Ex Parte Aschenbrenner et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 18, 201310892848 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 18, 2013) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE 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. 10/892,848 07/16/2004 Jean M. Aschenbrenner BLD20040001US1 3457 50441 7590 09/19/2013 DUFT BORNSEN & FETTIG, LLP 1526 SPRUCE STREET SUITE 302 BOULDER, CO 80302 EXAMINER VO, QUANG N ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2671 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/19/2013 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 JEAN M. ASCHENBRENNER, JOSEPH S. CZYSZCZEWSKI, NENAD RIJAVEC, ARTHUR R. ROBERTS, and JAMES T. SMITH, II1 __________ Appeal 2011-005468 Application 10/892,848 Technology Center 2600 __________ Before ERIC GRIMES, LORA M. GREEN, and JEFFREY N. FREDMAN, Administrative Patent Judges. GRIMES, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 involving claims to a printing method, which have been rejected for obviousness. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. 1 Appellants identify the Real Party in Interest as InfoPrint Solutions Company LLC (Appeal Br. 3). Appeal 2011-005468 Application 10/892,848 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Specification states that a “conventional complex data stream is one which is associated with a complex page description language (PDL) . . . such as PostScript [or] PDF” (Spec. 1:9-11). The Specification states that a conventional system “may be inefficient in converting certain types of data in the complex data stream to the printable format. In particular, one of ordinary skill in the art will readily realize that the conventional system [ ] prints simple data slowly. Simple data includes data, particularly scanned images, that are generally not greatly modifiable using the complex PDL.” (Id. at 3:5-9.) The Specification discloses a method in which “the simple data can be printed more efficiently. Because the simple data need not be converted using the complex PDL, processing is simplified.” (Id. at 7:12-13). In the disclosed process, however, two copies of the simple data (in different formats) are provided in the complex data stream, so that the simple data can be converted to printable format in the conventional manner in case a conventional raster image processer (RIP) is being used (id. at 8:20 to 9:20). Claims 1, 3-9, 12-17, 20, 21, 23, and 24 are on appeal. Claim 1 is illustrative and reads as follows (emphasis added): 1. A method of printing simple data within a complex datastream, the method comprising: receiving the complex datastream for processing, wherein the complex datastream includes simple data in a non-complex page description language (PDL) format and a copy of the simple data in a complex PDL format; processing the complex datastream to embed at least one control structure in the complex datastream, wherein the at least one control Appeal 2011-005468 Application 10/892,848 3 structure indicates to a raster image processor a location of the simple data in the non-complex PDL format; determining if the raster image processor recognizes the at least one control structure in the complex datastream; and processing the complex datastream by the raster image processor to generate a printable format by: converting the simple data in the non-complex PDL format to the printable format responsive to the raster image processor recognizing the at least one control structure; and converting the simple data in the complex PDL format to the printable format responsive to the raster image processor not recognizing the at least one control structure. Claim 17, the only other independent claim on appeal, is directed to a system that includes a generator operable to provide a complex datastream that “includes simple data in a non-complex page description language (PDL) format and a copy of the simple data in a complex PDL format” (Appeal Br. 14 (Claims Appendix)). The claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as follows: • Claims 1, 3-5, 12-14, 17, 20, 21, 23, and 24 based on Ferlitsch2 and Rahgozar3 (Answer 3) and • Claims 6-9, 15, and 16 based on Ferlitsch, Rahgozar, and Ueda4 (Answer 9). Both of the rejections on appeal depend on combining the teachings of Ferlitsch and Rahgozar. The Examiner finds that Ferlitsch discloses a method of printing simple data (specifically TIFF files) comprising receiving a complex data stream that “includes simple data in a non-complex page 2 Ferlitsch, US 6,672,212 B1, Jan. 6, 2004. 3 Rahgozar et al., US 2002/0113979 A1, Aug. 22, 2002. 4 Ueda, US 2003/0039409 A1, Feb. 27, 2003. Appeal 2011-005468 Application 10/892,848 4 description language (PDL) format (e.g., TIFF file data (simple data), column 3, lines 48-55 . . .) and a copy of the simple data in a complex PDL format (e.g., PDL parser 110 decides which portion or portions of a PDL print job should pass to rasterizer 120, column 4, lines 18-25 . . .)” (Answer 4). The Examiner finds that Rahgozar discloses converting simple data in a non-complex PDL format to a printable format upon recognizing a control structure (id. at 5-6), and that Ueda discloses limitations of dependent claims 6-9, 15, and 16 (id. at 9-11). Appellants argue that “neither Ferlitsch nor Rahgozar, considered alone or in combination, teaches or reasonably suggests the limitation of ‘receiving the complex datastream for processing, wherein the complex datastream includes simple data in a non-complex page description language (PDL) and a copy of the simple data in a complex PDL format’ as recited in claim 1” (Appeal Br. 7). We agree with Appellants that the Examiner has not provided a persuasive basis for finding that Ferlitsch discloses a data stream that includes the disputed limitation, which is recited in both claim 1 and claim 17. Ferlitsch discloses “methods and system components for printing multiple TIFF files in a single print job” (Ferlitsch, col. 1, ll. 8-10). “In each embodiment, emphasis has been placed on minimal manipulation of TIFF file data by the client that creates a multiple-TIFF-file (‘multiTIFF’) print job” (id. at col. 3, ll. 48-50). One embodiment disclosed by Ferlitsch is “for use with a PDL interpreter (Printer Job Language (‘PJL’) is an exemplary PDL . . .)” (id. at col. 4, ll. 11-13). “The basic framework of this embodiment generates a Appeal 2011-005468 Application 10/892,848 5 MultiTIFF print job containing a set of PDL printer control commands, including TIFF tags, with TIFF data embedded between the PDL commands” (id. at col. 4, ll. 13-17). Ferlitsch states that a multifunction printer that can accept a PDL/TIFF MultiTIFF print job includes a print module that “contains a PDL parser 110, a PDL rasterizer 120, and a TIFF bypass transform 130” (id. at col. 4, ll. 19-22). “PDL parser 110 decides which portion or portions of a PDL print job should pass to rasterizer 120, and which portions, if any, can be submitted to TIFF bypass transform 130” (id. at col. 4, ll. 24-27). In printing a single TIFF file, an “@PJL ENTER LANGUAGE=TIFF” command signals the PJL interpreter that what follows is TIFF data that should not be interpreted, so the parser “merely dumps the remainder of the job to the TIFF bypass transform” (see id. at col. 4, ll. 28-47). For a MultiTIFF job, however, appropriate commands must be included so that the parser 110 will correctly send each of the TIFF files to the TIFF bypass transform 130 (id. at col. 4, ll. 48-55). For example, each TIFF file can be preceded by an ENTER LANGUAGE=TIFF command that specifies the size of the immediately following TIFF data, so that the parser 110 sends the indicated number of bytes to the TIFF bypass transform 130, then exits TIFF mode and begins interpreting data again (id. at col. 4, ll. 56-64). Thus, in Ferlitsch’s method, the datastream includes simple data in a non-complex PDL format (specifically, TIFF format), as well as commands in a PDL format (for example, PJL). However, Ferlitsch does not describe its datastream as including copies of the same data (1) in TIFF format and (2) in a complex PDL format. Appeal 2011-005468 Application 10/892,848 6 The Examiner reasons that Ferlitsch’s “PDL Parser determines if data stream has TIFF data in simple format, then it will pass to TIFF ByPass Transform 130 . . . or if it is TIFF data in PDL format, then it will pass to PDL Rasterizer 120, column 4, lines 24-27” (Answer 11). The cited passage, however, simply states that “PDL parser 110 decides which portion or portions of a PDL print job should pass to rasterizer 120, and which portions, if any, can be submitted to TIFF bypass transform 130” (Ferlitsch, col. 4, ll. 24-27). While this disclosure might indicate that some print data is sent to the rasterizer 120 and some is sent to the TIFF bypass transform 130, it does not say that the datastream contains “TIFF data in PDL format,” as the Examiner states. The Examiner has not provided a persuasive basis for concluding that Ferlitsch describes a datastream that contains copies of the same data in TIFF format and in a complex PDL format. SUMMARY We reverse both of the rejections on appeal. REVERSED lp Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation