Ex Parte Edwards et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 21, 2017

11851900 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 21, 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.
11/851,900 09/07/2007 Paul Andrew Edwards 110656-8646.US01 1127
22862 7590 11/24/2017
FNN PATFNT TtROTTP
EXAMINER
c/o Perkins Coie LLP SIMMONS, JENNIFER E
P.O. Box 1247
Seattle, WA 98111-1247 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2854
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/24/2017 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):
patentprocurement @perkinscoie. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PAUL ANDREW EDWARDS, JOHN HENNESY, and
FRANK BRUCK
Appeal 2017-003701
Application 11/851,900
Technology Center 2800
Before JAMES C. HOUSEL, CHRISTOPHER L. OGDEN, and
JEFFREY R. SNAY, Administrative Patent Judges.
SNAY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL1
Appellants2 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 1—4, 6—11, 13, 14, and 16. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 We cite to the Specification (“Spec.”) filed September 7, 2007; Non-Final
Office Action (“Non-Final Act.”) dated September 22, 2015; Appellants’
Appeal Brief (“Br.”) dated August 5, 2016; and Examiner’s Answer
(“Ans.”) dated November 10, 2016.
2 Appellants identify Electronics for Imaging, Inc. as the real party in
interest. Br. 3.
Appeal 2017-003701
Application 11/851,900
BACKGROUND
The invention relates to cutting printed images where image variances
are compensated. Spec. 12. Appellants disclose use of sensors to read the
position of a printed substrate and/or an associated cutting die to identify and
compensate for a mismatch between the cutting die and the size and pitch of
images to be cut. Id. Tflf 5, 14. To facilitate reading substrate position,
printed images include detectable registration features, which features may
be inherent in the printed image itself. Id. 115. Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A method of inline die cutting of a substrate, the method
comprising:
receiving a plurality of source images, wherein said
plurality of source images only includes data for images that are
to be printed on the substrate;
providing said substrate;
printing said plurality of source images on said substrate,
wherein said printing creates a plurality of printed images that
matches said plurality of source images;
providing at least one sensor;
reading, by the at least one sensor, a position of a printed
image of said plurality of printed images in real-time and
outputting, by the at least one sensor, a web position signal that
corresponds to the position of the printed image, wherein the
printed image matches a corresponding source image of said
plurality of source images, and wherein said reading of the
position of the printed image uses only strong contrast sections
or lines that are inherent in the corresponding source image;
detecting a position of a die in real-time;
computing a die correction signal in response to the web
position signal and outputting the die correction signal;
adjusting the position of said die in response to the die
correction signal to ensure cutting of the substrate at a
predetermined location; and
determining whether said adjusting the position of said
die is confirmed for achieving a high degree of accuracy;
2
Appeal 2017-003701
Application 11/851,900
when said determining whether said adjusting the
position of said die is not confirmed, then returning control to
said reading, by the at least one sensor, step; and
when said determining whether said adjusting the
position of said die is confirmed, then cutting said substrate in
accordance with said die correction signal.
Br. 19 (Claims Appendix) (emphasis added to highlight the disputed
recitation).
REJECTIONS
I. Claim 16 stands rejected under 35U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
II. Claims 1—4, 6—11, 13, and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Canini,3 Timmerman,4 Munz,5 and Instance.6
III. Claim 16 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Canini, Munz, and Instance.
OPINION
Rejection I
Appellants do not contest the Examiner’s section 112 rejection. See
generally Br. We, therefore, summarily sustain Rejection I.
Rejection II
With regard to Rejection II, Appellants argue the claims as a group.
See Br. 13—17. In accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv), we select
3 GB 2 186 226 A, published August 12, 1987 (“Canini”).
4 US 2005/0000842 Al, published January 6, 2005 (“Timmerman”).
5 US 6,880,458 B2, issued April 19, 2005 (“Munz”).
6 US 2002/0096241 Al, published July 25, 2002 (“Instance”).
3
Appeal 2017-003701
Application 11/851,900
claim 1 as representative, and decide the appeal based on the representative
claim alone.
Relevant to Appellants’ arguments on appeal, the Examiner finds that
Canini discloses an image cutting method that includes reading a printed
image’s position relative to a cutting die by detecting a registration mark
associated with the image. Non-Final Act. 4. Acknowledging that Canini
does not teach detecting inherent contrast sections or lines of an image in
lieu of a registration mark, the Examiner finds that Munz teaches that it
alternatively was known to read the position of a printed image by detecting
contrast sections or lines that are inherent in the corresponding source
image. Id. at 6 (citing Munz 2:22—32).
Appellants contend that the Examiner’s reading of Munz is incorrect.
Br. 13. According to Appellants, “Munz simply provides two examples of
locations where the registration mark or mark field could be positioned,” one
such location being an area where the overall impression of the image is not
disturbed and the other being an area that already contains significant color
information or crossed structures without the additional insertion of a mark.
Id. at 14. Appellants argue that only this interpretation is consistent with
Munz’s object of checking the quality of a printed-on web by detecting
marks or mark fields, and with Munz’s teaching that the position and/or
shape of the marks is determined with the use of prepress data. Id. at 15—16.
We find Appellants’ arguments unpersuasive of reversible error.
Munz expressly states:
[I]t is possible to seek an image area that already can be used as
a measuring area for an ink and/or register control, e.g., an area
that contains many pieces of or significant color information or
crossed structures without the additional insertion of a mark.
4
Appeal 2017-003701
Application 11/851,900
Munz 2:28—32 (emphasis added). The fact that Munz additionally teaches
use of registration marks which are added apart from the printed image does
not negate Munz’s express teaching that, in some instances, an inherent
image area containing sufficient color information or crossed structures can
be used instead. Munz’s characterization of using an image area “without
the additional insertion of a mark,” id., belies Appellants’ proposed
interpretation that Munz is referring to identification of an area in which a
mark is to be inserted. Nor are we persuaded that the Examiner’s reading of
Munz conflicts with Munz’s objectives. Appellants do not explain how
checking the quality of a printed-on web by detecting marks or mark fields,
or determining the position and/or shape of a mark with the use of prepress
data, could not be performed with use of inherent image data rather than a
superimposed registration mark.
Appellants further argue that Munz’s statement at column 3, lines 44—
46, “acknowledges that a registration mark and/or mark field must be added
to the substrate.” Br. 16. There, Munz states, “[t]hus, it is possible, but no
longer necessary, for marks to be arranged at the edge of the page outside
the printing area.” Munz’s teaching that relying on marks outside the
printing area is not necessary is consistent with the Examiner’s interpretation
that Munz teaches the possible use of inherent image areas rather than
externally applied marks.
For the foregoing reasons, Appellants do not persuade us of reversible
error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. Accordingly, Rejection II is
sustained.
5
Appeal 2017-003701
Application 11/851,900
Rejection III
Appellants do not separately argue Rejection III, other than an implied
reliance on the arguments presented against Rejection II. We, therefore,
sustain Rejection III for the same reasons given in connection with Rejection
II.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, is affirmed.
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—4, 6—11, 13, 14, and 16 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is affirmed.
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
6