12636266 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 30, 2016)

Ex Parte Conlon

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 30, 2016

12636266 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 30, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/636,266 12/11/2009 75931 7590 Basch & Nickerson LLP 1751 Penfield Road Penfield, NY 14526 04/01/2016 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Paul Roberts Conlon 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. 20081762-US-CIP 1991 EXAMINER PRINGLE-PARKER, JASON A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2618 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/01/2016 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): usptomail@bnpatentlaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte PAUL ROBERTS CONLON Appeal2014-002551 Application 12/636,2661 Technology Center 2600 Before THU A. DANG, NATHAN A. ENGELS, and CARLL. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We AFFIRM-IN-PART. STATEMENT OF THE CASE The invention relates to processing non-rasterized data for rendering by a printer. Abstract, Figure 1. Claim 1 is exemplary of the matter on appeal: 1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Xerox Corporation. App. Br. 2. Appeal2014-002551 Application 12/636,266 1. ii:\. method of controlling operations of a printing device, compnsmg: receiving non-rasterized page description language data and a corresponding transformation matrix representing transformation operations to be performed; rasterizing the non-rasterized page description language data to create rasterized data; decomposing the corresponding transformation matrix into a rotation transformation operation matrix, a first scaling transformation operation matrix, and a translation transformation operation matrix; decomposing the first scaling transformation operation matrix into a shear transformation operation matrix and a second scaling transformation operation matrix; generating a discrete rotation transformation operation value from the rotation transformation operation matrix; generating a discrete scaling transformation operation value from the second scaling transformation operation matrix; generating a discrete translation transformation operation value from the translation transformation operation matrix; generating a discrete shear transformation operation value from the shear transformation operation matrix; and controlling operations of the printing device based upon the generated discrete transformation operation values. App. Br. 127 (Claims App.). THE REJECTIONS Claims 1-20 of the subject application on appeal 12/636,266 ("K"); stand provisionally rejected for obviousness-type double patenting over copending patent application numbers: 12/338,300 ("A," now abandoned); 12/338,318 ("B"); 12/338,260 ("C"); 12/339, 148 ("D," now U.S. Patent No. 8,754,909); 12/636,361 ("E"); 12/636,348 ("F"); 12/636,331 ("G"); 2 Appeal2014-002551 Application 12/636,266 1 ') /h.1h. ')0'7 ("l-::r"\Â· 1 ') /h.1h. ')Q'7 f"T"\Â· 1 ') /h.1h. ')'7Ll ("T\Â· <>nrl 1 ') /h.1h. 111 f"T "\ _I_L./ VJV,L._/ I \ _l__I_ j, _I_L./ VJV,L.\J I \ _I_ j, _I_L./ VJV'L. I-.\ .J j, U .. LL\...1- _I_L./ VJV'J _I_ _I_ \ _J__/ }â€¢ Final Act. 2--4. Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Warmus et al. (hereinafter "Warmus") (US 2001/0051964 Al, published Dec. 13, 2001) in view of Hemingway (US 6,166,741, issued Dec. 26, 2000). Final Act. 8-22. ANALYSIS The double patenting rejection Appellant argues the Examiner does not present a prima facie case of obviousness-type double patenting and provides inadequate findings of fact to support the rejection as required under Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966), and the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) Â§ 804 (9th Ed., Mar. 2014). App. Br. 9-104; Reply Br. 2--46. As discussed below, we are persuaded by Appellant's arguments. 1A..ccording to 1A..ppellant: MPEP Â§804 states that the analysis employed in an obviousness-type double patenting determination parallels the guidelines for a 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 rejection. Moreover, MPEP Â§804 states that the factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. Â§103, are employed when making an obvious-type double patenting analysis. MPEP Â§804 states that the factual inqmnes are (A) determine the scope and content of a patent claim relative to a claim in the application at issue; (B) determine the differences between the scope and content of the patent claim as determined in (A) and the claim in the application at issue; (C) determine the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art; and (D) evaluate any objective indicia of non-obviousness. 3 Appeal2014-002551 Application 12/636,266 Lastly, MPEP Â§804 states that any obviousness-type double patenting rejection should make clear (A) the differences between the inventions defined by the conflicting claims; and (B) the reasons why a person of ordinary skill in the art would conclude that the invention defined in the claim at issue would have been an obvious variation of the invention defined in a claim in the patent. App. Br. 9-10. The record before us includes the following: 1. Final Office Action. The Examiner provides a chart ("chart") setting forth relationships among claim 1 of the identified copending applications (designated A-L, with K being the current application on appeal). Final Act. 2--4. According to the Examiner, the chart shows "claim 1 of all applications relate to the use of non-rasterized page description language data and a transformation matrix which is decomposed into at least rotation, scaling and translation and generating from that discrete transformation operation values." Id. at 3. 2. Appeal Brief. Appellant argues the chart (Final Act. 2-3) is inadequate basis for obviousness-type double patenting and provides claim charts showing independent claims of the current application on appeal (K) as compared to eight of the eleven copending applications (A-J and L) identified as the basis for the double patenting rejection, along with commentary. App. Br. 9-103. The provided2 claim charts 2 Three additional copending applications and identified differences are provided in the Reply Brief. Reply Br. 6 --45. 4 Appeal2014-002551 Application 12/636,266 constitute: 12/338,300 (ii,); 12/338,260 (C); 12/338,311 (L); 12/339, 148 (D); 12/338,318 (B); 12/636,331 (G); 12/636,348 (F); and 12/636,361 (E). 3. Answer. The Examiner provides "a more detailed mapping [("mapping")] of all of the limitations in claim 1 for each of the [ eight3 copending] applications" along with commentary on the mapping. Ans. 20-23. Specifically, the Examiner provides Table 1 which maps claim 1 along with Table 2 which identifies the claim language of the eight copending applications. 4 Id. at 21-23. The Examiner provides commentary for seven identified copending applications and identifies differences from the application on appeal 12/636,266 (K). Id. at 20-21. 4. Reply Brief. Appellant argues the Examiner's mapping and commentary are inadequate bases for the double patenting rejection, and the Examiner does not address copending application numbers: 12/338,300 (A); 12/338,318 (B); 12/338,260 (C); and 12/339, 148 (D). Reply Br. 2---6. We are persuaded the Examiner's chart (Final Act. 2-3) is inadequate basis for obviousness, because, while it may show a relationship among the copending applications, it provides no discussion of the required inquiry for obviousness and no discussion of claims for any of the identified copending applications. App. Br. 10; Graham, 383 U.S. at 17; MPEP Â§ 804; see also KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). 3 The eight copending applications are E, F, G, H, I, J, K, and L. Ans. 21. 4 Table 1 and 2 are attached as Exhibit 1. 5 Appeal2014-002551 Application 12/636,266 Regarding the mapping and commentaf'J provided in the ii~ns\'l/er, because we agree with Appellant that the Final Office Action chart (Final Act. 2-3) is inadequate basis for obviousness for any of the identified copending applications, and the Examiner presents no additional basis in the Answer for the four copending applications A-D, 5 we do not sustain the rejection over copending applications B-D. Reply Br. 3--4. We now address the double patenting rejections of current application K ('266) over copending applications E, F, G, H, I, J, and L. Ans. 20-23; Reply Br. 2-8. We are persuaded by Appellant's argument that the mapping and commentary do not address claims 2-20 and, therefore, we do not sustain the double patenting rejection for these claims. Reply Br. 4. We agree with Appellant that the mapping by itself, without additional commentary, is inadequate to support a prima facie case of obviousness-type double patenting because the mapping provides inadequate evidence required by Graham and the MPEP, supra. Reply Br. 7. In the commentary, the Examiner finds all of the limitations of current application 12/636,266 (K) are found in copending applications 12/636,274 (J), 12/636,287 (I), and 12/636,297 (H) as shown by the chart and, therefore, the provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection is proper. Ans. 20. Appellant argues, and we agree, this is inadequate as it provides no explanation why the differences are obvious. Reply Br. 45. Regarding copending applications L ('311 ), G ('331 ), F ('348), and E (' 3 61 ), the Examiner's commentary finds they contains all the limitations of the current application K ('266) and the difference is "controlling operations of the printing device [OJ" and "performing transformation operations upon 5 A is now abandoned. Accordingly, the rejection over A is moot. 6 Appeal2014-002551 Application 12/636,266 the rasterized data [O']," \vhere both are the final step in the method and involve operations. Ans. 20-21. According to the Examiner, in the preamble of both6 applications, the method is for "controlling operations of a printing device" and "[b ]ased upon the language, it being the final step, and the preamble, it is clear that 'performing transformation operations with the rasterized data' relates to transformation for printing like the 12/636,266 [K] application does." Ans. 21. Appellant argues, and we agree, the Examiner errs in finding "controlling operations of a printing device is the same as performing transformation operations upon rasterized data." Reply Br. 5---6 (citing Spec. i-fi-f 196, 272). According to Appellant: These are two distinct operations - one is directed to controlling the mechanics of a printing device and the other is the electronic manipulation of electronic data. The Examiner has failed to demonstrate how these two distinct operations are obvious variants of each other. Thus, contrary to the Examiner's assertion, controlling operations of a printing device is NOT the same as performing transformation operations upon rasterized data[.] Reply Br. 6. In view of the above, we do not sustain the provisional double patenting rejection over copending applications B-J and L. The 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) rejection Appellant argues W armus and Hemingway do not teach the following claim 1 limitations: 6 It is unclear which applications are considered "both." For example, we do not find this preamble in copending application 12/636,361 (E). 7 Appeal2014-002551 Application 12/636,266 decomposing the corresponding transformation matrix into a rotation transformation operation matrix, a first scaling transformation operation matrix, and a translation transformation operation matrix; decomposing the first scaling transformation operation matrix into a shear transformation operation matrix and a second scaling transformation operation matrix; and controlling operations of the printing device based upon the generated discrete transformation operation values. App. Br. 104--8; Reply Br. 46-49. As discussed below, we agree with the Examiner's findings and are not persuaded by Appellant's arguments. Appellant argues "Hemingway fails to explicitly7 teach that the corresponding transformation matrix is decomposed into a rotation transformation operation matrix" and teaches that rotation is dependent on shear and scaling values, not a rotation transformation operation matrix. App. Br. 106. According to Appellant, Hemingway teaches away because it teaches rotation is dependent on shear and scaling values. Id. Appellant further argues "Hemingway is also void of any teaching or suggestion of decomposing the first scaling transformation operation matrix into a shear transformation operation matrix and a second scaling transformation operation matrix" and "[t]hus, it is not logical to suggest that Hemingway would disclose the decomposition of the scaling values to create shear values when the shears values are already readily available in the Relative Transformation Matrix." App. Br. 107. Appellant also argues the Examiner errs in finding that a matrix is an array of values that can be manipulated with or without a matrix. Id. 7 As discussed below, the claim is rejected for obviousness, and particularly over the combined teachings ofWarmus and Hemingway. 8 Appeal2014-002551 Application 12/636,266 Furthermore, ii~ppellant argues \X/armus and/or Heming\'l1ay do not disclose or suggest "generating a discrete shear transformation operation value from the shear transformation operation matrix; and controlling operations of the printing device based upon the generated discrete transformation operation values which includes the generated discrete shear transformation operation value." App. Br. 108; Reply Br. 57-58. In response, the Examiner finds Hemingway teaches the disputed limitations regarding "decomposing ... "and Warmus teaches the disputed limitation "controlling operation of the printing device ... "Final Act. 8-9. The Examiner concludes it would have been obvious to combine Hemingway and Warmus because one of ordinary skill in the art would use the shearing value from Hemingway's matrix to generate a discrete shear transform operation value along with the other discrete values as taught by Warmus. Id. at 10. The Examiner finds motivation for the combination is to provide greater control over the transformation. Id. In particular, the Examiner finds Warmus and Hemingway both teach a source transformation matrix, and Warmus' CTM (Current Transformation Matrix) describes scaling, rotation, and translation. Ans. 24 (citing Warmus i-f 244). According to the Examiner, Hemingway's RTM (Relative Transformation Matrix) contains Rx, Ry, Sx, and Sy which provide rotation matrix information Sx and Sy, which apply scaling of the X and Y components. Id. (citing Hemingway col. 5, 1. 65---col. 6, 1. 18). The Examiner finds rotation is derived from a matrix containing values where the matrix can be decomposed to provide information such as rotation. Id. The Examiner also finds "[S]toring the values in separate matrices, a single matrix, or even outside a matrix does not change the value since a matrix is 9 Appeal2014-002551 Application 12/636,266 merely an array of values that can be manipulated \'l1ith or \'l1ithout the matrix." Id. at 25; see also 26-28. Furthermore, the Examiner finds W armus teaches generating discrete values from matrices as its matrix describes scaling, rotation, and translation, and transform operators generated from the matrix. Ans. 29 (citing i-fi-1 244, 340-346; Fig. 22). The Examiner finds Hemingway teaches a shear transformation operation matrix as its matrix contains Sx Ry O/Rx Sy 0 where Rx and Ry define shearing. Id. (citing col. 5, 1. 65---col. 6, 1. 18). The Examiner also finds Warmus teaches controlling operations of the printing device as its demand printer 84 does rendering based upon the generated discrete transformation operation values wherein data is printed after being rasterized and going through procedures 454. Id. (citing Fig. 19). We agree with the Examiner's findings above and are not persuaded by Appellant's arguments. In particular, Appellant's arguments are based on an unreasonably narrow reading of the combined teachings of Warmus and Hemingway as would be understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art as required for an obviousness inquiry. We also agree the claim limitation "controlling operations of the printing device" does not require "based on discrete shear operation value (emphasis added)," rather it recites "based upon the generated discrete transformation values." Ans. 29. We note also the claim recites "based upon," not directly based upon. The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill 10 Appeal2014-002551 Application 12/636,266 in the art. Jn re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPii .. 1981). "A court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ," such as the complementary teachings of the references. KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). The reason to combine the cited references is found in the references and in the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art. We determine the benefit gained from the combination, as articulated by the Examiner, would have motivated an ordinarily skilled artisan to make such a combination. On this record, Appellant does not present sufficient evidence that the combination of Warmus and Hemingway is "uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art" or "represented an unobvious step over the prior art." Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 418-19). Nor have Appellants provided objective evidence of secondary considerations, which our reviewing court guides "operates as a beneficial check on hindsight." Cheese Sys., Inc. v. Tetra Pak Cheese and Powder Sys. 725 F.3d 1341, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2013). In view of the above, we sustain the rejection of claim 1. Independent claims 5, 9, 13, and 17 recite similar limitations and Appellant presents similar arguments and, therefore, we sustain the rejection of these claims for the same reasons. Claims 2--4, 6-8, 10-12, 14--16, and 18-20 are dependent claims not argued separately and, therefore, we sustain the rejection of these claims. DECISION We reverse the Examiner's decision provisionally rejecting claims 1-20 for obviousness-type double patenting. 11 Appeal2014-002551 Application 12/636,266 \X/e affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a). No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED-IN-PART Exhibit 1 12 Appeal2014-002551 Application 12/636,266 Table I-Claim 1 Mapping (Ans. 21-23). r------------------------------------------------:r;t;-iâ‚¬~-I=--c:1;i;;;-iM_a_ll?i~-&-------------------------------------------------- c1a1m l 1 1 l 1 1 1 1 1 1 z 2 lz 2 l z 2 2 1Â· I l I I I 1Â· I I 6 6 G 6 6 6 6 i 3 ij 2 1 3 G 4 l A lA 3 6 3 1 1 .3 9 l 6 3 4 6 1 . , Bl l Bl Bl 82. B2. . Bl ! :Â·-Â·.Â·.Â·.Â·.Â·.Â·.Â·.Â·.Â·.Â·.Â·-~Â·-Â·.Â·.Â·.Â·.Â·.Â·.Â·.Â·.Â·.Â·.Â·-~Â·-Â·.Â·.Â·.Â·.Â·.Â·.Â·.Â·.Â·.Â·.Â·. Â·.Â·.Â·.Â·.Â·.Â·.Â·.Â·.Â·.Â·.Â·.Â·.Â·.Â· .Â·.Â·.Â·.Â·.Â·.Â·.Â·.Â·.Â·.Â·.Â·.Â·~-Â·-Â·.Â·.Â·.Â·.Â·.Â·.Â·.Â·.Â·.Â·-t-Â·-Â·.Â·.Â·.Â·.Â·.Â·.Â·.Â·.Â·.Â·-~Â·-Â·.Â·.Â·.Â·.Â·.Â·.Â·.Â·.Â·.Â·. !C lC lC C C !C !C !C :-...................... ~ ...................... ~ ...................................................................... -.::. ...................... ~ ...................... ~ .................. .. !" ltJ lD D D !D !D !Â· : ........................ ~ ...................... -1 ........................................................................ f. ...................... t ...................... t-.................. .. i,,.: ______ J __ [_l,,J __ L?; ____ ---~L---- --~-~---JI~ ___ J_ILJ __ :; ____ __ i.. l -Â· l F F !-Â· ! -- ! Â·Â· :-.......................... ~ .......................... -t-........................................................................ ~ ...................... -+ ...................... -(. .................. .. 1--~:--------1---~1"+~2---- "'H'2';--- --~T+~~i-+-~:i---t--:~------ ! I J J ~-KKKâ€¢Â·'~-"'~!_"'' . ~'.,; ' ' ' ~ . ~'.,; â€¢ ~..... ~ I\. : ...................... t ...................... t ...................................................................... t ...................... t ...................... t .................. .. i L l L l L l - ! L I l i l : ........................ ~ ...................... -1 ........................................................................ f. ...................... t ...................... t-.................. .. 1 !--N------r--r:~------r--N------1--~J:------- --N------rN----rN-----r~r---l L __________________________________________________________ Ls~::::I5~:::::r::s~:::::. ::~~~::::::: ::s~::::::n~~:::Is~~:::I~~::::. Table 2----Claim Language (Ans. 21-23). 1:::::::::::;:::::::::::~:::;::::::::::::::::::::::::::::~:::::::;::::::::::::::;:::::i~~~~:~:~:Â£!!~!rii~~~~~:a!::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::;::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: I A i recenm1g rn::inÂ·rnsten:wd P"W" t1ev~npt1on l~ngubt~on tran'.~form<>tiori OPNCa!in" trÂ·a-n\;fonnatkin o~,lerat:ion, or a sot.in:e ~ ' . . . . Â·~ . ,ci. 1 i tÂ·Â·~rs~Â·-~Â·Â·!tVi t''''n''l'on,Â·nt'on '""'{~Â·~h''nÂ· ~ .................... .+ ...... ~:.:~ .. ~:-...~:~ .. .: ........ : ........ ~~~ .. ~~ ................ : .. ~ .... ~~~ .... ~~ .. ~ .. :~!~ .... ~ .... ~: ........ ~=~~ .. .:'. .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. . I :C i rasterizing the non-rasteriled page de'.nipfam language:.~ data t(i W;!ate I ! ~"'*'r:-,,,_d -ch tw l ___________ 1 __ ~-:=::~-::-~::= __ :_:_~ ______ :_~-~~--..'.:._ _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _ 13