Ex Parte Rhoads

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 25, 2016

10792400 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 25, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
101792,400 0310212004 Geoffrey B. Rhoads
99103 7590 04/27/2016
Foley & Lardner LLP
3000 K STREET N.W.
SUITE 600
WASHINGTON, DC 20007-5109
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
098888-1825 2136
EXAMINER
VO,QUANGN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2672
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/27/2016 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address( es):
ipdocketing@foley.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GEOFFREY B. RHOADS
Appeal2014-007357
Application 10/792,400
Technology Center 2600
Before LINZY T. McCARTNEY, MELISSA A. HAAPALA, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
McCARTNEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1, 2, 7, 8, 10-14, 16-20, and 22. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
Appeal2014-007357
Application 10/792,400
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The present application "relates [to] optical user interfaces that sense
digitally-encoded objects, and systems using same to control computers, to
navigate over or act as ... portals on networks." Spec. 1: 15-16. Claim 1
illustrates the claimed subject matter:
1. A method comprising:
receiving, at a processor, text data;
receiving plural-bit digital watermark data, wherein the
text data and the plural-bit digital watermark data are separate;
generating, using the processor, printer commands for a
printer based on the text data and the plural-bit digital watermark
data, wherein the printer commands configure the printer to
control printing of text associated with the text data and a
watermark associated with the plural-bit digital watermark data
such that the watermark is imperceptible to a human viewer,
wherein the printer commands adjust the print density to a first
density based upon printing the text, wherein the printer
commands adjust the print density to a second finer density based
upon printing the watermark, and wherein the watermark
comprises a component that is machine-detectable in a frequency
domain.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 7, 8, 11, 13, 14, 17, 19, and 20 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Weinberger (US 5,644,682; July 1,
1997), Braudaway (US 5,825,892; Oct. 20, 1998), and Itoh (US 6,700,989
Bl; Mar. 2, 2004).
Claims 2, 12, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Weinberger, Braudaway, and Haslop (US 4,296,326; Oct.
20, 1981).
2
Appeal2014-007357
Application 10/792,400
Claims 10, 16, and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Weinberger, Braudaway, and Wang (US 6,263,086 Bl;
July 17, 2001).
ANALYSIS
Appellant contends the Examiner's combination of Weinberger,
Braudaway, and Itoh fails to teach or suggest the following limitation recited
in claim 1: "wherein the printer commands adjust the print density to a first
density based upon printing the text, wherein the printer commands adjust
the print density to a second finer density based upon printing the
watermark." Br. 10-14. In particular, Appellant asserts that Itoh teaches
adjusting a watermark's "tonal density (i.e., the brightness or darkness)" and
argues adjusting tonal density "is not the same as adjusting the 'print
density' as recited in [c]laim 1." Id. at 12-13.
We disagree. The Examiner found Appellant's specification does not
define the term "print density" and concluded that the broadest reasonable
interpretation of "print density" encompasses "tonal density." See Ans. 5.
Although Appellant asserts a tonal density "is not the same as ... [a] 'print
density,"' Appellant has provided no persuasive evidence or reasoning to
support this assertion. See id. at 10-14. On its face, the term "print density"
encompasses any print-related density, including Itoh's tonal density used to
print a watermark, see Itoh col. 20, 11. 11-20; col. 37, 1.62---col. 38, 1.11;
Final Act. 2, 6; Ans. 3-5. Accordingly, we find Appellant's arguments
unpersuasive and sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1. Because
Appellant has not presented separate, persuasive patentability arguments for
3
Appeal2014-007357
Application 10/792,400
claims 2, 7, 8, 10-14, 16-20, and 22, we also sustain the Examiner's
rejections of these claims.
DECISION
For the above reasons, we affirm the rejections of claims 1, 2, 7, 8,
10-14, 16-20, and 22.
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
4