Ex Parte Ward et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 30, 2018

13849752 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 30, 2018)

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.
9503P012 4210
EXAMINER
POPOVICI, DOV
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2677
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
13/849,752 03/25/2013
76073 7590 01/31/2018
InfoPrint Solutions/ Blakely
1279 Oakmead Parkway
Sunnyvale, CA 94085-4040
David Ward
01/31/2018 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 DAVID WARD, JOHN THOMAS VARGA, and
CHARLES D. JOHNSON
Appeal 2017-008115
Application 13/849,752
Technology Center 2600
Before JAMES R. HUGHES, ERIC S. FRAHM, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2017-008115
Application 13/849,752
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1—4, 6—12, and 14—20. Claims 5 and 13 have been canceled. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
Appellants’ application relates to image processing in a printing
system. Spec. 11. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed
subject matter:
1. A non-transitory computer-readable medium including
instructions, which when executed by a processor, performs
operations comprising:
performing a virtual rasterization on print job data to
generate a virtual sheet independent of physical page
specifications;
mapping the virtual sheet to a job sheet; and
performing rasterization of the virtual sheet to print to a
physical medium according to the job sheet.
REFERENCE
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Warded US 2009/0303513 A1 Dec. 10,2009
REJECTION
The Examiner made the following rejection:
Claims 1—4, 6—12, and 14—20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wardell.
2
Appeal 2017-008115
Application 13/849,752
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds Warded discloses all the limitations of
independent claim 1, including “performing a virtual rasterization on print
job data to generate a virtual sheet” and “performing rasterization of the
virtual sheet.” Appellants contend “ Wardell discloses a single rasterization
process” and thus “fails to disclose a process of performing a virtual
rasterization . . . and performing rasterization.” App. Br. 8. We are
persuaded by Appellants’ argument.
The Examiner identifies WardelTs steps 602, 604 and 605 as
disclosing the claimed “performing a virtual rasterization” function, and also
identifies WardelTs step 602 as disclosing the claimed “performing a
rasterization” function. See Final Act. 2—3. We find error with the
Examiner’s findings for several reasons. First, it is confusing what element
the Examiner relies on for the claimed “virtual rasterization” function
because the Examiner identifies three different steps in Wardell for
disclosing this function: step 602 labeled “Rasterize Printjob”; step 604
labeled “Generate Page Inclusion Object”; and step 605 labeled “Position
Logical Page Within Page Inclusion Object.” See id.', Wardell, Fig. 6.
Second, the Examiner has identified the same step 602 as disclosing two
different claimed functions, i.e., the “virtual rasterization” and
“rasterization” functions. See Final Act. 2—3.
Finally, even if we agree with the Examiner’s updated position in the
Answer that the claimed “virtual rasterization ... to generate a virtual sheet”
is not an actual rasterization and reads on WardelTs generating logical pages
(see Ans. 10—11), the Examiner has still not shown Wardell discloses
performing all of the claimed functions in the proper order. The language of
claim 1 requires a certain sequential functionality, specifically, “performing
3
Appeal 2017-008115
Application 13/849,752
a virtual rasterization ... to generate a virtual sheet,” “mapping the virtual
sheet to a job sheet,” and then “performing rasterization of the virtual sheet
. . . according to the job sheet.” In contrast, the only rasterization step in
Warded (step 602) occurs prior to step 605 labeled “Position Logical Page
Within Page Inclusion Object” that the Examiner appears to rely on for the
claimed “mapping” function. See Final Act. 3; Warded, Fig. 6. In other
words, even if Warded discloses ad the functions of claim 1, Warded does
not disclose performing the functions in the same order as required by claim
1 because Wardell’s alleged “mapping” function (step 605) is performed
after Wardell’s step 602 labeled “Rasterize Printjob.” See Warded, Fig. 6.
We are, therefore, constrained by the record to find the Examiner
erred in rejecting independent claim 1, independent claims 9 and 17 which
recite commensurate limitations, and dependent claims 2—4, 6—8, 10—12, 14—
16, and 18-20.
CONCFUSION
The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1—4, 6—12, and 14—20 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1).
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1—4, 6—12, and
14—20.
REVERSED
4