Ex Parte Henry et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 26, 2016

13207270 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 26, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/207,270 08/10/2011
22879 7590 09/28/2016
HP Inc,
3390 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 35
FORT COLLINS, CO 80528-9544
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Shaun Henry
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
82264037 5613
EXAMINER
RUST, ERICA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2674
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/28/2016 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):
ipa.mail@hp.com
barbl@hp.com
yvonne.bailey@hp.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SHAUN HENRY and FABIO GIANNETTI
Appeal2015-001226
Application 13/207,270
Technology Center 2600
Before JEFFREYS. SMITH, JOHN F. HORVATH, and
NABEEL U. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2015-001226
Application 13/207,270
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection 1
of claims 1-20, which are all the claims pending in the application. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
Illustrative Claim
1. A computer-implemented method of processing a file
comprising a plurality of pages for printing, said method
compnsmg:
for each page in said file, determining with at least one
processor whether to perform a trapping function on that said
page; and
distributing said pages in said file among a plurality of
parallel raster image processors based on said determination for
each said page of whether to perform said trapping function.
Prior Art
Kuhn US 2009/0027716 Al Jan.29,2009
Igarashi US 2010/0110483 Al May 6, 2010
Wood US 7,861,156 B2 Dec. 28, 2010
Eguchi US 2011/0128556 Al June 2, 2011
1 On pages 10 and 11 of the Examiner's Answer, the Examiner withdraws
the rejection of claims 6, 16, and 17 as unpatentable over Eguchi and Wood.
The Examiner maintains the rejection of claim 6 as unpatentable over
Eguchi, Wood, and Kuhn. Ans. 6-8. Claims 16 and 17 are not rejected.
2
Appeal2015-001226
Application 13/207,270
Examiner ;s Rejections
Claims 1--4, 11-14, 18, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Eguchi and Wood.
Claims 5, 6, 9, 10, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Eguchi, Wood, and Kuhn.
Claims 7 and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Eguchi, Wood, Kuhn and Igarashi.
Claim 19 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Eguchi, Wood, and Igarashi.
ANALYSIS
We adopt the Examiner's findings of fact made in the Final Action
and Examiner's Answer as our own. We concur with the conclusions
reached by the Examiner for the reasons given in the Examiner's Answer.
We highlight the following for emphasis.
Section 103 rejection of claims 1, 4, and 14
Claim 1 recites "determining with at least one processor whether to
perform a trapping function on that said page." Paragraph 31 of Eguchi
teaches trapping processing unit 1024 performing a trapping discriminating
process to discriminate whether trapping has been set to ON. Appellants
contend deciding whether to set trapping ON is performed by a user of
Eguchi' s apparatus, rather than a processor. Reply Br. 5---6 (citing Eguchi i-f
31 ). However, the processor of Eguchi still determines whether to perform
trapping, by discriminating whether trapping is set to ON. Appellants have
not provided persuasive evidence or argument to distinguish "determining
3
Appeal2015-001226
Application 13/207,270
with at least one processor whether to perform a trapping function on that
said page" as recited in claim 1 from discriminating, with the processor of
Eguchi, whether the trapping is set to ON. Moreover, as shown in Figure 2
of Eguchi, upon determining the trapping is set to ON, the processor
executes a trapping process S206 upon determining that certain trapping
conditions are satisfied. See Eguchi i-f 31, Fig. 2 ("[I]f the executing
conditions [S202-S205] of all trapping processes are satisfied, the trapping
process is executed for the first time.").
Appellants also contend Eguchi does not determine whether to
perform trapping on "a page" within the meaning of claim 1, because Eguchi
teaches designating trapping on a page unit basis, rather than on "a page"
basis as claimed. App. Br. 11 (citing Eguchi i-f 2). According to Appellants,
a page unit is a section of a page rather than the entire page. Reply Br. 7.
To support this contention, Appellants refer to a specialized, cartographic
dictionary definition of "page unit," as a unit of measure, such as inches, for
arranging map elements on a page for printing, as opposed to the coordinates
on the ground that the map represents. App. Br. 11; Reply Br. 7. Paragraph
2 of Eguchi teaches "a technique for designating the trapping on a page unit
basis .... " Using Appellants' definition of "page unit," Appellants would
have us read Eguchi as teaching "a technique for designating the trapping on
[an inch by inch] basis." The Examiner proposes Eguchi' s teaching means
"designating the trapping on a [page by page] basis." See Ans. 11-12.
We find the Examiner's interpretation reasonable. See In re Morris,
127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). "Absent an express definition in their
specification, the fact that appellants can point to definitions or usages that
conform to their interpretation does not make the PTO' s definition
4
Appeal2015-001226
Application 13/207,270
unreasonable when the PTO can point to other sources that support its
interpretation." Id. at 1056. Moreover, Appellants proffer no evidence the
specialized cartographic definition of "page unit" is equally applicable to the
types of non-cartographic documents analyzed by Eguchi.
Appellants present additional arguments for the patentability of claim
1 (App. Br. 12-15; Reply Br. 7-8) that are based on the premise that neither
Wood nor Eguchi teaches "determining with at least one processor whether
to perform a trapping function on that said page" as recited in claim 1.
Appellants' additional arguments are inconsistent with the teachings of
Paragraph 31 of Eguchi as discussed above.
We sustain the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Claims
4 and 14, not separately, argued fall with claim 1.
Section 103 rejections of claims 2, 3, 5-13, 15, and 18-20
Appellants present arguments for the patentability of claims 2, 3, 5-
13, and 15-20 that are based on the premise that Eguchi does not teach
"determining with at least one processor whether to perform a trapping
function on that said page" (App. Br. 15-26), which we find unpersuasive as
discussed in our analysis of claim 1.
We sustain the rejections of claims 2, 3, 5-13, 15, and 18-20 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION
The rejection of claims 1--4, 11-14, 18, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as unpatentable over Eguchi and Wood is affirmed.
5
Appeal2015-001226
Application 13/207,270
The rejection of claims 5, 6, 9, 10, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Eguchi, Wood, and Kuhn is affirmed.
The rejection of claims 7 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Eguchi, Wood, Kuhn, and Igarashi is affirmed.
The rejection ofclaim 19 under§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Eguchi,
Wood, and Igarashi 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). See 37 C.F.R. §
41.50(±).
AFFIRMED
6