Ex Parte LinDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 19, 201713974617 (P.T.A.B. May. 19, 2017) Copy Citation United States Patent and Trademark Office 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. 1776-0572 1022 EXAMINER HARRIS, KEARAS ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2677 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 13/974,617 08/23/2013 76360 7590 05/19/2017 MAGINOT, MOORE & BECK LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 2200 INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46204 Guo-Yau Lin 05/19/2017 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 GUO-YAU LIN Appeal 2016-007222 Application 13/974,617 Technology Center 2600 Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, ERIC B. CHEN, and ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1—18, which are all of the pending claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. Appeal 2016-007222 Application 13/974,617 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction The Application is directed to a system and method for print density adjustment to reduce a banding effect of alternating increased and reduced intensity bands of ink in a printed image. Title; Spec. 14. Claims 1 and 10 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below for reference: 1. A method of operating a printer comprising: moving a media web in a process direction past a plurality of inkjets in a print zone; generating a signal corresponding to process direction movement of the media web with a sensor; identifying variations in a frequency of the signal from the sensor; identifying a plurality of intensity adjustment parameters for a printed image with reference to the identified variations in the frequency of the signal from the sensor; modifying image data for the printed image with reference to the plurality of identified intensity adjustment parameters; and ejecting ink drops to form the printed ink image on the media web with reference to the modified image data to reduce or eliminate variations in an intensity of the printed ink image. References and Rejections Claims 1—7 and 10—16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over fde (US 2009/0058900; Mar. 5, 2009), Naoi (US 2011/0199417 Al; Aug. 18, 2011), andFukutani (US 2010/0329712 Al; Dec. 30, 2010). Final Act. 6. Claims 8, 9, 17, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over fde, Naoi, Fukutani, and Silverstein (US 2003/0142374 Al; July 31, 2003). Final Act. 16. 2 Appeal 2016-007222 Application 13/974,617 ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s arguments. We have considered in this Decision only those arguments Appellant actually raised in the Briefs. Any other arguments Appellant could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv); see also In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“it has long been the Board’s practice to require an applicant to identify the alleged error in the examiner’s rejections”); Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential) (“[T]he Board will not, as a general matter, unilaterally review . . . uncontested aspects of the rejection.”). We are not persuaded the Examiner erred, and we adopt the Examiner’s findings and conclusions as our own. See Final Act. 6—20; Advisory Act. 1—3; Ans. 19-40. We address Appellant’s rebuttal arguments in the Reply Brief for emphasis. A. Intensity Adjustment Parameter Independent claims 1 and 10 each recite a plurality of “intensity adjustment parameters for a printed image.” Appellant argues the Examiner’s rejection of these claims is in error, because “[wjhen the definition of the term ‘intensity adjustment parameters’ is used in the claims, all of the grounds of rejection are refuted because the cited combination does not arrive at the claimed invention.” Reply Br. 3, quoting Spec. 149 (“The intensity adjustment parameters 308 are numeric adjustments that are applied to image data that either reduce or increase the intensities of contone image data pixels.”). In particular, Appellant contends “Fukutani does not teach modifying image data for the printed image with reference to the 3 Appeal 2016-007222 Application 13/974,617 plurality of identified intensity adjustment parameters” as claimed, because Fukutani discloses a printer “adjustment [which] only affects the operation of the exposure unit during the corresponding motor phase and not the data that are printed.” Reply Br. 3. We are not persuaded the Examiner erred. During prosecution, claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Am. Acad. ofSci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2004). We note the definition of intensity adjustment parameters, as relied on by Appellant, is recited in the Specification as an entry in “an example of the lookup table” used for adjustment of the intensity of image data in a printed image. Spec. 149 (emphasis added). In any event, we find Appellant’s proposed definition of the recited term does not distinguish the claims from the teachings of the cited references. The Examiner finds Fukutani discloses a table for density correction values, which teaches modifying and printing image data with reference to the plurality of identified intensity adjustment parameters, within the meaning of the claim. See Ans. 25 (“the density values [of Fukutani] ... are used to correct (‘modify’) density issues (‘intensity’) that arose during the printing process”); see also Fukutani Figs. 11 A—C, Tflf 39- 41. Fukutani’s table is used by the printer when correcting banding in a printed image. See Fukutani Figs 7, 12A; || 96, 107, 145 (“the image processing unit 37 reads corresponding density correction information from the exposure output correction table . . . [to] correct[] the density (banding)”); see also Fukutani || 80, 138, 169. Appellant does not show that the Examiner’s position is unfounded, because the data from Fukutani’s 4 Appeal 2016-007222 Application 13/974,617 table is applied to adjust the density (i.e., reduce or increase the intensity) of the printed image.1 See Adv. Act. 2; Fukutani || 4, 39-41. We are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding Fukutani’s printed density adjustment, in combination with the inkjet printing systems as taught by Ide and Naoi, teaches or suggests the disputed limitations of independent claims 1 and 10. See Ans. 20, 25; Final Act. 8; Fukutani 14, 39-41; Naoi 1108; Ide H 41,51, 89. B. Combination of References Appellant argues “the cited combination is improper because the application of Naoi and Fukutani to Ide changes the principle of operation set forth in Ide if the modification results in modified image data pixels being used to eject ink drops.” Reply Br. 4. Appellant also contends that “[njothing in any of these references, however, teach the modification of image data with reference to the plurality of intensity adjustment parameters and the ejection of ink drops to from a printed image with reference to the modified image data as required by claim 1.” Id. 5. Appellant’s arguments are unpersuasive for failing to address the Examiner’s findings. [t]o justify combining reference teachings in support of a rejection it is not necessary that a device shown in one reference can be physically inserted into the device shown in the other. The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a 1 We note Appellant’s argument regarding “intensity adjustment parameters” refers to “image data.” See, e.g., Reply Br. 3. We agree with the Examiner that Appellant “fails to provide further explanation as to how the intensity adjustment parameters are used to modify the image data outside of ‘to reduce or eliminate variants in an intensity of the printed ink image.’” Ans. 25. 5 Appeal 2016-007222 Application 13/974,617 secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981) (internal citations omitted); see also In reNievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 968 (CCPA 1973) (“Combining the teachings of references does not involve an ability to combine their specific structures”). Appellant contends Ide’s “image formation unit can be a laser printer,” but disregards the Examiner’s determination that “the Ide reference was relied upon, in Claim 1, to teach of the ink-jet system with a ‘media web’ that has a signal that tracks the speed of a conveyance belt on which paper is transported.” Ans. 20; see also Ide 141. Thus, we do not find the Examiner’s combination of references changes the principle of operation of Ide when used to eject ink drops using modified image data pixels. See Ans. 22. We also are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding the combination of cited references results in a printing system that reduces the effects of banding by using “a sensor to detect a movement signal (Ide), identify changes in the speed of the paper transportation belt (Naoi) and applying correction values, to the image data to modify the image, based upon the determination of values from the sensors (Fukutani).” Ans. 26—27 (citing Ide 14; Naoi Tflf 5, 108; Fukutani 14); see also Ans. 32—34. Nor do we find persuasive Appellant’s argument that the Examiner erred in finding the references teach or suggest the claim 10 limitation 6 Appeal 2016-007222 Application 13/974,617 “generate firing signals to eject ink drops,” because Ide teaches a system to control the ejection of ink drops. Reply Br. 5; see also Final Act. 11; Ide 141. Accordingly, Appellant does not persuade us the Examiner erred in finding the combined teachings of the references would have suggested the limitations of independent claims 1 and 10 to those of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR Int 7 Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418, 421 (2007)) (“A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton,” whose “inferences and creative steps” we may consider). CONCLUSION We sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1 and 10. Further, Appellant does not persuade us the Examiner erred in finding the dependent claims to be obvious in view of the combined teachings of the cited references. See Ans. 34-40; App. Br. 13—35. Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 2—9 and 11—18. DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—18 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)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation