Ex Parte Robins

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 23, 2013

10611737 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 23, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte DAVID R. ROBINS
____________________

Appeal 2011-003003
Application 10/611,737
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before JEAN R. HOMERE, DEBRA K. STEPHENS, and
MIRIAM L. QUINN, Administrative Patent Judges.

STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-003003
Application 10/611,737

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 29-31, 36, 37, and 42-56. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b). Claims 1-28, 32-35, and 38-41 have been canceled.
We AFFIRM.

Introduction
According to Appellant, the invention relates to techniques for
increasing efficiency of printing in a digital image printing system (Spec. 1,
§Field of the Invention).

Exemplary Claim
Claim 29, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
29. A computer-implemented method for printing a plurality of
digital images, the method comprising:

determining a subset of the plurality of digital images which
require image processing to meet a defined image parameter,
the subset including fewer than all of the plurality of digital
images;

performing image processing on the digital images in the subset
to produce a first plurality of processed images;

activating a print engine; and

printing the first plurality of processed images using the print
engine.

Appeal 2011-003003
Application 10/611,737

3
REFERENCES
Nagasaka
Barry
Kito
US 5,333,246
US 5,859,711
US 6,628,899 B1
Jul. 26, 1994
Jan. 12, 1999
Sept. 30, 2003

REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
(1) Claims 29, 30, 36, 37, 43-45, 47-51, and 54-56 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Barry (Ans. 3-9).
(2) Claims 42, 46, and 53 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Barry and Kito (Ans. 9-11).
(3) Claims 31 and 52 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Barry and Nagasaka (Ans. 11-13).

GROUPING OF CLAIMS
Based upon Appellant’s arguments, we select representative claim 29
to decide this appeal for the group consisting of claims 29, 30, 36, 37, 43-45,
47-51, and 54-56. (See App. Br. 5-9).
Based upon Appellant’s arguments, we address claims 31, 42, 46, 52,
and 53 separately. (See App. Br.9-11).

We accept Appellant’s grouping of the claims. We have only
considered those arguments that Appellant actually raised in the Briefs.
Arguments Appellant could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs
have not been considered and are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2011).

Appeal 2011-003003
Application 10/611,737

4
ISSUE 1
35 U.S.C. § 102(b): Claims 29, 30, 36, 37, 43-45, 47-51, and 54-56
Appellant argues the invention as recited in claim 29 is not anticipated
by Barry (App. Br. 4-8). Specifically, Appellant asserts Barry does not
teach (i) “determining a subset of the plurality of digital images which
require image processing to meet a defined image parameter” and (ii)
“‘performing image processing on the digital images in the subset’ where the
image processing is ‘require[d] ... to meet a defined image parameter,’ as
recited in claim 29.” (App. Br. 7). According to Appellant, if the image
requires image processing to meet a defined image parameter that means the
image does not yet meet the defined image parameter (id.). Thus, Appellant
argues, because Barry determines whether the pages in the print job are color
or black and white before sending the pages to the respective printer, Barry
does not teach the disputed limitation of determining if the pages require
image processing to meet that defined image parameter (id.). Further,
Appellant contends Barry does not teach any of the pages in the print job
require image processing to be color pages or black and white pages – only
whether the pages are color or black and white (Reply Br. 2-3).
Appellant next argues Barry does not teach the disclosed virtual job
router processes the pages which causes the pages to meet a defined image
parameter (App. Br. 8). Instead, according to Appellant, the virtual router
merely separates the pages into two print jobs. Thus, Appellant argues,
Barry does not teach or suggest “‘performing image processing on the digital
images in the subset’ where the image processing is ‘require[ d] ... to meet a
defined image parameter,’ as recited by claim 29” (id.).

Appeal 2011-003003
Application 10/611,737

5
Issue 1: Has the Examiner erred in finding Barry discloses:
(i) determining a subset of the plurality of digital images which
require image processing to meet a defined image parameter
and
(ii) performing image processing on the digital images in the subset
to produce a first plurality of processed images, as recited in
claim 29?

ANALYSIS
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. Initially we note
Appellant has not defined “image processing” or “image parameter” in the
Specification. Therefore, we agree with the Examiner’s findings that Barry
discloses “determining a subset of the plurality of digital images which
require image processing to meet a defined image parameter.” Specifically,
we find Barry describes a virtual job router 354 that routes pages based on
whether the page is black and white or color as a job (Fig. 12, elements 356
and 358; col. 14, ll. 56-63). We also find Barry describes the RIP (raster
image processor) processes the pages where each page has associated
therewith information regarding the parameters for printing the page,
including, for example, resolution, bit depth, color/black and white, etc. (col.
16, l. 65 to col. 17, l. 6). Thus, we agree with the Examiner that Barry
discloses “determining a subset of the digital images which require image
processing to meet a defined image parameter” and describes determining a
subset, for example, of images to meet a color parameter (Ans. 13-14).
We further note, contrary to Appellant’s arguments, claim 29 does not
recite performing the image processing or performing image processing on
Appeal 2011-003003
Application 10/611,737

6
the digital images in the subset where the image processing is required to
meet a defined image parameter. Claim 29 recites “performing image
processing on the digital images in the subset to produce a first plurality of
processed images.” Thus, Appellant’s arguments related to this recitation
are not persuasive.
In addition, we find Barry describes the job will be routed to a virtual
engine (Fig. 12, elements 362 and 366). Barry further describes, as set forth
by the Examiner, the separated color images are further processed by
different color printer engines (Ans. 13-14). Since these images are color,
Barry describes adjusting the color of the bit mapped image to account for
aberrations in the marking engines by mapping the colors to different colors
(col. 29, ll. 14-58). Therefore, we find Barry discloses performing image
processing on the digital images in the subset to produce a first plurality of
processed images.
Accordingly, the Examiner did not err in finding Barry discloses the
invention as recited in independent claim 29 and claims 30, 36, 37, 43-45,
47-51, and 54-56, not separately argued. Therefore, the Examiner did not
err in rejecting claims 29, 30, 36, 37, 43-45, 47-51, and 54-56 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) for anticipation by Barry.

ISSUE 2
35 U.S.C. § 103(a): Claims 31, 42, 46, 52, and 53
Appellant did not present separate arguments with respect to claims
31, 42, 46, 52, and 53 instead relying on the arguments set forth with respect
to the independent claims and alleging the additional respective references
Appeal 2011-003003
Application 10/611,737

7
do not cure the deficiencies of Barry. Therefore, these claims fall with their
respective independent claims.
Accordingly, the Examiner did not err in finding the combination of
Barry and Kito teaches or suggests the limitations as recited in claims 42, 46,
and 53, and that the combination of Barry and Nagasaka teaches or suggests
the limitations as recited in claims 31 and 52, not separately argued.
Therefore, we determine that the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 31,
42, 46, 52, and 53 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 29, 30, 36, 37, 43-45, 47-51, and
54-56 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Barry is affirmed.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 42, 46, and 53 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Barry and Kito is affirmed.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 31 and 52 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Barry and Nagasaka 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)(1)(iv) (2011).

AFFIRMED

msc