Ex parte NEFF

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 27, 1999

08341849 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 27, 1999)

Application for patent filed November 18, 1994. According to1
appellant, the application is a continuation of Application 07/954,785, filed
September 30, 1992, now abandoned.
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today (1) was not
written for publication in a law journal and (2) is not binding
precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 21
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte DAVID NEFF
____________
Appeal No. 96-3851
Application No. 08/341,8491
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before THOMAS, HAIRSTON, and GROSS, Administrative Patent
Judges.
GROSS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the examiner's final
rejection of claims 4 and 17 through 40, which are all of the
claims pending in this application.
Appeal No. 96-3851
Application No. 08/341,849
2
The appellant's invention relates to a color printer and
printing method in which both black and color ink pens are
used.
More specifically, a printer server defines color selection
codes for each pixel, encodes the defined color selection
codes, and communicates the codes to the printer such that
true black and processed black both can be used for the same
image and color and black ink both can be printed at the same
pixel. Claim 4 is illustrative of the claimed invention, and
it reads as follows:
4. A method of using a computer printer server to
generate color selection data for an inkjet printer having
black ink and color ink pens capable of printing both black
ink and color ink at a given pixel, the method comprising the
steps of:
the server defining a color selection code for each pixel
of an image to be printed, with the color selection code
designating at least one of the black and color pens for each
printed pixel of the image; and
the server encoding the defined color selection code for
each pixel of the image for communication to the printer,
including the step of encoding of color selection codes for
any said given pixel requiring printing of both black ink and
color ink.
The prior art references of record relied upon by the
examiner in rejecting the appealed claims are:
Appeal No. 96-3851
Application No. 08/341,849
3
Sugiura et al. (Sugiura) 4,683,492 Jul. 28,
1987
Vaughn et al. (Vaughn) 5,168,552 Dec. 01, 1992
(Filed Oct. 29, 1991)
Deutsch et al. (Deutsch) 5,226,175 Jul. 06,
1993
(Filed Mar. 26, 1991)
Claims 4 and 17 through 40 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Vaughn in view of Sugiura
and Deutsch.
Reference is made to the Examiner's Answer (Paper No. 20,
mailed April 4, 1996) for the examiner's complete reasoning in
support of the rejections, and to the appellant's Brief (Paper
No. 19, filed December 29, 1995) for the appellant's arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
As a preliminary matter, we note that appellant indicates
on page 4 of the Brief (with reasons as set forth in 37 CFR
§ 1.192(c)(7) and (c)(8)) that the claims do not stand or
Appeal No. 96-3851
Application No. 08/341,849
4
fall together. We agree that the claims fall into the
following two groups: (1) claims 4, 17 through 29, and 32
through 40 and (2) claims 30 through 31. We will treat claim
4 as representative of group 1 and claim 30 as representative
of group 2.
We have carefully considered the claims, the applied
prior art references, and the respective positions articulated
by the appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of our
review, we will reverse the obviousness rejection of claims 4,
17 through 29, and 32 through 40 and affirm the obviousness
rejection of claims 30 and 31.
Claim 4 requires the capability "of printing both black
ink and color ink at a given pixel" and "encoding of color
selection
Appeal No. 96-3851
Application No. 08/341,849
The use of both color and black inks at the same pixel would appear to2
be anomalous with appellant's stated advantages (Specification, pages 5-6)
that "by color separating the data into four-color raster planes, the true
black (K) ink dot data is all that need be sent during the printing of all
true black image rasters, at potentially substantially reduced overhead" and
(Specification, page 9) that "for ink-jet printers providing for true black
(K) and tri-color (CMY or RGB) ink printing wherein black and colored ink
drops cannot be deposited in a closely adjacent relationship without excessive
black-to-color bleeding, the invented method and system provide a unique
palette design, coding and selection that enables a printer server to utilize
either true black or process black for black swath printing . . . mak[ing] it
possible for a printer server to optimize print quality without significant
overhead."
5
codes for any said given pixel requiring printing of both
black ink and color ink." On the other hand, in the abstract2
Vaughn describes the invention as "a method of processing
color bit-map graphics data in a four-color liquid-ink
printing system, so as to maximize use of black ink while
maintaining a minimum spacing between black and color inks"
(underlining added for emphasis). In other words, the primary
purpose of Vaughn is to separate black ink and color ink.
Thus, Vaughn specifically teaches not to print black ink and
color ink anywhere near each other, and therefore is not
capable of printing both black ink and color ink at the same
pixel, as recited in claim 4.
Appeal No. 96-3851
Application No. 08/341,849
6
Deutsch deals with a method for forming an analytic model
of an image, and has nothing to do with inkjet printing a
color
image. Sugiura is concerned with determining a recording area
factor for each color, including black, and does not teach why
one of ordinary skill in the art would want to print both
black and color at the same pixel in a device such as
Vaughn's. In fact, Sugiura states (column 13, lines 52-53)
that "[b]lack ink k must be printed so as not to overlap inks
of other colors in low density images." Also, Vaughn shows
black separate from all colors in each figure depicting area
factors of color and black inks (see Figures 21, 29, 31, and
35). Accordingly, neither Deutsch nor Sugiura overcomes the
deficiencies of Vaughn. Therefore, we cannot sustain the
obviousness rejection of claim 4 and its dependents, claims 17
through 29. Further, since claim 32 includes the same
limitation of being capable of printing both black and color
ink at the same pixel, we also will reverse the obviousness
rejection of claim 32 and its dependents, claims 33 through
40.
Appeal No. 96-3851
Application No. 08/341,849
7
As to claim 30, Vaughn discloses in the abstract "a four-
color liquid-ink printing system, so as to maximize use of
black ink while maintaining a minimum spacing between black
and color inks." Further, "[t]he input data is stored in CMY
bitmap color planes" and
data representing composite black is moved from the
color planes into a K plane (60) for printing by a
true black pen. The data is examined (66) to detect
any
black ink within the minimum spacing from color ink.
. . . Where a black block is detected adjacent a
color block, the spacing violation is corrected by
moving the corresponding block of data from the K
plane back into the color planes(166) for printing
as composite black.
In other words, Vaughn discloses printing both true black,
using black ink, and composite black, using color ink, for
different parts of the same image. Further, as indicated by
the discussion of the CMY and K bitmap color planes and by the
tables of Figures 8A and 8B, wherein 0's and 1's are used to
show whether or not a pixel has a color ink or black ink,
Vaughn discloses encoding color selection codes.
Appellant admits in the Declaration dated July 14, 1995,
in item 7 that in Vaughn (as one of the five patents
discussed) "an encoded image [is] received from a host
Appeal No. 96-3851
Application No. 08/341,849
8
computer, within which resides a printer server." Then in
item 14 of the same Declaration, appellant states that "[t]he
Vaughn process may take place in either the server or the
printer." Accordingly, the coding takes place in the printer
server. Thus, Vaughn would seem to anticipate claims 30 and
31. Although the examiner rejected the claims under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 using additional references to show a server, since
anticipation is the epitome of
obviousness (See In re Emert, 124 F.3d 1458, 1462, 44 USPQ2d
1149, 1153 (Fed. Cir. 1997), citing Structural Rubber Prods.
Co.
v. Park Rubber Co., 749 F.2d 707, 716, 223 USPQ 1264, 1271
(Fed. Cir. 1984) ("anticipation is the epitome of
obviousness")), we will sustain the obviousness rejection of
claims 30 and 31.
CONCLUSION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 4, 17
through 29, and 32 through 40 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is
reversed and the decision of the examiner rejecting claims 30
and 31 affirmed.
Appeal No. 96-3851
Application No. 08/341,849
9
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
JAMES D. THOMAS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
ANITA PELLMAN GROSS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
vsh
Appeal No. 96-3851
Application No. 08/341,849
10
RECORDS MANAGER
LEGAL DEPARTMENT 20BO
HEWLETT PACKARD COMPANY
P.O. BOX 10301
PALO ALTO, CA 94303-0890