Sharp Kabushiki KaishaDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardApr 2, 20212019005970 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 2, 2021) Copy Citation 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. 14/923,568 10/27/2015 Kazushi YAMANEKI YMCHP0101USA 1723 72119 7590 04/02/2021 MARK D. SARALINO ( SHARP ) RENNER, OTTO, BOISSELLE & SKLAR, LLP 1621 EUCLID AVENUE 19TH FLOOR CLEVELAND, OH 44115 EXAMINER SARPONG, AKWASI ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2675 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/02/2021 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): ipdocket@rennerotto.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte KAZUSHI YAMANEKI, MANABU MATSUMOTO, and KAZUMA OGAWA Appeal 2019-005970 Application 14/923,568 Technology Center 2600 Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, CARL L. SILVERMAN, and MICHAEL T. CYGAN, Administrative Patent Judges. MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–16. See Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Sharp Kabushiki Kaisha. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2019-005970 Application 14/923,568 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to an image forming apparatus and image data processing method. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. An image processing apparatus performing a plurality of different data output processings for image data including a blank page, comprising: a storage portion for storing setting information indicating whether or not to perform data output processing of the image data with a blank page excluded for each of the data output processing; and a control portion for judging whether or not each data output processing is an output processing to be performed with a blank page of the image data excluded based on the setting information stored in the storage portion, executing a first data output processing which is judged as a data output processing to be performed with the blank page excluded by excluding the blank page, and executing a second data output processing which is judged as processing performed without excluding the blank page, by including the blank page, wherein the plurality of different data output processings are processings performed by a plurality of different data output functions of the image processing apparatus, the plurality of different data output functions include at least two of a document filing functions of image data, a data transmission function through a network, a print function, a facsimile transmission function of image data provided, and an electronic mail transmission function, the first data output processing is executed by at least one of the document filing function of image data, the data transmission function through the network, the print function, and the electronic mail transmission function, and the second data output processing is executed by the facsimile transmission function of image data provided, said first and second data output processings are applicable to the same image data to output first and second output data respectively. Appeal 2019-005970 Application 14/923,568 3 REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Gotoh US 2010/0053682 A1 Mar. 4, 2010 Muraishi US 2011/0228348 A1 Sept. 22, 2011 REJECTION Claims 1–16 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gotoh in view of Muraishi. OPINION We adopt the Examiner’s findings in the Final Action and Answer and we add the following for emphasis. Appellant argues that the combination of Gotoh and Muraishi does not teach or suggest the limitations of “the plurality of different data output processings are processings performed by a plurality of different data output functions,” “the plurality of different data output functions include at least two of a document filing functions of image data, a data transmission function through a network, a print function, a facsimile transmission function of image data provided, and an electronic mail transmission function,” and “said first and second data output processings are applicable to the same image data to output first and second output data respectively.” See Appeal Br. 8–12. In particular, Appellant argues that the claim recites, the first and second data output processings are applicable to the same image data to output first and second output data respectively. Appeal Br. 9. Appellant argues that the same image data input applies to the two different data output Appeal 2019-005970 Application 14/923,568 4 processings. Id. For example, according to Appellant, the same image data input applies to the electronic mail transmission function and to the facsimile transmission function. Id. Appellant argues Gotoh’s paragraph 33, relied on by the Examiner, does not teach or suggest the limitation of “said first and second data output processings are applicable to the same image data to output first and second output data respectively” as recited and defined in claim 1. Appeal Br. 9– 10. Appellant quotes the Examiner’s findings, in pertinent part stating that after the image is scanned and stored, the same image is read from the cache or the temporary storage and faxed through Telephone lines to an external device) said first and second data output processings are applicable to the same image data. Section 0033- thus it is the same image which was scanned, that gets faxed via the telephone lines to an external device hence the scanned image data reads on the first image data while the faxed image data reads on the second output data. Appeal Br. 10 (quoting Final Act. 2–3). Appellant explains that the Examiner, therefore, attempts to construe the “data output functions” of claim 1 and specifically the “document filing functions of image data” of claim 1 as corresponding to the internal storing of input image data that is obtained from scanning as part of the process of faxing. Id. Appellant argues that claim 1 itself and the Specification of the present invention makes clear that the data output processings and the data output functions including the “document filing functions” of claim 1 correspond to output functions of the image processing apparatus. Appeal Br. 10. According to Appellant the Specification makes clear that the internal storing of input image data that is obtained from scanning does not Appeal 2019-005970 Application 14/923,568 5 correspond to such an output function. Appeal Br. 10–11. Appellant quotes for example, Paragraph 27 of the Specification stating: [0027] The document reading portion 16 is a processing portion which reads a document by scanning and stores data of the read document image as the image data 15 a in the storage portion 15 temporarily or for a long period of time. The image data stored as the image data 15 a is transmitted thorough the network, subjected to printing, transmitted by attaching to an electronic mail, transmitted by facsimile, or saved as electronic data directly (document filing). Appeal Br. 11. Appellant explains that a document is read by scanning and this input data is stored as the image data temporarily or for a long period of time, but, importantly, this image data does not correspond to the output processings or output functions. Id. As Paragraph 27 makes clear this input image data that has been stored may subsequently be output (i.e., “transmitted thorough the network, subjected to printing, transmitted by attaching to an electronic mail, transmitted by facsimile, or saved as electronic data directly (document filing)”). Id. According to Appellant the stored input image data obtained from scanning is not output data itself and does not correspond to an output processing or an output function; not as defined in claim 1 and in the Specification. Id. Appellant argues that the scanned image data does not read on the first data output of claim 1 because the scanned image data is input data, not output data, in the context of claim 1. Id. Appellant argues that alternatively, in the Examiner’s own view, the second data output processing (corresponding to the facsimile transmission function) is applicable to the image data (scanned image data) to output only a first data output (facsimile Appeal 2019-005970 Application 14/923,568 6 transmission). Appeal Br. 11–12. Appellant argues that contrary to this interpretation, claim 1 recites that “said first and second data output processings are applicable to the same image data to output first and second output data respectively.” Id. at 12. Gotoh does not disclose a first data output processing which is applicable to the image data to which the second data output processing (facsimile transmission) is applied, as in claim 1. Id. At the outset, we note that Appellant’s argument that the “document filing functions” (i.e., scanning) of claim 1 correspond to output functions contradicts its argument that the scanned image data is input data, not output data, in the context of claim 1. Compare Appeal Br. 10 with Appeal Br. 11. Nonetheless, we do not agree with Appellant’s argument that Gotoh does not teach the disputed limitations. The Examiner finds, and we agree, that Gotoh teaches that the image forming apparatus 100 of Figure 1 executes an image filing mode (i.e., first data output processing) during a job such as the copier mode, and the printer mode, the facsimile transmission mode, the facsimile reception mode or the image transmission mode (i.e., second data output processing). Ans. 3 (citing para. 152). The Examiner finds, and we agree, that the image filing mode reads on the first data output processing, because the image data obtained by the image input apparatus 101 (i.e., one apparatus) or the image data received from outside are converted into an image file (i.e., JPEG or TIFF file) by the image processing apparatus 102 (i.e., another apparatus 2). Ans. 3–4 (citing para. 153). Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the image filing mode constitutes an output function consistent with claim 1 reciting one of the Appeal 2019-005970 Application 14/923,568 7 plurality of different data output functions as “a document filing functions of image data.” See Ans. 5 and claim 1. The Examiner finds, that after the above processing function (i.e., image filing mode), the second data processing function such as printing, copying, facsimile can be implemented. Id. The Examiner relies on Gotoh, paragraph 41 stating further, in the scan to email mode, which is an image transmission mode, the image processing apparatus 102 transmit, to a mail processing section (not shown), the image data subject to image processing. In scan to ftb mode, which is another image transmission mode, the image processing apparatus 102 transmits, to a predetermined folder, the image data subject to image processing Ans. 4 (quoting para. 41). The Examiner also relies on Gotoh, paragraph 9, stating “job apparatus for executing any of an image print job, an image transmission job, and an image filing job.” Id. (quoting para. 9). Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the image filing mode (i.e., first data output processing) is applicable to the same image that can be either printed, copied or used in a facsimile mode. Id. We also agree with the Examiner that one skilled in the art would understand that after processing the image with one mode (i.e., image filing) and the same image would be used in any other mode (i.e., image transmission mode). Id. The Examiner further finds, and we agree, that Gotoh teaches more than at least two of the plurality of different data output functions include at least two of a document filing functions of image data, a data transmission function through a network, a print function, a facsimile transmission function of image data provided, and an electronic mail transmission Appeal 2019-005970 Application 14/923,568 8 function. Ans. 5 (citing para. 152 and quoting “during a job such as Copier mode, the printer mode, the facsimile transmission mode or the image transmission mode”) (emphasis and underlining omitted). Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the first data output processing is performed by an image filing mode (i.e., data output function) and second data output processing is performed by another data output function selected from the list of a copier mode, the printer mode, the facsimile transmission mode, and the image transmission mode. Ans. 5–6. Finally, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that in paragraph 153, the image data obtained by the image input apparatus 101 is the input data. Ans. 6. We also agree with the Examiner that the image file being converted into JPEG or TIFF file is the output data. Id. Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 and for the same reasons the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2–16 not separately argued. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s rejection is AFFIRMED. DECISION SUMMARY Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–16 103 Gotoh, Muraishi 1–16 Appeal 2019-005970 Application 14/923,568 9 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation