Ex Parte Fischer et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 5, 2013

10950841 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 5, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
__________

Ex parte MANI FISCHER, DORON SHAKED,
CRAIG BREEN, and RODOLFO JODRA
__________

Appeal 2011-003247
Application 10/950,841
Technology Center 2600
__________

Before FRANCISCO C. PRATS, MELANIE L. McCOLLUM, and
JEFFREY N. FREDMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

FREDMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal1 under 35 U.S.C. § 134 involving claims to a
printing method, machine readable medium, and apparatus. The Examiner
rejected the claims as obvious. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

1 Appellants identify the Real Party in Interest as Hewlett-Packard
Development Company, LP (see App. Br. 1).
Appeal 2011-003247
Application 10/950,841

2
Statement of the Case
Background
“Usually, artifacts are more easily avoided at higher resolution. For
example, if the printer 100 has a resolution of 800 dpi, the resolution of the
subpixels can be 3200 dpi” (Spec. 9, ll. 7-9). The Specification teaches the
“resolution associated with the subpixels is greater than the fixed resolution
which can be addressed by the printer 100, and consequently the ink dot
patterns are better in terms of less visible artifacts” (Spec. 9, ll. 11-13).
The Claims
Claims 22, 24-29, 31-36, and 40-47 are on appeal. Claim 22 is
representative and reads as follows:
22. A method comprising:
exposing a photoconductive surface of a printer at a first one of
multiple pixel locations at a printer resolution based on a screen
comprising subpixels at a resolution higher than the printer resolution,
wherein groups of the subpixels correspond to respective ones of the
pixel locations on the photoconductive surface; and
at a second one of the pixel locations adjacent the first pixel
location, exposing the photoconductive surface at an exposure level
that depends on the values of the subpixels neighboring the second
pixel location and corresponding to the first pixel location in relation
to the values of the subpixels corresponding to the second pixel
location.

The issue
The Examiner rejected claims 22, 24-29, 31-36, and 40-47 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Smith,2 Ohtsuka,3 and Kurumida4 (Ans. 4-
6).

2 Smith et al., US 5,657,430, issued Aug. 12, 1997.
Appeal 2011-003247
Application 10/950,841

3
The Examiner finds that Smith teaches exposing “a photoconductive
surface of a printer at a first one of multiple pixel locations at a printer
resolution based on a screen comprising subpixels at a resolution higher than
the printer resolution, wherein groups of the subpixels correspond to
respective ones of the pixel locations on the photoconductive surface” (Ans.
4).
The Examiner finds that Ohtsuka teaches that the “exposure level of
the second pixel also takes in account the exposure level of the first pixel.
Therefore the second pixel will take in account the % of enabled pixel in the
first pixel and the second pixel” (id. at 5). The Examiner finds that
Kurumida teaches “determining the number of enabled subpixels in pixels to
determine a gray level” (id.).
The Examiner finds it obvious to
implement the teachings of Kurumida into Smith in view of
Ohtsuka. Ohtsuka teaches exposing the pixel at a certain
level to achieve a certain value. However Ohtsuka does not
mention the number of subunits exposed to the number of
subunits of the first pixel. Ohtsuka is using the gray value to
control the exposure level of each pixel. The percentage
computed from the value is simply the shade of gray being
produced. Kurumida teaches that by giving examples of the
percentage/amount of exposed subunits equating to a certain
level of gray. Kurumida discloses a step in determining the
gray value that Ohtsuka does not disclose but obviously
requires to determine the gray level to set the level of
exposure of the pixel.

(id.).

3 Ohtsuka et al., US 6,075,614, issued Jun. 13, 2000.
4 Kurumida, T., US 5,506,941, issued Apr. 9, 1996.
Appeal 2011-003247
Application 10/950,841

4
The issue with respect to this rejection is: Does the evidence of record
support the Examiner’s conclusion that Smith, Ohtsuka, and Kurumida
render obvious exposing a surface at an exposure level that “depends on the
values of the subpixels neighboring the second pixel location”?
Findings of Fact
1. Figures 4 and 5 of the Specification are reproduced below:

For example, even though picture element 400 (shown in
FIG. 4) and picture element 500 (shown in FIG. 5) have
virtually the same pattern of subunits, the fact that the
picture element 400 and the picture element 500 are
embedded in a different pattern may require additional
adjustment of the laser intensity in order to produce the
appropriate optical effect for both patterns.

(Spec. 13, ll. 9-14).
2. Smith teaches a
binary pixel bitmap image is converted to a multi-bit gray
level pixel image at a level of resolution that is reproducible
by a laser printer. An edge smoothing procedure is
employed by the laser printer and comprises the steps of:
Appeal 2011-003247
Application 10/950,841

5
deriving from font contours of the image, a binary pixel
bitmap of the image at a higher level of resolution than is
output by the laser printer . . . .

(Smith, col. 2, ll. 61-67).
3. Smith teaches
if the laser is to apply a full black dot at a pixel location, the
laser is modulated so as to provide an optical pulse 60 for
the entire duration of a pixel time. Such a black dot results
when window 40 (FIG. 2) is logically overlaid onto a
portion of 1200 dpi binary image 50 where all black pixels
are resident-thereby outputting a binary value of 16. If,
however, window 40 logically overlays an area of
bitmapped image 50 wherein 4 black pixels reside, a binary
value of 4 results, causing the laser to be modulated so as to
produce an optical output for 25% of a pixel time, assuming
a linear conversion is employed (i.e., waveform 62). The
modulated laser output is centered in the pixel time.

(Smith, col. 5, ll. 20-32.)
4. Ohtsuka teaches that
the density of a pixel recorded on the photosensitive medium
28 by laser beams from adjacent (i-l)th and ith light
modulator elements 44 becomes higher than a desired
density under the influence of light from a preceding pixel
which has been recorded, as shown hatched in FIG. 13B. To
avoid such a problem, a drive signal Pi supplied to the ith
light modulator element 44 is corrected as follows:

using a given function f of a drive signal P(i-l) supplied to
the (i -1)th light modulator element 44. In this manner, it is
possible to record a pixel which is not affected by an
adjacent pixel as shown in FIG. 13C.

(Ohtsuka, col. 16, ll. 24-37.)
Appeal 2011-003247
Application 10/950,841

6

5. Kurumida teaches that
FIG. 4 is a flow chart showing a sequence for
generating gray scale font data, and this processing is
executed by the gray scale font generator 5. In step S110 in
FIG. 4, a vertical check position YC is set to be 0. In step
S111, a horizontal check position XC is set to be 0. The bit
map divider 6 executes step S112 using the bit map font
generated on the RAM 4. In step S112, the number of black
dots included between a position (XC,YC) and a position
(XC+l,YC+l) is counted. The number of black dots included
between the position (XC,YC) and the position
(XC+l,YC+l) can take on value falling within the range of 0
to 4 inclusive. In step S113, the density detector 7 checks if
the number of black dots is 0. If YES in step S113, step
S114 is executed. In step S114, the gray level at the position
(XC,YC) of the gray scale font is set to be 0%. In step S115,
the density detector 7 checks if the number of black dots is
1. If YES in step S115, step S116 is executed. In step S116,
the gray level at the position (XC,YC) is set to be 25%. In
step S117, the density detector 7 checks if the number of
black dots is 2. If YES in step S117, step S118 is executed.
In step S118, the gray level at the position (XC,YC) is set to
be 50%. In step S119, the density detector 7 checks if the
number of black dots is 3. If YES in step S119, step S120 is
executed. In step S120, the gray level at the position
(XC,YC) is set to be 75%. In step S121, the density detector
7 checks if the number of black dots is 4. If YES in step
S121, step S122 is executed. In step S122, the gray level at
the position (XC,YC) is set to be 100%

(Kurumida, col. 3, ll. 2-29).

Appeal 2011-003247
Application 10/950,841

7
6. Figure 4 of Kurumida is reproduced below:

Figure 4 is a flow chart showing control sequences (see Kurumida, col. 1, ll.
56-57).
Principles of Law
“In proceedings before the Patent and Trademark Office, the
Examiner bears the burden of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness
based upon the prior art.” In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1265 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
“[R]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere
conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning
with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007).
Appeal 2011-003247
Application 10/950,841

8
Analysis
Each of independent method claims 22, 31, and 34 include a
requirement that a photoconductive surface is exposed at a level which
“depends on the values of the subpixels neighboring the second pixel
location.” Independent claims 40 and 45 share a similar requirement that the
exposure depends “on the values of the subpixels corresponding to the first
pixel location that neighbor the second pixel location.” Independent claim
47 requires exposure “as a function of a respective number of the subunits in
at least one of the other picture elements that are enabled adjacent the picture
element.”
These limitations are reasonably interpreted to require that the level of
exposure of a pixel location will depend not only on the values of the pixel
itself, but will also depend on the values of the pixels which surround the
pixel at issue.
This is consistent with figures 4 and 5 of the Specification (FF 1),
which both show a single pixel mapped onto a 16 unit grid with 4 of the
subpixels being dark and the remainder being light, for a 25% grayscale. As
the Specification teaches, the different patterns in which these are
embedded, that is the values of the neighboring pixels, will be used to vary
the laser intensity to “produce an image that is a more accurate rendition of
the original” (Spec.13, ll. 18-19).
We agree with Appellants that neither Smith, Ohtsuka, nor Kurumida
teach or suggest a method where the intensity of a neighboring or adjacent
pixel location is used to effect the intensity of the pixel location being
printed (see App. Br. 6-10).
Appeal 2011-003247
Application 10/950,841

9
We do not find that the Examiner has satisfied the burden of
establishing that the prior art teaches or suggests the use of neighboring or
adjacent pixel information to inform the printing of a pixel. The Examiner
does not identify, and we do not find, any teaching or suggestion in Smith,
Ohtsuka, or Kurumida to use information from a neighboring pixel to
inform, effect, or otherwise modify the intensity of a pixel as it is being
exposed or printed. Indeed, while Ohtsuka does not precisely teach away
from the use of a neighboring pixel, Ohtsuka does state that “it is possible to
record a pixel which is not affected by an adjacent pixel” (Ohtsuka, col. 16,
ll. 35-37; FF 4). These references appear to simply teach how to assign
intensities to pixels themselves, without regard for the intensity values of the
neighboring or adjacent pixels.
Conclusion of Law
The evidence of record does not support the Examiner’s conclusion
that Smith, Ohtsuka, and Kurumida render obvious exposing a surface at an
exposure level that “depends on the values of the subpixels neighboring the
second pixel location.”
SUMMARY
In summary, we reverse the rejection of claims 22, 24-29, 31-36, and
40-47 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Smith, Ohtsuka, and
Kurumida.

REVERSED

cdc