Ex Parte Yamada et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 6, 2017

12691117 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 6, 2017)

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.
12/691,117 01/21/2010 Satoshi Yamada TOSHP185USC 9123
23623 7590 11/08/2017
AMIN, TUROCY & WATSON, LLP
127 Public Square
57 th Floor, Key Tower
CLEVELAND, OH 44114
EXAMINER
CULLER, JILL E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2854
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/08/2017 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):
hmckee@thepatentattomeys.com
rveri@thepatentattorneys.com
docket @ thepatentattorney s. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SATOSHI YAMADA and HIROYUKI TAGUCHI
Appeal 2016-006281
Application 12/691,117
Technology Center 2800
Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, GEORGE C. BEST, and
CHRISTOPHER C. KENNEDY, Administrative Patent Judges.
BEST, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
The Examiner finally rejected claims 1—5 of Application 12/691,117
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious. Final Act. (March 18, 2015).
Appellants1 seek reversal of these rejections pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a).
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.
For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.
1 Appellants have not complied with our rule requiring them to identify the
real party in interest. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(i) (2015). The ’117
Application appears to be assigned to Toshiba Tec Kabushiki Kaisha. See
USPTO assignment records at reel/frame 023824/0329, recorded January 21,
2010.
Appeal 2016-006281
Application 12/691,117
BACKGROUND
The ’117 Application describes a printer system for thermo-sensitive
printing on a thermal recording paper having thermo-sensitive layers on both
sides, and a control method for such a printer system. Spec. 1.
Claim 1, the sole independent claim on appeal, is reproduced below
from the Claims Appendix:
1. A double-side printer system comprising:
a paper-feed unit which feeds a thermal recording paper in
which thermosensitive layers are formed on front and back faces
serving as a first recording surface and a second recording
surface, in a direction of paper feeding determined in advance;
a first thermal head which has a first plurality of heater
elements arrayed in a line form in a direction perpendicular to
the direction of paper feeding and an attached first sensor, and
which prints first information on the first recording surface of the
thermal recording paper at a first print density;
a second thermal head which has a second plurality of
heater elements arrayed in a line form in a direction
perpendicular to the direction of paper feeding and an attached
temperature sensor, and which prints second information on the
second recording surface of the thermal recording paper at a
second print density;
a memory which stores print data, first head information
for the first thermal head comprising the first print density,
second head information for the second thermal head comprising
the second print density, and a plurality of reference electrical
connection times; and
a control unit that retrieves the print data, the first head
information, the second head information from the memory, and
the plurality of reference electrical connection times, splits the
print data into first data and second data, sets a first electrical
connection on time for the first plurality of heating elements
according to the first print density calculated based on a first
reference electrical connection time from the plurality of
reference electrical connection times, determined based on a first
2
Appeal 2016-006281
Application 12/691,117
temperature of the first thermal head from the first sensor and the
first print density and that sets a second electrical connection on
time for the second plurality of heating elements according to the
second print density calculated based on a second reference
electrical connection time from the plurality of reference
electrical connection times determined based on a second
temperature of the second thermal head from the second sensor
and the second print density, wherein the control unit sets the
second electrical connection on time independently from the first
electrical connection on time,
wherein the first print data is printed on the first recording
surface of the thermal recording paper by the first thermal head,
and the second print data is printed on the second recording
surface of the thermal recording paper by the second thermal
head, wherein the first thermal head prints after the second
thermal head,
wherein the control unit comprises a control circuit is
housed in a host device that comprises a processing unit that
executes an electrical connection control process to facilitate the
determining of the first electrical connection on time and the
second electrical connection on time, and
wherein the first set temperature and the second set
temperature are the same temperature.
Appeal Br. 13—14.
3
Appeal 2016-006281
Application 12/691,117
REJECTION
On appeal, the Examiner maintains the following rejection:
Claims 1—5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
the combination of Oka,2 Mitsushima,3 Katsurai,4 Takada,5 and LeBlanc.6
Final Act. 2.
DISCUSSION
Appellants substantive arguments for reversal of this rejection are
limited to claim 1. See Appeal Br. 3—11. Claims 2—5, which depend from
claim 1, are not argued separately. See id. Accordingly, we select claim 1
as representative of the claims before us on appeal, and we limit our
discussion to claim 1.
Appellants advance multiple arguments for reversal of the rejection of
claim 1. See Appeal Br. 3—11. We address these arguments seriatim.
First, Appellants advance several arguments regarding the
combination of Oka and Mitsushima. See id. at 4—7. The Examiner
responds to these arguments by asserting that our decision in Ex parte
Yamada, No. 2014-002302, slip op. (January 25, 2016) (available at
2 US 5,452,959, issued September 26, 1995.
3 US 4,845,514, issued July 4, 1989.
4 US 4,679,053, issued July 7, 1987.
5 JP 2006-043900, published February 16, 2006. Without objection from
Appellants, we follow the Examiner in citing the Patent Abstracts of Japan
English language translation.
6 US 2006/0290770 Al, published December 28, 2006.
4
Appeal 2016-006281
Application 12/691,117
http :/7bit. ly/2vTqzQV)/7 precludes consideration of these arguments. See
Answer 2 (“Because these arguments have been previously adjudicated and
the examiner’s rejection affirmed, the Examiner is precluded by the
doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel from rehearing these
arguments (see MPEP 706.03(w)).”). Appellants do not respond to the
Examiner’s assertion of claim preclusion. We, therefore, determine that
Appellants have acquiesced to the Examiner’s assertion.
Second, Appellants argue that the Examiner erred by relying upon
Katsurai to describe controlling the print head electrical on time with respect
to a reference time that is based upon a temperature and a set speed for
printing. Appeal Br. 7—8. Appellants also argue that the Examiner’s
reliance upon Katsurai is misplaced because the teachings of Katsurai could
not be functionally incorporated into the methods of Mitsushima to reach the
claimed features. Id. at 8—9. Appellants further argue that “neither
Mitsushima nor Katsurai teach or suggest a relationship between a sensed
temperature and print speed which correlates to electrical connection on
times.” Id. at 9. These arguments are not persuasive because claim 1 does
not contain any limitation regarding the print speed of the claimed printer
system.
Third, Appellants argue that Takada describes a CPU that is unable to
set a first electrical connection on time and then individually set a second
electrical connection on time like the control unit recited in claim 1. Appeal
7 In that decision, we affirmed the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3, 5, 8,
and 21—26 of Application No. 11/681,902. The ’902 Application became
abandoned on April 1, 2016. The ’117 Application, which was filed on
January 21, 2010, is a division of the ’902 Application.
5
Appeal 2016-006281
Application 12/691,117
Br. 9. Appellants further argue that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the
time of the invention would not have combined Oka, Mitsushima, and
Takada to render claim 1 obvious as alleged. Id. at 10.
These arguments are is not persuasive because the Examiner does not
rely on Takada for a description of this claimed functionality. As stated in
the Final Action, the Examiner relies upon Takada for its description of “a
printing system wherein system information is stored in memory and printed
out onto a recording surface.” Final Act. 5; see also Answer 3^4.
Fourth, Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in relying on
LeBlanc for its description of a look up table. Appeal Br. 10. In particular,
Appellants argue that LeBlanc does not describe a table with the features
required by claim 1. Id. Appellants also argue that the Examiner erred in
finding that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated
to combine LeBlanc with the other references because the cited art teaches
away from the Examiner’s combination. Id. at 10—11.
These arguments are not persuasive. The Examiner found that
LeBlanc describes a control unit which consults a look up table to obtain
data needed to set the on times of the thermal head. Final Act. 6. LeBlanc’s
description establishes the equivalence of look up tables with the curves
described by Mitsushima. See LeBlanc ]Hf 22—24. A person of ordinary skill
in the art, therefore, would have had a reasonable expectation of success in
using LeBlanc’s look up tables as replacement for Mitsushima’s calibration
curves. Doing so would be a predictable use of LeBlanc’s description
according to its established function. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550
U.S. 398,417 (2007).
6
Appeal 2016-006281
Application 12/691,117
For the reasons set forth above, we affirm the rejection of claim 1.
Because we have affirmed the rejection of claim 1, we also affirm the
rejection of claims 2—5.8
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, we affirm the rejection of claims 1—5
of the ’117 Application.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
8 We also note that claim 5 refers to “the set print speed.” This phrase
appears to lack proper antecedent basis. If prosecution of the ’117
Application continues, Appellants and the Examiner may wish to address
this issue.
7