Ex Parte Lin

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 19, 2017

13974617 (P.T.A.B. May. 19, 2017)

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