keith L. Willis 089382-0314280 3380 76113 7590 01/10/2012 PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN, LLP (Xerox) XEROX CORPORATION P.O. BOX 10500 MCLEAN, VA 22102 EXAMINER SANDERS, HOWARD J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3653 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/10/2012 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________________ Ex parte KEITH L. WILLIS and TOM KEYES ____________________ Appeal 2009-011799 Application 11/094,964 Technology Center 3600 ____________________ Before: STEVEN D.A. MCCARTHY, PHILLIP J. KAUFFMAN, and WILLIAM V. SAINDON, Administrative Patent Judges. SAINDON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2009-011799 Application 11/094,964 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 3-5, 7, 9, 10, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Chang (US 2003/0227127 A1, pub. Dec. 11, 2003). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter. 1. A media feeder tray for retaining sheets, the tray comprising: a sheet receiving arrangement suitable for supporting the sheets therein; a moveable front member attached to the sheet receiving arrangement at a front portion thereof, said moveable front member being arranged so as to allow access thereto by a user when said media feeder tray is in an operational configuration; and a slidable stack module arranged in the sheet receiving arrangement so as to be slid in and out of the sheet receiving arrangement through the front portion when the sheet receiving arrangement is in the open position, said moveable front member being configured to move between a vertical closed position that closes the front portion of the sheet receiving arrangement and an open position that opens the front portion of the sheet receiving arrangement, said open position being configured to allow the user to load sheets into the media feeder tray while said media feeder tray is in the operational configuration. SUMMARY OF DECISION We AFFIRM. Appeal 2009-011799 Application 11/094,964 3 OPINION Appellants raise two issues in this appeal. The first issue is whether Chang describes a slidable stack module. App. Br. 5-8; Reply Br. 2-4. The second issue is whether Chang describes an open position. App. Br. 8-9; Reply Br. 5-7. Slidable Stack Module The Examiner found that rear guide member 130 in Chang describes a slidable stack module. Ans. 4. Appellants’ first attempt to distinguish the claims from Chang by pointing to differences between Chang’s rear guide member and the slidable stack module 65 in figure 2C of Appellants’ drawings. App. Br. 5-8. Notably, however, Appellants’ argument does not address how rear guide member 130 fails to meet the claim limitation and Appellants do not persuasively explain why the term “slidable stack module” as used in claim 1 might be limited to the particular slidable stack module 65 appearing in the Specification and the drawing. Appellants next argue that the rear guide member 130 in Chang does not slide through end wall 114, and thus does not meet the claim limitation requiring the slidable stack member to be slid in and out of the sheet receiving arrangement “through the front portion.” Reply Br. 2-4. However, the Examiner found end wall 114 describes a movable front member, not a front portion. Ans. 4. Claim 1 states that the movable front member is attached to the sheet receiving arrangement at a front portion. The front portion is merely a description of a location on the sheet receiving arrangement where the movable front member is attached, e.g., near the hinge parts 150 in Chang. As shown in figure 2, the rear guide member 130 is clearly past the hinge 150, and thus it extends through the front portion. Appeal 2009-011799 Application 11/094,964 4 After consideration of the issue in view of Appellants’ arguments, we do not find the Examiner erred in finding Chang describes a slidable stack module. Open Position The Examiner found that figure 2 of Chang depicts the claimed “open position.” Ans. 4. The Examiner found that sheets may be fed over the rear guide member 130 and into the open media feeder tray in Chang while in this configuration. Ans. 6. Appellants argue that the rear guide member 130 would not allow an “‘open position’ … while the media feeder tray is in the operational configuration, i.e., while in use by a media imaging device.” App. Br. 8. Appellants do not explain why “operational configuration” means “while in use by a media imaging device.” Indeed, the Specification is silent as to what an “operational configuration” of the media feeder tray means. If anything, given the disclosure of paragraphs 2, 20, and 271, it would appear to simply mean the “open position” of the media feeder tray allowing paper to be loaded. Each of these paragraphs describes how the open position allows paper to be added to the tray without the issues involved with a non- movable front wall (i.e., having to load paper over a non-movable front wall). In paragraph 27, the stack module is described as “operational [sic] configured to slide out tray 40 to allow top loading into the stack module,” but claim 1 is not directed to the stack module being in an operational configuration. Accordingly, we do not adopt Appellants’ definition of “operational configuration” and instead read the limitation in light of the 1 Appellants provided these paragraphs as support for this limitation. App. Br. 4. Appeal 2009-011799 Application 11/094,964 5 Specification to mean an “open position” allowing paper to be loaded into the media feeder tray. Given a proper interpretation, it is clear that figure 2 of Chang depicts an open position as required by claim 1. As the Examiner found, sheets may be loaded over the rear guide member 130 and into the media feeder tray. Ans. 6. Given that the rear guide member is through the front portion of the tray, sheets may be loaded without removing the tray from the machine it feeds. After consideration of the issue in view of Appellants’ arguments, we do not find the Examiner erred in finding Chang describes an open position. DECISION Appellants only set forth separate arguments for claim 1. The remaining claims fall with claim 1. Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s decision regarding claims 1, 3-5, 7, 9, 10, and 21. 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 mls