Ex Parte Gregory

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 31, 2010

10749525 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 31, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
________________

Ex parte RICHARD T. GREGORY
________________

Appeal 2009-006974
Application 10/749,525
Technology Center 2600
________________

Before KENNETH W. HAIRSTON, THOMAS S. HAHN, and
BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, Administrative Patent Judges.

HAIRSTON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE”
(paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery
mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.
Appeal 2009-006974
Application 10/749,525

2
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. §§ 6(b) and 134(a) from the final
rejection of claims 1 to 31.
We reverse.
The disclosed invention relates to a system and method for distributed
printer processing of print jobs using multiple printers (Spec. 1:4–2:25;
Abstract). Appellant discloses and claims a method for distributed
processing that includes (i) dividing a job into plural print job segments
using a print distribution module and program, (ii) sending the segments to
multiple distribution response printers, (iii) processing the segments into
print engine-ready data segments, and (iv) assembling the plural print
engine-ready data segments at the print distribution module (Abstract;
claims 1, 18, 30, 31; Spec. 5:4–6:31).
Claim 1 is representative of the claimed invention, with emphasis
added to argued portions, and reads as follows:
1. A method for distributed processing of print jobs using multiple
printer processors and centralized printing, comprising the steps of:
dividing a print job into a plurality of print job segments in a print
distribution module;
transmitting the plurality of print job segments to one or more
distribution responsive printers;
processing the plurality of print job segments into a plurality of print
engine-ready data segments using the one or more distribution responsive
printers;
assembling the plurality of print engine-ready data segments received
from the one or more distribution responsive printers at the print
distribution module; and
printing the assembled plurality of print engine-ready data segments at
a target printer when the plurality of segments is received from the print
distribution module.
Appeal 2009-006974
Application 10/749,525

3
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Shima US 2004/0158654 A1 Aug. 12, 2004
(filed Nov. 25, 2003)
Barry US 7,099,027 B1 Aug. 29, 2006
(filed May 18, 2001)
(i) The Examiner rejected claims 1 to 11, 15 to 25, and 28 to 31 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) based upon the teachings of Barry.
(ii) The Examiner rejected claims 12 to 14, 26, and 27 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of Barry and Shima.
With regard to the anticipation rejection of claims 1 to 11, 15 to 25,
and 28 to 31, the Examiner relies upon Barry as disclosing the features
recited in these claims of assembling a plurality of print-ready engine data
segments at a print distribution module (Ans. 3). Specifically, the Examiner
cites column 5, lines 4 to 10, and RIP and PRINT1 engine 150 of Figure 1b
of Barry (see Ans. 3), as disclosing the recited step of assembling the
plurality of print engine-ready data segments received from the one or more
distribution responsive printers. The Examiner also contends that the
assembled plurality of print engine-ready data segments are printed at a
target printer when they are received from the print distribution module as
disclosed in Barry at column 5, lines 14 to 18, and path 164 of Fig. 1b (Ans.
4).
Appellant argues, inter alia, (App. Br. 18-25; Reply Br. 4-7) that the
applied reference to Barry fails to teach or suggest (i) printing after a merge
along path 164, (ii) electronic assembly of data segments (but instead refers
to a mechanical collation of physical print outputs, see Fig. 1b), and (iii)
merging prior to processing and printing the print job (App. Br. 22 (citing
Appeal 2009-006974
Application 10/749,525

4
Barry, col. 5, ll. 39-41)). More specifically, Appellant argues (App. Br. 23)
that Barry fails to disclose that the page description language (PDL)
formatted files are print engine-ready data segments which are formatted
after RIPping (raster image processing), as recited in claims 1, 18, 30, and
31.
The pivotal issue is whether, under § 102(e), the Examiner erred in
finding Barry explicitly or inherently teaches assembling print engine-ready
data segments received from distribution responsive printers at a print
distribution module prior to printing?
Although Barry discloses a method (Abstract; Figs. 1a, 1b; col. 5, ll.
1-49) that is similar to Appellant’s disclosed invention for distributing
printer processing (Spec. 2:17-25; 5:4-25), Barry is silent as to assembling
files or segments after RIPping. In other words, Barry is silent as to
assembling print engine-ready data segments after print processing, as set
forth in claims 1, 18, 30, and 31 on appeal. Appellant’s argument (Reply Br.
6) that Barry does not separate the RIPping and printing processes is
convincing. The Examiner has not sufficiently shown how or why Barry’s
pre-RIPping PDL file is the same as Appellant’s post-RIPping file. In fact,
Appellant describes in the Specification (Spec. 5:10-25) that print job files
written in printer languages such as page description language (PDL) can be
converted by a print processor into print engine-ready data that can be used
to print a job without having to perform substantial other processing.
Based on our finding with respect to Barry, we agree with Appellant
(Reply Br. 4-6) that Barry fails to disclose operating on post-RIPping files or
print engine-ready data segments as recited in claims 1, 18, 30, and 31.
Barry’s pre-RIPping PDL file does not anticipate Appellant’s post-RIPping
Appeal 2009-006974
Application 10/749,525

5
files or print engine-ready data segments. The feature of assembling a
merged group of data segments in the same print distribution module that
divided the data segments in order to output a merged electronic job to a
single target printer is simply missing from Barry, and the Examiner has not
shown that such a feature is inherent in the operation of Barry. The
Examiner has failed to show that Barry’s column 5, lines 15 to 18, teaches
an electronically merged print job. Instead, we are persuaded by Appellant’s
assertion (App. Br. 22) that Barry merges physical copies of already printed
files/documents, as opposed to merging or assembling electronic versions of
data segments or files. Barry plainly describes segmenting a print job file at
element 114 and using distributor 118 (Fig. 1a, 1b) to route the print job files
to plural RIP engines to provide “parallel conversion processing and printing
prior to becoming merged together to complete the print job along path 164”
(col. 5, ll. 36-41 (emphasis added); Fig. 1b).
Thus, with respect to the independent claims 1, 18, 30, and 31, Barry
fails to teach the limitation common to each of these claims of a method of
distributed processing of print jobs including the step of assembling a
plurality of print engine-ready data segments at a print distribution module
(after dividing and processing the segments, and then sending them back to
the print distribution module). It follows that the Examiner has not
established anticipation, because Barry does not disclose each and every
limitation of the claimed invention set forth in independent claims 1, 18, 30,
and 31. Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO, Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347 (Fed. Cir.
1999); In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1478-79 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The Examiner has not established a prima facie case of obviousness of
the claimed subject matter set forth in dependent claims 12 to 14, 26, and 27,
Appeal 2009-006974
Application 10/749,525

6
since the teachings of Shima fail to cure the noted shortcomings of Barry as
set forth above with respect to claims 1 and 18 from which these claims
respectively depend. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir.
1992).
In summary, the anticipation rejection of claims 1 to 11, 15 to 25, and
28 to 31 is not sustained because Barry does not teach assembling a plurality
of print engine-ready data segments at a print distribution module. The
obviousness rejection of claims 12 to 14, 26, and 27 over Barry and Shima is
not sustained because the Examiner’s articulated reasoning (including the
Examiner’s factual findings as to Barry) concerning the teachings of Barry
and Shima does not support a legal conclusion of obviousness. KSR Int’l
Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007).

CONCLUSIONS
The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1 to 11, 15 to 25, and 28 to 31
under 35 U.S.C. §102(e).
The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 12 to 14, 26, and 27 under 35
U.S.C. §103(a).

ORDER
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1 to 31 is reversed.

REVERSED

Appeal 2009-006974
Application 10/749,525

7
babc

HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY
Intellectual Property Administration
3404 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 35
FORT COLLINS, CO 80528