Ex Parte Hoes et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 29, 2013

10855094 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 29, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
10/855,094 05/27/2004 Thorsten Hoes 600.1314 8972
23280 7590 07/30/2013
Davidson, Davidson & Kappel, LLC
485 7th Avenue
14th Floor
New York, NY 10018
EXAMINER
DICKER, DENNIS T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2672
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/30/2013 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 THORSTEN HOES and MICHAEL KAISER
____________

Appeal 2011-001120
Application 10/855,094
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, JOHN A. EVANS, and JOHN G. NEW,
Administrative Patent Judges.

RUGGIERO, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-14, which are all of the pending claims. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner,
reference is made to the Appeal Brief (filed May 10, 2010), the Answer
Appeal 2011-001120
Application 10/855,094

2
(mailed June 23, 2010), and the Reply Brief (filed Aug. 11, 2010). Only
those arguments actually made by Appellants have been considered in this
decision. Arguments which Appellants could have made but chose not to
make in the Briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be waived
(see 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)).

Appellants’ Invention
Appellants’ invention relates to the generation of digital imaging data
for an imaging unit in which the digital imaging data are defined from a
signature of input image data. A section of the signature corresponding to
the imaging format of the imaging unit is processed into a raster image by a
raster image processor. The section is defined based on the geometric
parameters of an image area of the input image data. See generally Abstract.

Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and reads as follows:
1. A method for generating digital imaging data for an imaging unit,
the digital imaging data are defined from a signature of input image data, the
method comprising the steps of:
defining a section of the signature corresponding to an imaging format
of the imaging unit as a function of geometric parameters of an image area
of the input image data; and
processing the section of the signature into a raster image by a raster
image processor.

The Examiner’s Rejections
The Examiner relies on the following prior art references to show
unpatentability:
Santos US 4,837,635 June 6, 1989
Catt US 2002/0171871 A1 Nov. 21, 2002
Appeal 2011-001120
Application 10/855,094

3
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, and 8-14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
being anticipated by Catt.
Claims 3, 6, and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Catt in view of Santos.

ANALYSIS
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) REJECTION
Claims 1, 5, and 8-14
Appellants initially argue, with respect to the Examiner’s anticipation
rejection of independent claim 1, that Catt does not disclose a “signature” of
input image data that includes data of an image area. According to
Appellants, Catt’s imposition template 100 merely dictates where images are
to be located within the image area of an imagesetter 62 or platesetter 64
(App. Br. 5). In a related argument, Appellants contend that neither Catt’s
imposition template 100 nor the press sheet assembly includes a section that
corresponds to an imaging format of an imaging unit as a function of
geometric parameters of an image area of the input image data (App. Br. 6;
Reply Br. 2-3).
We do not agree with Appellants. We find no error in the Examiner’s
determination that Catt discloses a signature that includes a layout or format
of an image area (Ans. 4, citing Fig. 4 and ¶ [0050] of Catt). We also agree
with the Examiner that a portion of Catt’s signature includes an imaging
format of the platesetter or imagesetter imaging units as a function of the
geometric parameters such as position, offset, and orientation of the input
image area (id., citing ¶¶ [0054], [0055], and [0063] of Catt). As described
by Catt, the signature includes position data relative to the type of output
Appeal 2011-001120
Application 10/855,094

4
device 46 and target media used on the press 56 (¶¶ [0054], [0064], and
[0065]).
Appellants’ further argument that Catt does not disclose that only a
defined section of the signature that corresponds to an imaging format of an
imaging unit is rasterized is unpersuasive (App. Br. 6; Reply Br. 3). This
argument is not commensurate in scope with claim 1 which has no
requirement that only the imaging unit signature section is rasterized.
In view of the above discussion, we find that the Examiner did not err
in concluding that all of the limitations of independent claim 1 are present in
the disclosure of Catt. Accordingly, the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
rejection of independent claim 1, as well as the rejection of dependent claims
5 and 8-14 not separately argued by Appellants, is sustained.

Claims 2 and 4
We also sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection, based on Catt,
of dependent claims 2 and 4. Appellants’ arguments (App. Br. 7) are
unpersuasive of any error in the Examiner’s determination that the geometric
parameters of the image are at least temporarily stored in the raster image
processor (RIP) at the time of processing (Ans. 10, citing ¶¶ [0015] and
[0063] of Catt).
We also find Appellants’ further argument (App. Br. 7-8)
unpersuasive of any error in the Examiner’s determination that Catt
discloses a user interface to select from different templates with different
geometric parameters (Ans. 10, citing ¶¶ [0079] and [0054] of Catt).
Contrary to Appellants’ contention, as pointed out by the Examiner, there is
Appeal 2011-001120
Application 10/855,094

5
no claim language which precludes the signature from being previously
rasterized (Ans. 10-11).

35 U.S.C. § 103(a) REJECTION
We also sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection, based on the
combination of Catt and Santos, of dependent claims 3 and 7, as well as the
rejection of dependent claim 6 not separately argued by Appellants. We find
Appellants’ arguments (App. Br. 9-10; Reply Br. 3) unpersuasive of any
error in the Examiner’s determination that Santos discloses a shiftable mask
(selection box 71) enabling a user to indicate imageable and nonimageable
regions in accordance with an imaging format of an imaging unit (Ans. 6, 7,
11, citing Figs. 7, 10; col. 2, ll. 33-34, col. 3, ll. 43-68). Further, contrary to
Appellants’ contention (id.) that Catt teaches away from a combination with
Santos, we agree with the Examiner (Ans. 7, 11) that Santos’s teaching of
enabling a user to preview an input image to indicate imageable and
nonimageable regions would have served as an obvious enhancement to the
system of Catt.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-14 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)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

gvw