Ex Parte Holland

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 22, 2010

10699011 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 22, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte WILLIAM D. HOLLAND
____________

Appeal 2009-004170
Application 10/699,011
Technology Center 2600
____________

Decided: February 22, 2010
____________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, CARLA M. KRIVAK, and
BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, Administrative Patent Judges.

KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-7, 13-23, and 27-38. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.

Appeal 2009-004170
Application 10/699,011

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s claimed invention is a hard imaging device and method
for accessing image data corresponding to images to be formed and their
correction data. The correction data corresponds to scanning errors of an
optical scanning system of the hard imaging device (Spec. ¶ [0008]).
Processing circuitry modifies the image data according to the correction data
to reduce image errors introduced during optical scanning of the image data
(Spec. ¶ [0008]). Specifically, processing circuitry may pre-warp image
data to cancel geometric warping introduced by a scan lens, providing hard
images of acceptable accuracy representing the original image data
(Spec. ¶ [0033]).
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the
subject matter on appeal.

1. A hard imaging method comprising:

accessing image data corresponding to a hard image to be formed;

generating light responsive to the image data;

scanning the light to form a latent image corresponding to the hard
image to be formed;

accessing correction data corresponding to scanning errors of a scan
lens intermediate a rotating reflection device and a photoconductor;
and

modifying the image data using the correction data before the
generating, the modifying comprising modifying to reduce an
introduction of image errors resulting from the scanning using the
scan lens.

Appeal 2009-004170
Application 10/699,011

3
REFERENCES
Ishigami US 5,933,184 Aug. 3, 1999
Chase US 6,611,348 B1 Aug. 26, 2003
Theodoracatos, A 3-D Vision System Model for Automatic Object Surface
Sensing, Int’l Journal of Computer Vision, 11:1, 1993, pp. 75-99.

The Examiner rejected claims 32 and 34-38 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
first paragraph.
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3-5, 7, 13, 16, 18, 19, 23, 27, 28, 31-
33, and 37 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) based upon the teachings of Ishigami.
The Examiner rejected claims 2, 6, 14, 15, 21, 22, 30, 34-36, and 38
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of Ishigami.1
The Examiner rejected claims 17, 20, and 29 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) based upon the teachings of Ishigami and Theodoracatos.
Appellant contends there is support in the Specification to satisfy the
written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph (App. Br.
22-25; Reply Br. 18-23) for claims 32 and 34-38. Appellant further
contends Ishigami discloses variation of clock pulses according to correction
data, but does not modify image data using correction data (App. Br. 4-6;
Reply Br. 1-4). Appellant also contends Ishigami teaches modifying clock
signals to vary clocking of image data rather than modifying the image data
at a constant rate as claimed (App. Br. 18-19; Reply Br. 15). Finally,
Appellant contends Ishigami fails to teach or suggest modifying image data

1 The Examiner also cited Chase as showing that one of ordinary skill in the
art would have known that a printer includes a raster image processor to
rasterize files from one data type to another (Ans. 11).

Appeal 2009-004170
Application 10/699,011

4
to cause a pixel of one scan line of a raster to be imaged using a pixel of
another scan line of the raster (App. Br. 19-20; Reply Br. 16).

ISSUES
Did the Examiner err in finding Appellant’s Specification does not
satisfy the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph?
Did the Examiner err in finding Ishigami teaches or suggests
Appellant’s claimed invention?

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Ishigami teaches a storage unit 8 holds uniform velocity
correction data that corrects distortion during expansion or contraction of the
electrostatic latent image in the main scanning direction due to a
characteristic of the optical system 3 (col. 4, ll. 52-55; Fig. 1).
2. An image clock generating unit 9 generates a chain of clock
pulses for creating image signals having a period corresponding to the
uniform velocity correction data (col. 4, ll. 57-63; Fig. 1). An image signal
creating unit 7 creates the image signal according to the image clock pulses
from the image clock generating unit (col. 4, ll. 63-65; Fig. 1). It then
transmits the image signal to a laser light source 5 to create a latent image
(col. 4, ll. 48-51, 32-39; Fig. 1). The latent image is used for forming a color
image using toner (col. 1, ll. 5-11). As a result of the varied clock pulses, a
printed character is prevented from being distorted (col. 7, ll. 10-12).
3. Chase discloses that images are rasterized by being converted to
a bitmap (col. 7, l. 59). A bitmap is a digitized collection of binary pixel
Appeal 2009-004170
Application 10/699,011

5
information that gives an output device such as printer 340 the ability to
image data to paper (col. 7, ll. 59-62; Fig. 2). Printer 340 includes an
onboard raster image processor (RIP) for rasterizing files (col. 7, l. 57-58;
Fig. 2).

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
To satisfy the written description requirement, the disclosure must
convey with reasonable clarity to skilled artisans that Appellants were in
possession of the claimed invention as of the filing date. Vas-Cath Inc. v.
Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563-64 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
“A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in
the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior
art reference.” Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co. of California, 814
F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, it is incumbent upon the
Examiner to establish a factual basis to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 1988).

ANALYSIS
Rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph
Claim 32
Appellant contends claim 32 is supported by paragraphs 0037 and
0040 of the Specification. 2 These paragraphs teach modifying image data,

2 Appellant erroneously argued claim 31 instead of claim 32 on pages 21-22
of the Appeal Brief, but corrected this error on pages 18-19 of the Reply
Brief.

Appeal 2009-004170
Application 10/699,011

6
which causes different pixels of a raster to be imaged as compared with
initial image data. For example, pixel 8 or pixel 12 of a circle is imaged
instead of pixel 10 of the initial image data to correct for error caused by the
scan lens. (Reply Br. 18) Thus, the Specification supports the limitations
recited in claim 32.
Claims 34 and 38
Appellant contends claims 34 and 38 are supported by paragraph 0044
of the Specification. This paragraph expressly teaches modified image data
may be outputted to a light source at a constant rate as claimed. (Appeal Br.
23, 25; Reply Br. 19, 23) Thus, the Specification supports the limitations
recited in claims 34 and 38.
Claim 35
Appellant contends claim 35 is supported by paragraph 0037 of the
Specification. This paragraph teaches the raster image processor may
calculate an intersection of individual scan lines with graphical objects to
determine which pixels turn off and on in individual scan lines. Appellant
further contends that because paragraphs 0040 and 0043 of the Specification
teach pixels of a circle are moved to compensate for errors in the optical
system, these teachings support the limitation of modified image data
causing a pixel of one scan line to be imaged using a pixel of another scan
line. (App. Br. 23-24; Reply Br. 20)
Thus, paragraphs 0037, 0040, and 0043 of the Specification teach
replacement of pixels in a circle across multiple scan lines to compensate for
errors in the optical system, as recited by claim 35. Therefore, the
Specification supports the limitations recited in claim 35.

Appeal 2009-004170
Application 10/699,011

7
Claim 36
Appellant contends claim 36 is supported by paragraphs 0039 and
0040 of the Specification. Paragraph 0039 teaches a raster image processor
configured to modify initial image data using correction data. Appellant
also contends paragraph 0040 teaches applying a correction warp to
graphical objects, which may be rasterized. (App. Br. 24) Thus, because the
Specification teaches modifying the image data with correction data results
in a different image as required by claim 36, the Specification supports the
limitations recited in claim 36.
Claim 37
Appellant contends claim 37 is supported by paragraph 0040 of the
Specification, which teaches the axis of a graphical object in the scan
direction may increase or decrease to cancel optical distortion causing
different pixels to be imaged compared with the initial data image, thus
compensating for optical distortion. (Appeal Br. 25; Reply Br. 22) Thus,
the Specification supports the limitations recited in claim 37.

Rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
Claims 1, 3-5, 7, and 31-33
Appellant contends the features in claims 1, 3-5, 7, and 31-33 are not
taught by Ishigami (App. Br. 4-6; Reply Br. 1-4). With respect to claim 1,
Appellant asserts Ishigami does not teach modifying image data using
correction data (App. Br. 4-6; Reply Br. 1-4). Appellant further asserts
Ishigami uses uniform velocity correction data to modify clock signals, not
image data (App. Br. 5; Ishigami, col. 4, ll. 52-67; Reply Br. 2-3).
Appeal 2009-004170
Application 10/699,011

8
Ishigami teaches an image signal creating unit contains an image
clock generator that uses the uniform velocity correction data for generating
a chain of clock pulses (FF 1). The chain of clock pulses is used with image
data to correct distortion expansion or contraction of the latent image in the
main scanning direction (FF 2). Thus, Ishigami modifies image data with
correction data via a chain of clock pulses. This modification is the same as
using a clock pulse to (subsequently) generate modified image data as
recited in claim 1 (Ans. 5, 16-17). Further, because claim 1 does not
preclude intervening steps, and Ishigami ultimately uses uniform velocity
correction data to modify the application of the image data as claimed, the
elements of claim 1, and claims 3-5 and 7, which have not been separately
argued, are taught by Ishigami.
With respect to claim 31, Appellant argues Ishigami does not modify
content of a representation of a hard image (App. Br. 16-17; Reply Br. 12-
13). However, as discussed above, Ishigami does modify image data.
Furthermore, Ishigami teaches a printer that prints four color images onto a
transfer paper sheet to create a “hard image” (FF 2), thus, modifying image
data and printing the image data as a hard image. Therefore, Appellant has
not shown the Examiner erred in finding Ishigami teaches the features of
claim 31.
With respect to claims 32 and 33, Appellant argues Ishigami does not
teach rasterizing different pixels to be imaged and modifying a graphical
object, respectively (App. Br. 17; Reply Br. 13-14). The Examiner correctly
finds Ishigami teaches modifying image data to correct for distortion, which
causes different pixels of a raster to be imaged compared with the initial
image (Ans. 35-36). Thus, for these reasons and those set forth above with
Appeal 2009-004170
Application 10/699,011

9
respect to claim 1, Ishigami teaches the limitations recited in claims 32 and
33.
Claims 13, 16, and 37
Appellant contends the features claims 13, 16, and 37 are not taught
by Ishigami. Appellant addresses this rejection with respect to claim 13 and
asserts Ishigami does not teach processing circuitry configured to access
image data and correction data (App. Br. 6-7; Reply Br. 4-6).
As discussed above with respect to claim 1, Ishigami teaches using
uniform velocity correction data to generate a chain of clock pulses for
modifying the application of the image data. The processing circuitry in
Ishigami accesses correction data in a storage unit to correct the application
of image data received by the image signal creating unit. (FF 1, 2) Thus,
Ishigami teaches the claimed processing circuitry configured to access image
data and correction data. Therefore, Ishigami teaches the limitation recited
in claim 13, as well as claims 16 and 37, which depend therefrom.
Claims 18, 19, 23, 27, and 28
Appellant contends the features of claims 18, 19, 23, 27, and 28 are
not taught by Ishigami (App. Br. 8-10; Reply Br. 6-8). Appellant addresses
this rejection with respect to claim 18 and asserts substantially the same
arguments as those asserted with respect to claims 1 and 13. Appellant
further contends Ishigami does not teach processing circuitry for modifying
the image data to reduce the presence of image errors caused by scanning
errors (App. Br. 8-9; Reply Br. 6-7).
As found by the Examiner, the image clock generating unit 9 in
Figure 1 of Ishigami teaches the recited processing circuitry (Ans. 23; FF 1,
2). Further, by correcting distortion, Ishigami reduces the presence of image
Appeal 2009-004170
Application 10/699,011

10
errors caused by scanning errors (col. 4, ll. 53-56). Ishigami therefore
teaches the required processing circuitry for modifying image data to correct
image errors caused by scanning errors recited in claim 18, and thus claims
19, 23, 27, and 28, which depend therefrom.

Rejection of Claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Claims 2, 15, 22, and 36
Appellant contends that claims 2, 15, 22, and 36 are not taught or
suggested by Ishigami (App. Br. 10-12, 15-16, 21; Reply Br. 8-10, 12, 16-
17). With respect to claim 2, Appellant contends Ishigami does not modify
the image data being rasterized during rasterization (App. Br. 10-12; Reply
Br. 8-10).
The Examiner finds that Ishigami discloses scanning data in a main
direction (Ans. 11). The Examiner also acknowledges Ishigami does not
specifically disclose rasterizing the image data, but relies on Chase for
showing it was known in the art at the time of Appellant’s invention that
scanning data in a main scan direction is the same as rasterizing (Ans. 11).
Because Ishigami teaches forming a latent image in the main scanning
direction (FF 1), it would be obvious in view of Chase that this is
rasterization (FF 3). Appellant asserts substantially the same arguments with
regard to claims 15, 22, and 36 (App. Br. 15-16, 21; Reply Br. 12, 16-17).
Therefore, the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 2, 15, 22, and 36 over
Ishigami.

Appeal 2009-004170
Application 10/699,011

11
Claims 6, 14, 21, and 30
With respect to claims 6, 14, and 30, Appellant asserts Ishigami does
not modify image data using a raster image processor (App. Br. 13-14;
Reply Br. 10-11).
As discussed above, Ishigami teaches rasterizing image data. As
argued by the Examiner (Ans. 30), because rasterizing requires a raterizing
processor, Ishigami would necessarily include a raster image processor.
Claim 21 includes substantially the same raster image processor limitation
recited in claims 6, 14, 30, and Appellant asserts substantially the same
arguments with respect to these claims (App. Br. 14-15; Reply Br. 11-12).
Thus, for the above reasons, the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 6,
14, 21, and 30 over Ishigami.
Claims 34 and 38
Claims 34 and 38 require data be output or applied “at a constant
rate.” Appellant contends Ishigami varies the clocking rate of the data to
provide correction (App. Br. 18-19; Reply Br. 15). The Examiner
acknowledges that Ishigami does not specifically disclose outputting data at
a constant rate, but finds one of ordinary skill in the art would have known
to include such a feature to output data at an undistorted uniform velocity
because Ishigami corrects for uniform velocity (Ans. 12-14).
However, Ishigami teaches modifying clock signals to vary clocking
of the image data to correct for distortion, therefore the data is not output or
applied at a constant rate as recited in claims 34 and 38. Thus, the Examiner
has failed to establish claims 34 and 38 are obvious over Ishigami.

Appeal 2009-004170
Application 10/699,011

12
Claim 35
Claim 35 requires outputting or applying data as “a pixel of one scan
line of a raster to be imaged using a pixel of another scan line.” Appellant
contends Ishigami does not disclose this feature (App. Br. 19-20; Reply Br.
16). The Examiner acknowledges that Ishigami does not specifically
disclose this feature, but finds one of ordinary skill would have known and
used such a feature because pixels are the same in different scan lines for
typical objects (Ans. 13).
The Examiner, however, has not identified any teaching in the prior
art showing a pixel of one scan line of a raster being imaged using a pixel of
another scan line. Thus, the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 35 over
Ishigami.
Claims 17, 20, and 29
The Examiner rejected claims 17, 20, and 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
over Ishigami and Theodoracatos (Ans. 14). Appellant does not challenge
the Examiner’s findings regarding Theodoracatos, but instead argues claims
17, 20, and 29 are allowable for that same reasons as those presented for
claims 13, 18, and 27, respectively (App. Br. 7, 9-10; Reply Br. 8).
Therefore, for the same reasons set forth above, the Examiner did not err in
rejecting claims 17, 20, and 29 over Ishigami and Theodoracatos.

CONCLUSION
The Specification satisfies the written description requirement of 35
U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph.
The Examiner did not err in finding Ishigami teaches or suggests the
features recited in claims 1-7, 13-23, and 27-38.
Appeal 2009-004170
Application 10/699,011

13
The Examiner did err in finding Ishigami suggests the features recited
in claims 34, 35, and 38.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 32 and 34-38 under 35
U.S.C. §112 is reversed.
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 3-5, 7, 13, 16, 18, 19, 23,
27, 28, 31-33, and 37 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is affirmed.
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 2, 6, 14, 15, 21, 22, 30, and
36, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is affirmed.
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 34, 35 and 38, under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed.
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-IN-PART

KIS

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