Ex Parte Horsnell et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 26, 2008

10521686 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 26, 2008)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte DAVID A. HORSNELL, MATTHEW B. TOMLIN,
AMMAR LECHEHEB, OLIVER J. PRIME,
MICHAEL J. FOX, and CHRISTOPHER M. BATES
____________

Appeal 2008-3386
Application 10/521,686
Technology Center 2800
____________

Decided: September 26, 2008
____________

Before CHARLES F. WARREN, TERRY J. OWENS, and
THOMAS A. WALTZ, Administrative Patent Judges.

WALTZ, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s
rejection of all of the pending claims 1-4 in the final Office Action, dated
February 26, 2007. This Board has jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Appeal 2008-3386
Application 10/521,686

The present invention is directed to a print head device and method of
using the same to print an image. Claims 1 and 3 are illustrative and
reproduced below:

1. A print head comprising a rotatable print array
comprising a plurality of print valves, a valve control means in
communication with the print array, a pulse generating means
for generating a regular sequence of pulse signals and means for
rotating, in use, the print array to a predetermined rotation;

the valve control means comprising:

one or more data input lines to receive print data;

memory means comprising an array of memory locations
to store the received print data, one dimension of the array of
memory locations being associated with the plurality of print
valves of the rotatable print array and the other dimension of
the array of memory locations being associated with a plurality
of pre-determined time periods; and

processing means to process the stored print data,
wherein the processing means, in use,

(a) processes the print data in accordance with the
predetermined rotation of the rotatable print array;

(b) divides the print data into a plurality of sub-elements,
each print data sub-element being associated with a
respective print valve and a respective pre-determined
time period;

(c) writes each print data sub-element to the memory
location associated with the respective print valve and the
respective pre-determined time period;
2
Appeal 2008-3386
Application 10/521,686

(d) sequentially reads one or more print data sub-
elements from the memory locations associated with one
pre-determined time period;

(e) activates the respective print valves associated with
the one or more print data subelements read in step (d);

characterised in that step (d) is repeated for a subsequent pre-
determined time period for each pulse generated by the pulse
generating means.

3. A method of printing an image with a print head
comprising a rotatable print array comprising a plurality of print
valves, the method comprising the steps of:

(a) rotating the print head to a predetermined rotation;

(b) generating a regular sequence of pulse signals;

(c) generating a raster signal representing the image to be
printed;

(d) dividing the raster signal into a plurality of sub-elements;

(e) writing each raster signal sub-element into memory means
comprising an array of memory locations to store the received
print data, one dimension of the array of memory locations
being associated with the plurality of print valves of the
rotatable print array and the other dimension of the array of
memory locations being associated with a plurality of
predetermined time periods;

(f) sequentially reading each raster signal sub-element from the
memory locations associated with one pre-determined time
period; and

(g) activating the respective print valves associated with each
raster signal sub-element read in step (f);
3
Appeal 2008-3386
Application 10/521,686

characterized in that step (f) is repeated for a subsequent pre-
determined time period for each pulse generated by the pulse
generating means.

The Examiner cites the following prior art references as evidence of
unpatentability of the pending claims:
Slomianny GB 2134045 A Aug. 8, 1984
Peer US 4,567,670 Jan. 28, 1986

Appellants seek review of the following rejection of all pending
claims:
1. Claims 1-4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Slomianny in view of Peer.
ISSUES ON APPEAL
In their request for review, Appellants identify the following issues of
fact and law related to the Examiner’s rejections:
1. Does Peer teach the limitation of “sequentially reading one or
more print data sub-elements from the memory locations associated with one
pre-determined time period?”
2. Does Peer teach repeating the sequential reading step, above,
for a subsequent pre-determined time period for each pulse generated by the
pulse generating means?
3. Is Appellants’ claimed invention, as a whole, obvious over the
teachings of Slomianny and Peer?
We determine that the dispositive issue is whether Appellants have
established that the Examiner committed reversible error in combining the
teachings of Slomianny and Peer to render obvious all of the limitations of
the claims on appeal.
4
Appeal 2008-3386
Application 10/521,686

FINDINGS OF FACT (“FF”)
The following findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence
in the record. Additional findings of fact as necessary appear in the
Discussion section of this opinion.
1. Slomianny discloses a method and apparatus including a print
head with a rotatable print array, comprising a plurality of print valves, a
valve control means in communication with the print array, a pulse
generating means, in use generating a regular sequence of pulse signals and
means for rotating, in use, the print array to a predetermined rotation. P. 1,
ll. 1-14 and ll. 48-64, see, Figs. 5 and 6. The valve control means comprises
one or more data input lines to receive print data, memory means comprising
an array of memory locations to store the received print data, an array of
memory locations being associated with the plurality of print valves (jet
orifices) of the rotatable print array and the other dimension of the array of
memory locations being associated with a plurality of pre-determined time
periods. P. 2, ll. 71-80. The invention further comprises processing the
print data in accordance with the predetermined rotation of the rotatable
print array. P. 1, ll. 48-64.
2. Peer discloses a logic network and method for processing
columns of vertically oriented imaging data bits used for operating a slanted
print head, including writing byte segments into memory, skewing the image
data in memory and reading out the skewed data from memory for operating
the print elements to print the image data under the print head during a given
print cycle. Abstract.
3. Peer discloses an assembly to perform the method of reading,
skewing and outputting image data to a print head, comprising four input
5
Appeal 2008-3386
Application 10/521,686

latches 65-68, an input data bus 69, a random access memory (RAM) 81
connected to the input latches, and eight output latches 93-100 connected to
the RAM. Col. 5, ll. 39-48. Also included is a drive pulse generator 102.
The drive pulse generator is triggered by a fire pulse received from a data
processor. Col. 8, ll. 35-38. See, Fig. 5.
4. Peer discloses a method of using the above assembly for
printing image data, wherein, first, at the start of each line of printing, the
input latches of memory and RAM1are cleared, or “zeroed.” Then, a cycle
is repeated for each line of printing. During each cycle, one column of data,
comprising 4 bytes of image data, is printed. Col. 7, ll. 11-17. Each cycle
begins with reading the four bytes of image data into the input latches. The
data is then transferred to RAM, where the data is skewed, necessary for
accommodating the inclined print head. The skewed data is then transferred
to the output latches. During skewing and transfer to the output latches,
each byte is divided into two equal half-bytes. Upon receipt of a timing
signal from the drive pulse generator, triggered by the fire pulse, the data in
the eight bytes of the output latch are transferred to the final output latch,
and printed by the print head. Col. 6, ll. 5-30. The print loop is then
repeated for each subsequent column of image data of the current print line.
Col. 6, ll. 14-21. See, Fig. 6.

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
“Section 103 forbids issuance of a patent when ‘the differences
between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such

1 RAM stands for Random Access Memory.
6
Appeal 2008-3386
Application 10/521,686

that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the
invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said
subject matter pertains.’” KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727,
1734 (2007)
The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying
factual determinations including (1) the scope and content of the prior art,
(2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art, (3)
the level of ordinary skill in the art, and (4) where in evidence, so-called
secondary considerations. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18
(1966)
When a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is
altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the
field, the combination must do more than yield predictable results to be
patentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.
Ct. 1727, 1740.
If a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of
ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar
devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual
application is beyond his or her skill. Id.
DISCUSSION
Pending claims 1- 4 are subject to a single rejection under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as unpatentable over Slomianny in view of Peer. Appellants do not
argue the claims separately, but rather address two issues related to the
Examiner’s findings of the prior art disclosure and the subsequent
obviousness as applied to all claims. See App. Br. 6-16. Therefore, we elect
7
Appeal 2008-3386
Application 10/521,686

to treat the claims as a group, to stand or fall together, with claim 1 as
representative. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Appellants dispute whether the prior art teaches two of the limitations
in claim 1. App. Br. 6-13. Otherwise, Appellants have not contested the
teachings of the prior art regarding the remaining limitations. We have
reviewed the Examiner’s findings as to the remaining limitations, and agree
with them. Ans. 3-4, FF 1. Appellants also dispute the obviousness of the
combination of the disclosures of the two references. App. Br. 13-15. These
arguments are addressed below.
Disclosure of Limitations
Appellants contend the following limitations of claim 1 are not found
in the prior art references:
(d) sequentially reads one or more print data sub-
elements from the memory locations associated
with one pre-determined time period;
* * *
characterized in that step (d) is repeated for a
subsequent pre-determined time period for each
pulse generated by the pulse generating means.
App. Br. 6 [emphasis in original].

In the Final Office Action, the Examiner acknowledges the primary
reference, Slomianny, does not teach these limitation, but argues that they
are found in the secondary reference to Peer. Ans. 4-5. In their Appeal
Brief, Appellants dispute that Peer teaches, “sequentially reads one or more
print data sub-elements from the memory locations associated with one pre-
determined time period” [hereinafter referred to as “step (d)”], and that it
8
Appeal 2008-3386
Application 10/521,686

teaches repeating step d for a subsequent pre-determined time period for
each pulse generated by the pulse generator means. App. Br. 6-13.
In their arguments, Appellants separately analyze the excerpts of Peer
referenced by the Examiner in support of the rejection. See App. Br. 7-10.
Appellants then characterize the teaching of each passage, such as, “[t]his
passage of Peer merely discloses that the input latch means receives vertical
columns of imaging input data bits and divides each column into byte
column segments;” App. Br. 7, referring to Peer, col. 1, l. 65 – col. 2, l. 13,
or “[t]his passage of Peer merely discloses that the RAM and the input
latches are zeroed in order to prepare for receiving new columns of vertical
imaging data bits;” App. Br. 9, referring to Peer, col. 6, ll. 5-14, or, in a
conclusory manner, “there is nothing in Figure 6 of Peer that teaches or
suggests [step (d)] or [repeating step (d) for subsequent time period for each
pulse]. App. Br. 11.
However, after fully reviewing Appellants’ augments, we determine
that they have both mischaracterized the teachings of each passage and
failed to consider the teachings of the prior art as a whole.
The disclosures of the passages at issue are summarized in Fig. 6 of
Peer, which is reproduced below:

9
Appeal 2008-3386
Application 10/521,686

Fig. 6 displays a “print loop”, in which a column of image data is
received in the latch inputs, then transferred to RAM and processed (i.e.,
“skewed,” see col. 7, ll. 14 – 23). The skewed data is then transferred to
latch outputs, which are then ready to print. Of relevance to the present
issues is that the inputs and outputs are latched memory. As understood by
one skilled in the art, a latch is “An electronic circuit that reverses and
maintains its state each time that power is applied.”2
As explained in Peer, at the start of each line of printing, after the
input latches of memory and RAM are cleared, or “zeroed”, each column of
image data to be printed is latched and written into RAM. Each column of
image data comprises four 8-bit bytes. The 4 bytes of image data are then

2 McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms 1113 (5th ed.,
Sybil P. Parker, ed., New York, McGraw-Hill, Inc. 1994).
10
Appeal 2008-3386
Application 10/521,686

skewed and written to the output latches. In response to a subsequent fire
signal applied to a drive pulse generator, the latched output data is
transferred to the final output latch, and then printed. See, FF 2-4.
Expressed in terms of the present application, Peer teaches a print loop in
which one or more (4) print data sub-elements (bytes of image data) are read
from memory locations (input latches and/or RAM) associated with one pre-
determined time period (time for the fire pulse to trigger the drive pulse
generator). Thus, step (d) is disclosed in Peer.
As indicated in Fig. 6, this process of inputting 4 bytes of image data,
skewing the data and outputting the skewed data to the final output latch is
repeated for each column of image data across the line of print. Thus, Peer
discloses step (d) is repeated, for each pulse of the fire signal. The period of
the fire signal is pre-determined by the programming of the data processor.
Thus, step (d) is repeated for a subsequent pre-determined time period for
each pulse generated by the pulse generating means. FF 4. Accordingly, we
determine, as a finding of fact supported by substantial evidence, that Peer
discloses the contested limitations.
Obviousness of the Combination
Appellants then contend that the Examiner failed to provide any
reason for finding one of ordinary skill in the art would find the claimed
invention obvious over Slomianny in view of Peer at the time of the
invention. App. Br. 14. The Examiner contends that Peer provides a reason,
in that it discloses that slanted or inclined print heads are complex, having a
high data count and complicated data handling. Peer provides a data
converter system for a slanted or inclined print head, such as that of
Appellants, having a low component count and short processing time. Ans.
11
Appeal 2008-3386
Application 10/521,686

9. As such, Peer provides the known technique to improve the apparatus
disclosed in Slomianny in the same way. Implementing such an
improvement would not be beyond one skilled in the art, as we find the Peer
to be one of ordinary skill in that art. Thus, we determine the invention of
claim 1 to be an obvious improvement upon Slomianny by Peer. KSR, 127
S.Ct. at 1740.
Accordingly, we determine that the Appellants have failed to show the
Examiner has reversibly erred, and the rejection of the Examiner is affirmed.
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
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

PL initials:
sld

12
Appeal 2008-3386
Application 10/521,686

MCANDREWS HELD & MALLOY, LTD
500 WEST MADISON STREET
SUITE 3400
CHICAGO, IL 60661
13