Ex Parte Walmsley et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 18, 2013

11176372 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 18, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte SIMON ROBERT WALMSLEY and
PAUL LAPSTUN
____________________

Appeal 2011-002830
Application 11/176,372
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, ERIC S. FRAHM and
IRVIN E. BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judges.

MacDONALD, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-002830
Application 11/176,372

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Introduction
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claim 1 and 6-8. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

Exemplary Claims
Exemplary claim 1 under appeal reads as follows (emphasis added):
1. A method of printing an image from an image storage
memory in a printer module, the printer module having a CPU for
coordinating elements of the printer module, and a print generator unit
separate from the CPU for performing printing specific data
manipulation, the method being performed in the printer module and
comprising the steps of:
the print generator unit retrieving said image from said image
storage memory;
the print generator unit transforming said image to a form
suitable for a printhead; and
transferring said transformed image to said printhead for
printing by said printhead, wherein
the step of transforming further includes the steps of:
converting said image into a CMY format;
up-interpolating said image to a suitable resolution for
printing;
dithering pixels in said image; and
formatting said image into a dot function representation,
the step of converting is performed in parallel with the steps of
up-interpolating, dithering, and formatting, and
the step of formatting generates all dots of a first colour for a
first line together with generating all dots of a second colour for a
second line.

Appeal 2011-002830
Application 11/176,372

3
Rejections
The Examiner rejected claims 1 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Kawanabe (US 5,806,997),
Shiohara (US 6,618,553 Bl), Mancuso (US 6,256,414 B1), Ryan (US
6,118,548), and Lindenfelser (US 5,534,895). 1
The Examiner rejected claims 6 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Kawanabe, Shiohara, Mancuso,
Ryan, Lindenfelser, and Akiyama (US 2003/0112457 A1). 2
Appellants’ Contention
Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because “[t]here is no teaching or suggestion from the
disclosure of Lindenfelser et al. that the step of formatting generates all dots
of a first colour for a first line together with generating all dots of a second
colour for a second line.” (App. Br. 10).

Issues on Appeal
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claim 1 as being obvious?

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments (Appeal Brief and Reply Brief) that the Examiner has erred.

1 Separate patentability is not argued for claim 7. Except for our ultimate
decision, this claim is not discussed further herein.
2 Appellants do not argue this rejection. Because this separate rejection is
not substantively argued, we reach the same result for these claims as we do
for claim 1. Except for our ultimate decision, these claims are not discussed
further herein.
Appeal 2011-002830
Application 11/176,372

4
We disagree with Appellants’ conclusions. We adopt as our own
(1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from
which this appeal is taken and (2) the reason set forth by the Examiner in the
Examiner’s Answer at page 10, lines 16-20, in response to Appellants’
Appeal Brief. We concur with the conclusion reached by the Examiner. We
highlight the following for emphasis.
As to Appellants’ above contention, we disagree that the Examiner
has erred. We agree with the Examiner’s reasoning that:
Also it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
in the art to try to generate the two lines of colors together.
There are a finite number of solutions to generate the two lines
of color which is either generate the two lines of colors together
or not generating the two lines together.
(Ans. 10:16-20). The gist of the Examiner’s analysis cited above is that
artisans would know that the generation of line color data can be done in
parallel (i.e., “together”) or in series (“not together”). We agree with the
Examiner that artisans understand the benefits of parallel data processing:
One of ordinary skill will realize the advantages of performing
the generation together because it will reduce processing time
and cause the printing process to be finished faster.
(Ans. 10:16-20).

CONCLUSIONS
(1) The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 1 and 6-8 as being
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
(2) Claims 1 and 6-8 are not patentable.
Appeal 2011-002830
Application 11/176,372

5

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 6-8 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).

AFFIRMED

tj