Ex Parte Condon et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 16, 2013

11135677 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 16, 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.
11/135,677 05/24/2005 John Barker Condon BLD920050003US1 3208
50441 7590 12/16/2013
DUFT BORNSEN & FETTIG, LLP
1526 SPRUCE STREET
SUITE 302
BOULDER, CO 80302
EXAMINER
DEMETER, HILINA K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2671
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/16/2013 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 JOHN BARKER CONDON, LARRY M. ERNST,
REINHARD HEINRICH HOHENSEE, STEVEN G. LUDWIG,
JOAN L. MITCHELL, SUZANNE LANDREVILLE PRICE,
NENAD RIJAVEC, JEFFREY ALAN SIKKINK,
LARRY DAVID TEKLITS, and JOHN THOMAS VARGA1
__________

Appeal 2011-008788
Application 11/135,677
Technology Center 2600
__________

Before DONALD E. ADAMS, ERIC GRIMES, and
JACQUELINE WRIGHT BONILLA, Administrative Patent Judges.

BONILLA, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 involving claims directed to a
method for processing data for printing, and a printer processor. The
Examiner has rejected the claims as obvious. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.

1 Appellants identify the Real Party in Interest as InfoPrint Solutions
Company, LLC (App. Br. 3).
Appeal 2011-008788
Application 11/135,677

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Specification describes a printing system comprising “a plurality
of parallel processing units” and a switch. Spec. [0011]. The Specification
discusses, as prior art, “a typical four-color printing system, four color print
heads are provided, one for Cyan, one for Magenta, one for Yellow, and one
for blacK (CMYK).” Id. at [0009]; see also Fig. 1A. In relation to that prior
art system, the Specification states that for “a single color sheet, one screen
processor is used while the others are idle,” which “lowers the useful
processing power of the system.” Id. at [0010].
Figure 1 in the Specification is reproduced below.

Appeal 2011-008788
Application 11/135,677

3
Figure 1, which presents one of Appellants’ disclosed embodiments, depicts
print processor 106 that receives a print data stream from print server 104
and is connected to a plurality of print heads P1, P2, … Pm. Id. at [0014],
[0017], [0024]. Printer processor 106 comprises head node 108, processing
units, also called blades B1, B2, … Bn, and switch 118. Id. at [0021],
[0022], [0024].
The Specification discloses that “a print processor comprises a head
node to receive a print data stream and to distribute data to be processed to
each of a plurality of processing units,” and the “switch forms connections
between a plurality of processing units and a plurality of print heads.” Id. at
[0012].
Claims 41-45, 48-52, and 55-59 are on appeal. Independent claims 41
and 48 are representative and read as follows (emphasis added):
41. A method comprising:
receiving print data for printing a plurality of sheets;
interpreting the received print data to identify data for color planes
of a sheet side;
assigning parallel processing units to receive the data for the color
planes;
generating control information for the sheet side for assigning
print heads to receive their respective data processed by the parallel
processing units for the sheet side, wherein control information is
generated for each sheet side based on data to be distributed to each of
the parallel processing units for each sheet side;
distributing the data for the color planes to the parallel processing
units;
processing the data for the color planes at the parallel processing
units;
Appeal 2011-008788
Application 11/135,677

4
forming a connection between a print head and a parallel
processing unit based on the previously generated control information
for the sheet side;
transferring data processed by the parallel processing unit from the
parallel processing unit to the print head over the formed connection;
and
printing the processed data on a sheet at the print head.
48. A printing system comprising:
a head node operable to receive print data for printing a plurality
of sheets, to interpret the received print data to identify data for color
planes of a sheet side, to assign parallel processing units to receive
the data for the color planes, and to generate control information for
the sheet side for assigning print heads to receive their respective data
processed by the parallel processing units for the sheet side, wherein
control information is generated for each sheet side based on data to
be distributed to each of the parallel processing units for each sheet
side;
the parallel processing units operable to process the data for the
color planes at the parallel processing units;
a switch operable to form a connection through the switch between
a print head and a parallel processing unit based on the previously
generated control information for the sheet side, and to transfer data
processed by the parallel processing unit from the parallel processing
unit to the print head over the formed connection, wherein the switch
is interposed between the parallel processing units and the print heads;
and
the print heads operable to print data processed by the parallel
processing units on a sheet.
The claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious
over Rijavec (US Publ. No. 2004/0095596 A1, published May 20, 2004) in
view of Barry et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 7,342,686 B2, issued Mar. 11, 2008).
Appeal 2011-008788
Application 11/135,677

5
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue that the cited references fail to disclose “processing
color plane data using parallel processors” or a “switch that is operable to
form a connection between a print head and a parallel processing unit to
transfer data from a parallel processing unit to a print head for this purpose.”
App. Br. 7. Because Appellants do not argue claims separately, we focus on
independent claims 41, 48, and 55 in our discussion below.
Regarding the recited “parallel processing units,” Appellants argue
that “the cited references only disclose the well known techniques of parallel
rasterization (i.e., Rijavec) and individual page printing according to color
(i.e., Barry).” Id. at 8. According to Appellants, pending claims “are
specifically limited to the parallel processing of color planes within sheet
data,” which “is not the parallel rasterization that is disclosed in Rijavec.”
Id. Appellants state that “[t]hose skilled in the art would not confuse parallel
rasterization, or page separation for that matter, with the Appellant’s [sic]
claimed parallel processing of individual color planes.” Id. at 7; see also id.
at 10.
In addition, Appellants contend that Rijavec does not disclose a
“switch,” as recited in independent claims 48 and 55, “because Rijavec is
directed to rasterization as opposed to the color plane identification and
printing that the switch controls,” and Barry “adds nothing to Rijavec to
supplement in this regard.” Id. at 8-9. According to Appellants, “Barry’s
job manager 360 . . . does not identify individual color planes of a particular
print job to transfer the color plane data to the individual print heads,” but
instead “simply transfers whole page sheet data to a print engine.” Id. at 9.
Appeal 2011-008788
Application 11/135,677

6
We disagree with Appellants’ contentions regarding what Rijavec and
Barry disclose. For example, Rijavec describes a controller in a high speed
color printer apparatus, as depicted in Figure 2, reproduced below. Rijavec
[0001], [0013].

Figure 2 of Rijavec depicts controller 10 comprising sequencer 21, a number
of raster image processing (RIP) machines 22a, 22b, 22c . . . 22n, and a
number of print head drivers 24a et seq. Id. at [0003], [0013], [0023]-
[0033]; see also Ans. 3-4, 11-12. Rijavec teaches that “communication is an
important point, since the bitmaps might be very large,” and therefore, “the
RIP-to-head driver communication may be split into multiple networks,
Appeal 2011-008788
Application 11/135,677

7
shown in FIG. 2 at 25 as being interposed between the RIP machines 22a et
seq and the head drivers 24a et seq.” Id. at [0029]; see also Ans. 27.
Thus, as noted by the Examiner, Rijavec describes sequencer 21, i.e.,
a head node, that receives print data for printing a plurality of sheets.
Specifically, sequencer 21 receives a data stream (local or global data) from
a print server, can “operate on multiple pages at once” and “package work in
other units, so that for example all the pages on a single sheetside are
packaged as a unit,” and “maintains a queue of the independent work units.”
Id. at [0023]-[0025]; Ans. 3. Each RIP machine receives data (a work unit)
from sequencer 21, although “[d]epending on the size and speed of the RIP
machines, each may be working on multiple work units.” Id. at [0025],
[0027].
As further taught in Rijavec, “[a]s each work unit is RIPed, a number
of bitmaps are produced,” which “can be either zero (blank page), 1 (single
color), 4 (CMYK) or even more if the print engine uses more than four
colors.” Id. at [0028]; Ans. 4. After a RIP machine rasterizes/processes the
data, sequencer 21 issues “a command to the RIP machine to send the
appropriate colorplanes of processed sheetsides as needed by the print head
drivers 24a et seq.” Id. at [0031] (emphasis added); Ans. 28.
In other words, each RIP machine receives from sequencer 21, and
generates information sent to print heads relating to, “data for color planes of
a sheet side” or “data for the color planes,” as recited in pending claims. In
addition, as disclosed in Rijavec, that data is “processed in parallel in a
plurality of raster image processing machines at 101 to produce print head
Appeal 2011-008788
Application 11/135,677

8
data streams appropriate to drive the print heads of an associated printer.”
Id. at [0033] (emphasis added), Fig. 3; Ans. 4.
“[D]uring examination proceedings, claims are given their broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification.” In re Hyatt, 211
F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Consistent with the Specification here,
“parallel processing units” in the pending claims, which receive “data for
color planes of a sheet side,” may include RIP machines that act in parallel
to rasterize color sheet data, i.e., engage in raster image processing to
produce bitmap data streams, in preparation for delivery of those data
streams to print heads, as described in Rijavec. Spec. [0033]-[0034] (stating
that rasterizer 308 in blade 112, as depicted in Fig. 3, “may comprise a
plurality of rasterizers for rasterizing different layers or color planes”);
Rijavec [0003], [0028], [0031] (stating that RIP machines “send the
appropriate colorplanes of processed sheetsides” to print heads), [0033]; Fig.
2. Thus, we are not persuaded by Appellants’ contention that Rijavec “does
not disclose processing color plane data using parallel processors.” App. Br.
7.
In addition, in relation to the recited “switch,” Rijavec teaches that
“bitmaps might be very large,” and therefore, “the RIP-to-head driver
communication may be split into multiple networks, shown in FIG. 2 at 25
as being interposed” between RIP machines and print heads. Rijavec
[0029]; see also Ans. 27. While Rijavec does not describe “25” in more
detail, Figure 2 in Rijavec depicts that “25” forms a connection between the
print heads and processing units.
Appeal 2011-008788
Application 11/135,677

9
Moreover, Barry, which also relates to high speed color printing,
describes engine manager 28 and job manager 360. Barry, Fig. 1; 4:49-64;
Fig. 12; 14:50-15:3. As disclosed in Barry, job manager 360 “will route the
black and white job to a first virtual engine, represented by a block 362,
which has associated therewith four black and white print engines 364,” and
“route the second job associated with the block 358 to a second virtual
engine 366, having associated therewith four color print engines 368.” Id. at
14:55-61; see also Fig. 12. In addition, job manager 360 ensures that pages
are “routed to the appropriate engine in the appropriate manner and at the
appropriate time.” Id. at 14:61-66. Thus, job manager 360 generates
information that controls how and when print heads receive data generated
by RIP machines. See also id. at Figs. 1, 12.
As discussed in the Specification, the “switch” recited in pending
claims “may form a connection between any processing unit and any print
head of one or more printers.” Spec. [0016]; see also [0024] (disclosing that
“[m]ulti-port switch 118 can form multiple simultaneous connections
between the blades and the printheads”). As found by the Examiner, Barry’s
job manager 360/engine manager 28 acts as such a switch. Ans. 27; Barry,
Figs. 1 and 12.
As also explained by the Examiner, an ordinary artisan would have
had reason to use job manager 360 of Barry in the controller of Rijavec,
where, for example, Barry’s job manager 360 would act as “25” shown in
Figure 2 of Rijavec. Ans. 5-6, 27. The Examiner persuades us that the
“suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been in order to provide an
increased rate of data transfer to the print engines (column 4, lines 61-62 [of
Appeal 2011-008788
Application 11/135,677

10
Barry]).” Ans. 6. Upon that combination, job manager 360 would generate
“control information for the sheet side for assigning print heads to receive
their respective data processed by the parallel processing units for the sheet
side,” where that information is “based on data to be distributed to each of
the parallel processing units for each sheet side,” as recited in the
independent claims.
We are persuaded that the Examiner establishes by a preponderance of
the evidence that Rijavec, in view of Barry, discloses and/or suggests the
claimed method and printing systems of independent claims 41, 48, and 55.
Because Appellants do not argue claims separately, claims 42-45, 49-52, and
56-59 fall with the independent claims. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
SUMMARY
We affirm the rejection of claims 41-45, 48-52, and 55-59 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Rijavec, in view of Barry.

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).

AFFIRMED

cdc