Ex Parte Kakuno

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 14, 2008

09624224 (B.P.A.I. May. 14, 2008)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte NORISHIGE KAKUNO
____________________

Appeal 2007-3097
Application 09/624,2241
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Decided: May 14, 2008
____________________

Before ANITA PELLMAN GROSS, MAHSHID D. SAADAT,
and MARC S. HOFF, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOFF, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.
Appellant’s invention relates to providing a printer device and printer
system flexibly compatible with many languages (Spec. 6). The inventive
method determines the type of language of input print data, selects an

1 Application filed July 24, 2000. The real party in interest is Seiko Epson
Corporation.
Appeal 2007-3097
Application 09/624,224

2
intermediate code generating means and delivers print data to it, selects the
appropriate intermediate code rasterizing means, stores rasterized print
image information, and prints on the basis of the stored print image
information (Spec. 6-7).
Claims 1 and 17 are exemplary:
1. A printing system comprising:
a host operable to output print data compatible with at least one of a
plurality of different printer languages;

a data processing device comprising a plurality of intermediate code
generators, at least one being operable to generate intermediate code
compatible with the print data by performing a language analysis of the print
data, and a plurality of intermediate code rasterizing means for respectively
rasterizing the generated intermediate code into print image information; and

a printer comprising printing means for controlling the print image
information rasterized by the intermediate code rasterizing means to be
stored in a prescribed storage area of said printer, and printing on the basis
of said stored print image information.

17. A printing method to be used in a printer system combining
a printer device and a data processing device, comprising:

a determination step for determining the type of language of input
print data, selecting an intermediate code generating means on the basis of
the determination result, and delivering said print data to said selected
intermediate code generating means, in said printer device; and

an intermediate code generating step for generating the intermediate
code compatible with the print data by performing language analysis of print
data, and outputting the intermediate code identification information, in an
intermediate code generating means of said printer device or an intermediate
code generating means of said data processing device; and
Appeal 2007-3097
Application 09/624,224

3
a print control step for selecting an intermediate code rasterizing
means on the basis of intermediate code identification information input
from the intermediate code generating means, controlling print image
information rasterized by said selected intermediate code rasterizing means
to be stored in a prescribed storage area of said printer device, and printing
on the basis of said stored print image information, in said printer device.

The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Parker US 6,441,919 B1 Aug. 27, 2002
Suzuki EP 0 820 004 A1 Jan. 21, 1998

Claims 17-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Suzuki.
Claims 1-16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Suzuki in view of Parker.
Appellant contends, inter alia, that Suzuki does not teach selecting an
intermediate code generating means, nor selecting an intermediate code
rasterizing means, because Suzuki does not “select” from a plurality of input
intermediate code types (App. Br. 11-12).
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellant or the Examiner, we
make reference to the Brief (filed May 8, 2005), the Reply Brief (filed
August 4, 2005) and the Answer (mailed June 6, 2005) for their respective
details.

ISSUE
There are two principal issues in the appeal before us.
Appeal 2007-3097
Application 09/624,224

4
The first issue is whether the Examiner erred in holding that Suzuki in
combination with Parker teaches a data processing device comprising a
plurality of intermediate code generators, at least one operable to generate
intermediate code compatible with the print data by performing a language
analysis of the print data, and a plurality of intermediate code rasterizing
means.
The second issue is whether the Examiner erred in holding that Suzuki
teaches selecting an intermediate code rasterizing means on the basis of
intermediate code identification information input from the intermediate
code generating means.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
The Invention
1. According to Appellant, he has invented providing a printer
device and printer system flexibly compatible with many languages (Spec.
6). The inventive method determines the type of language of input print
data, selects an intermediate code generating means and delivers print data
to it, selects the appropriate intermediate code rasterizing means, stores
rasterized print image information, and prints on the basis of the stored print
image information (Spec. 6-7).
2. Appellant discloses that his printer device and data processing
devices do not need to be physically separated; for example, they may be set
up within one printer body (Spec. 10).
Appeal 2007-3097
Application 09/624,224

5
Suzuki
3. Suzuki teaches a print system in which a host computer
includes a print driver used to generate print job data, including intermediate
level print job data (col. 2, ll. 11-19).
4. In Suzuki, the printer includes intermediate code conversion
means used to receive intermediate level print job data and convert plotting
commands of the intermediate level job data into a second intermediate code
(col. 2, ll. 21-25).
5. Within controller 11, language interpret part 81 of Suzuki
selects an intermediate code generating means. If the input print data is in
Page Description Language (PDL), the data is routed to graphics module
(GRM) 83 for conversion to printer intermediate code (PIM) (col. 7, l. 53 –
col. 8, l. 10).
6. If the print data input to controller 11 is in driver intermediate
code (DIM), the data is routed to intermediate code conversion part 85 for
conversion to printer intermediate code (PIM)(col. 7, l. 53 – col. 8, l. 10).
7. Suzuki teaches that the graphics module (GRM) reads PIM
code stored in code buffer 13 and develops a bitmap image on the image
buffer in accordance with the read-out PIM code (col. 8, ll. 30-34).
Parker
8. Parker teaches a technique for rendering a description of a print
area, the description including graphical objects and their paint order, the
graphical objects including one or more reusable objects and one or more
other objects (col. 1, ll. 58-62).
Appeal 2007-3097
Application 09/624,224

6
Dictionary definition of “select”
9. “Select” is defined as “to choose in preference to another or
others; pick out.” select. (n.d.). Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1).
Retrieved May 06, 2008, from Dictionary.com website:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/select

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Anticipation is established when a single prior art reference discloses
expressly or under the principles of inherency each and every limitation of
the claimed invention. 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).
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the Examiner bears the
initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness. In re
Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472 (Fed. Cir. 1984). The Examiner can satisfy
this burden by showing some articulated reasoning with some rational
underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness. KSR Int’l. v.
Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1741 (2007) (citing In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977,
988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). Only if this initial burden is met does the burden of
coming forward with evidence or argument shift to the Appellant. Piasecki,
745 F.2d at 1472. Thus, the Examiner must not only assure that the requisite
findings are made, based on evidence of record, but must also explain the
reasoning by which the findings are deemed to support the Examiner’s
conclusion.
Appeal 2007-3097
Application 09/624,224

7
During ex parte prosecution, claims must be interpreted as broadly as
their terms reasonably allow since Applicants have the power during the
administrative process to amend the claims to avoid the prior art. In re Zletz,
893 F.2d 319, 322 (Fed. Cir. 1989).

ANALYSIS
Claims 17-20
We select claim 17 as representative of this group, pursuant to our
authority under 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Appellant argues that Suzuki does not teach determining the type of
language of input print data and selecting an intermediate code generating
means on the basis of the determination result (App. Br. 11), nor selecting an
intermediate code rasterizing means on the basis of intermediate code
identification information from the intermediate code generating means
(App. Br. 13-14).
Appellant argues that “determining the type of language of input print
data” is to be interpreted as determining which of a plurality of printer
control languages (PCL) is input to the printer, as detailed in Embodiment 1
of the instant invention (Spec. 10). The Examiner reads Suzuki as
determining the type of language of input print data, between Page
Description Language (PDL), and intermediate code generated by the print
driver of Suzuki’s host computer, known as driver intermediate code (DIM)
(Ans. 10; Suzuki col. 7, l. 53 – col. 8, l. 10), and we concur with the
Examiner’s interpretation. As shown in Figure 4 of Suzuki, in response to
commands included in job data, language interpret part 81 selects an
Appeal 2007-3097
Application 09/624,224

8
intermediate code generating means. If the input print data is in PDL, the
data is routed to graphics module (GRM) 83 for conversion to printer
intermediate code (PIM) (FF 5); if the input print data is in DIM, the data is
routed to intermediate code conversion part 85 for conversion to PIM (FF 6).
Suzuki therefore teaches two means (GRM 83 and intermediate code
converter 85) that generate intermediate code (PIM), as required by claim
17. Contrary to Appellant’s assertions, the claim does not require that a
plurality of high-level PCL be contemplated as possible inputs to the
determination step or the intermediate code generating step.
We disagree, however, with the Examiner’s position that the claims
do not require selecting the rasterizing means from a plurality of items (Ans.
11). The dictionary definition of “select” is “to choose in preference to
another or others; pick out” (FF 9). The Examiner’s position (Ans. 11) that
“selecting” does not require choosing from a plurality of items is thus
incorrect. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, then, requires
selecting from among at least one intermediate code rasterizing means and at
least one other item. The Examiner points to the bit map image developed
based on the read-out PIM code by controller 11 (Ans. 10), but does not
indicate where Suzuki teaches selecting an intermediate code rasterizing
means from among a plurality of choices, and we cannot locate such a
teaching in the reference.
We, therefore, agree with Appellant that Suzuki does not teach all of
the elements recited in claim 17 and find error in the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 17-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
Appeal 2007-3097
Application 09/624,224

9
Claims 1, 4/1, 5/4/1, 6/4/1, 7/4/1, and 8-12
We select claim 1 as representative of this group, pursuant to our
authority under 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). Claims 4/1, 5/4/1, 6/4/1, 7/4/1,
and 8-12 are discussed under separate headings, but no separate argument is
advanced in favor of their patentability.
Appellant argues that Suzuki, alone or in combination with Parker,
does not teach a data processing device that comprises a plurality of
intermediate code generators, as the Examiner asserts, because a single
printer control language (PCL) is used in Suzuki’s host computer (App. Br.
16). As noted supra, however, we agree with the Examiner’s position that
Suzuki teaches a plurality of intermediate code generators (i.e., GRM 83 and
intermediate code conversion part 85)(FF 5, 6).
With respect to Appellant’s argument that the intermediate code
generators of Suzuki are not located in the “data processing device” (Reply
Br. 7), we find that one may fairly interpret the hardware elements of
Suzuki’s converter 11 to be part of the data processing device, because the
distinction between “data processing device” and “printer” is largely
semantic, apart from the parts of the printer responsible for physical
printing. Buttressing this interpretation, as the Examiner explains (Ans. 12),
is Appellant’s own Specification, which discloses that the data processing
device may be set within one printer body (FF 2).
We therefore do not find error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1,
4/1, 5/4/1, 6/4/1, 7/4/1, and 8-12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

Appeal 2007-3097
Application 09/624,224

10
Claims 2, 3, 4/2, 4/3, 5/4/2, 5/4/3, 6/4/2, 6/4/3, and 7/2
Appellant argues that Suzuki does not disclose a printer that
comprises a plurality of intermediate code generators, as the claim requires
(App. Br. 17-18; Reply Br. 7). As noted supra with respect to claim 1,
however, we agree with the Examiner’s position that Suzuki does disclose a
printer having a plurality of intermediate code generators (Fig. 4; FF 5, 6).
We therefore do not find error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2,
3, 4/2, 4/3, 5/4/2, 5/4/3, 6/4/2, 6/4/3, and 7/2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Claims 13-16
Appellant argues that Suzuki does not teach a data processing device
to be used in combination with a printer, wherein the data processing device
comprises a plurality of intermediate code generating means (Reply Br. 8).
As noted supra with respect to claim 1, however, we find that one may fairly
construe controller 11 of Suzuki as being part of the data processing device
of Suzuki. Because we find that Suzuki teaches a plurality of intermediate
code generating means, then, we find Appellant’s argument unpersuasive.
For the reasons expressed supra with respect to claim 1, we conclude
that Suzuki in combination with Parker renders claim 13 obvious. We do
not find error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 13-16 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103.

CONCLUSION
We conclude that Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred
in rejecting claims 1-16. Claims 1-16 are not patentable.
Appeal 2007-3097
Application 09/624,224

11
We conclude that Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claims 17-20. On the record before us, claims 17-20 have not been
shown to be unpatentable.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-16 is affirmed. The Examiner’s
rejection of claims 17-20 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

Sughrue Mion Zinn MacPeak & Seas PLLC
2100 Pennsylvania Avenue, N W
Washington, DC 20037-3202