Ex Parte Tse et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 29, 2016

13095314 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 29, 2016)

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.
13/095,314 04/27/2011 Francis Kapo Tse 20101167USNP-XER2554US01 2369
62095 7590 08/29/2016
FAY SHARPE / XEROX - ROCHESTER
1228 EUCLID AVENUE, 5TH FLOOR
THE HALLE BUILDING
CLEVELAND, OH 44115
EXAMINER
WAIT, CHRISTOPHER
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2672
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/29/2016 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 FRANCIS KAPO TSE, PETER CHARLES RAPLEY,
DAVID RUSSEL SPONABLE, JASON SLACK, DAVID RIVSHIN,
LONNIE A. LaFAVE, STEVE BEERS, JAMES BRUCE CAMPBELL,
FRITZ EBNER, SCOTT CHARLES WARNER, TIMOTHY M. HUNTER,
and LEE ROCHE
_____________

Appeal 2015-003399
Application 13/095,314
Technology Center 2600
______________

Before BRUCE R. WINSOR, LINZY T. McCARTNEY, and
NATHAN A. ENGELS, Administrative Patent Judges.

PER CURIAM.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1–20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Appeal 2015-003399
Application 13/095,314

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claim 1 recites the following:
1. A method for processing a print job in a printing platform,
comprising:
a) processing printer description language (PDL) image
data for a select page of a print job at a raster image processor
(RIP) module to form raster image data for the select page in a
RIP orientation and storing the raster image data for the select
page in the RIP orientation, wherein the RIP orientation for the
select page is selected from landscape and portrait orientations to
optimize RIP performance for the select page;
b) processing the raster image data for the select page at a
rotator module to form bitmap image data for the select page, the
rotator module transforming the raster image data for the select
page from the RIP orientation to bitmap image data for the select
page in a print orientation and storing the bitmap image data in
the print orientation, wherein the print orientation for the select
page is selected from landscape and portrait orientations to
optimize print engine performance for the select page; and
c) printing the bitmap image data arranged in the print
orientation on a target substrate page at a print engine to form a
printed substrate page for the select page of the print job;
wherein selection of the RIP orientation and selection of
the print orientation are based on different criteria and the
processing of the select page in the RIP orientation is decoupled
from the processing of the select page in the print orientation.
App. Br. 17.
Appeal 2015-003399
Application 13/095,314

3

Claims 1–20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over two or more of Murata,1 Matsui,2 Kathan,3 and Sampath4. Final Act.
5–20.

ANALYSIS
Independent claim 1 recites in relevant part the following:
processing printer description language (PDL) image data for a
select page of a print job at a raster image processor (RIP)
module to form raster image data for the select page in a RIP
orientation . . . wherein the RIP orientation for the select page is
selected from landscape and portrait orientations to optimize
RIP performance for the select page.
App. Br. 17. Independent claims 11 and 16 recite similar limitations. See
id. at 19, 21. Appellants contend the Examiner’s combination of Murata and
Matsui fails to teach or suggest this limitation. See App. Br. 7–8; Reply Br.
2–6. In particular, Appellants argue “Murata selects an orientation for band
processing based on a raster scanning direction of a printer rather than
selecting band orientation to optimize RIP performance and does not
disclose anything else regarding selection of a RIP orientation to optimize
RIP performance.” Reply Br. 6.
We find Appellants’ argument persuasive. The Examiner found
Murata teaches or suggests the disputed limitation. See Final Act. 5–6; Ans.
18–19, 23–24. In particular, the Examiner found Murata discloses a
renderer that performs a rendering operation on data to form a bitmap image.

1 Murata (US 2004/0036894 A1; published Feb. 26, 2004).
2 Matsui et al. (US 2009/0279131 A1; published Nov. 12, 2009).
3 Kathan et al. (US 2004/0114174 A1; published June 17, 2004).
4 Sampath et al. (US 2007/0002085 A1; published Jan. 4, 2007).
Appeal 2015-003399
Application 13/095,314

4

See Final Act. 5 (citing Murata ¶¶ 50, 54, 78; Figs. 1, 2); Ans. 24. The
Examiner further found that after rendering, Murata discloses rotating the
bitmap image to match the raster scanning direction of the print mechanism,
if the raster scanning direction of the bitmap image after editing differs from
the raster scanning direction of the print mechanism. See Final Act. 5 (citing
Murata ¶¶ 50, 78); Ans. 24. The Examiner explained that Murata’s process
of rotating the bitmap image after rendering, as opposed to rotating the print
data prior to rendering, increases the speed of the rendering and print
processes. See Final Act. 5–6; Ans. 18–19, 23–24; Murata ¶ 78.
However, the portions of Murata cited to teach or suggest “wherein
the RIP orientation . . . is selected . . . to optimize RIP performance” concern
Murata’s bitmap image after rendering, not Murata’s print data before
rendering. See Final Act. 5–6; Ans. 18–19, 23–24; Murata ¶¶ 50, 78. In
other words, the Examiner has not shown that before rendering, the
orientation of Murata’s print data is selected to optimize rendering
performance as required by claim 1. Claim 1 recites a separate step in which
a rotator module transforms raster image data into bitmap image data in a
selected orientation. See claim 1, step b).
Accordingly, based on this record, we do not sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1, 11, and 16 and the rejections of their respective
dependent claims.

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1–20 is reversed.

Appeal 2015-003399
Application 13/095,314

5

REVERSED