Ex Parte Sandler et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 31, 2016

12598076 (P.T.A.B. May. 31, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/598,076 10/29/2009
22879 7590 06/02/2016
HP Inc,
3390 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 35
FORT COLLINS, CO 80528-9544
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Mark Sandler
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.
82231376 6062
EXAMINER
VO,QUANGN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2672
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/02/2016 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):
ipa.mail@hp.com
barbl@hp.com
yvonne.bailey@hp.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MARK SANDLER and SHAI LIOR
Appeal2014-008511
Application 12/598,076
Technology Center 2600
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JAMES R. HUGHES, and ERIC S. FRAHM,
Administrative Patent Judges.
FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2014-008511
Application 12/598,076
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1,
4, 6-24, 26, 28, 29, 31, and 32. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We reverse.
The invention relates to compensating for ghost appearances on the
photoconductive and blanket surfaces of a liquid electrophotography device
caused by repetitive printing (Spec. 2:28-3:6). Claim 1, reproduced below,
is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method of operating a printing system, the method
compnsmg:
defining areas on a photoreceptor in which ghosting is
expected;
recording an image on the photoreceptor by applying a
laser to the photoreceptor; and;
applying a higher power to the laser when the laser is
applied to the areas on the photoreceptor in which ghosting is
expected than when the laser is applied to areas on the
photoreceptor in which ghosting is not expected.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Klassen et al.
Denton et al.
Viassolo et al.
US 7,038,816 B2 May 2, 2006
US 2003/0058460 Al Mar. 27, 2003
US 2006/0001911 Al Jan. 5, 2006
2
Appeal2014-008511
Application 12/598,076
REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 1, 4, 7-22, 24, 26, 28, 29, 31, and 32 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Viassolo and Klassen.
Claims 6 and 23 stand rejected under 35U.S.C§103(a) as being
unpatentable over Viassolo, Klassen, and Denton.
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds the combination of Viassolo and Klassen
discloses all the limitations of independent claim 1, including that Klassen
teaches "applying a higher power to the laser when the laser is applied to the
areas on the photoreceptor in which ghosting is expected than when the laser
is applied to areas on the photoreceptor in which ghosting is not expected"
(Final Act. 3). Specifically, the Examiner finds Klassen's spot size equates
to the claimed "ghosting" and Klassen discloses increasing laser power as
spot size increases (id.). Appellants contend Klassen's increased laser
power for increased spot size does not teach increasing laser power for areas
where ghosting is expected compared to areas where ghosting is not
expected (Ans. 11 ). Rather, Appellants argue,
[T]he examiner seeks [to] demonstrate that a higher laser power
is applied to a large ghosting area than is applied to a small
ghosting area. The examiner is taking this is to be the same as
applying a higher power to the laser when the laser is applied to
areas on the photoreceptor in which ghosting is expected than
when the laser is applied to areas on the photoreceptor in which
ghosting is not expected. However, demonstrating that a higher
laser power is applied to a large ghosting area than is applied to
a small ghosting area does not necessarily mean that a higher
laser power is applied to an area where ghosting is expected than
3
Appeal2014-008511
Application 12/598,076
to an area where ghosting is not expected because ghosting is
indeed expected in both the large ghosting area and the small
ghosting area.
(Reply Br. 2). We agree with Appellants.
Klassen discloses a way of eliminating non-uniformity errors in an
image produced by an electrophotographic printing system (see Klassen col.
3, 11. 19-59). Klassen relies on tone reproduction curves to correct each
pixel of interest (col. 3, 1. 60-col. 4, 1. 17), where tone reproduction curves
compensate "for device non-linearities, i.e. devices that produce output
levels that are not linearly proportional to the input levels specified"
(Klassen, col. 2, 11. 62---65). In one embodiment, Klassen performs this
compensation by increasing laser power as spot size increases (col. 6, 1. 64--
col. 7, 1. 6). In short, Klassen relates to achieving the desired tones for a
printed image by correcting for inherent device characteristics, i.e., non-
linear input to output levels for image pixels. However, the ghosting recited
in claim 1 depends not only on the physical printing device characteristics,
but on the usage of the printing device, for example, how many times the
same image is printed using the same position on the photoreceptor or other
member of the printing device (see Spec. 11:5-30). Accordingly, we find
Klassen does not disclose adjusting laser power based on whether ghosting
is expected, as in claim 1, because the Examiner's cited portion of Klassen
adjusts laser power based simply on spot size (see Klassen, col. 7, 11. 4---6),
and spot size alone does not convey information regarding whether ghosting
will occur.
Even if we agreed with the Examiner that Klassen's spot size equates
to the claimed "ghosting," we are persuaded by Appellants' argument (Reply
Br. 2) that Klassen's increasing laser power as spot size increases does not
4
Appeal2014-008511
Application 12/598,076
disclose increasing laser power as compared to when ghosting is not
expected, as recited in claim 1. Rather, Klassen's disclosure of increasing
laser power for larger versus smaller spots (see Klassen, col. 7, 11. 4---6) only
discloses increasing laser power for more ghosting versus less ghosting-
according to the Examiner's interpretation of spot size as "ghosting"-and
does not disclose increasing laser power for ghosting versus no ghosting.
We are, therefore, constrained by the record to find the Examiner
erred in rejecting independent claim 1, independent 19 which recites
commensurate limitations, and dependent claims 4, 6-18, 20-24, 26, 28, 29,
31, and 32 for similar reasons.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 4, 6-24, 26, 28, 29, 31, and
32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner's rejections of claims 1, 4, 6-24,
26, 28, 29, 31, and 32 are reversed.
REVERSED
5