Ex Parte Hoes et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJul 29, 201310855094 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 29, 2013) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE 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. 10/855,094 05/27/2004 Thorsten Hoes 600.1314 8972 23280 7590 07/30/2013 Davidson, Davidson & Kappel, LLC 485 7th Avenue 14th Floor New York, NY 10018 EXAMINER DICKER, DENNIS T ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2672 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 07/30/2013 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 THORSTEN HOES and MICHAEL KAISER ____________ Appeal 2011-001120 Application 10/855,094 Technology Center 2600 ____________ Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, JOHN A. EVANS, and JOHN G. NEW, Administrative Patent Judges. RUGGIERO, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-14, which are all of the pending claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner, reference is made to the Appeal Brief (filed May 10, 2010), the Answer Appeal 2011-001120 Application 10/855,094 2 (mailed June 23, 2010), and the Reply Brief (filed Aug. 11, 2010). Only those arguments actually made by Appellants have been considered in this decision. Arguments which Appellants could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be waived (see 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)). Appellants’ Invention Appellants’ invention relates to the generation of digital imaging data for an imaging unit in which the digital imaging data are defined from a signature of input image data. A section of the signature corresponding to the imaging format of the imaging unit is processed into a raster image by a raster image processor. The section is defined based on the geometric parameters of an image area of the input image data. See generally Abstract. Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and reads as follows: 1. A method for generating digital imaging data for an imaging unit, the digital imaging data are defined from a signature of input image data, the method comprising the steps of: defining a section of the signature corresponding to an imaging format of the imaging unit as a function of geometric parameters of an image area of the input image data; and processing the section of the signature into a raster image by a raster image processor. The Examiner’s Rejections The Examiner relies on the following prior art references to show unpatentability: Santos US 4,837,635 June 6, 1989 Catt US 2002/0171871 A1 Nov. 21, 2002 Appeal 2011-001120 Application 10/855,094 3 Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, and 8-14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Catt. Claims 3, 6, and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Catt in view of Santos. ANALYSIS 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) REJECTION Claims 1, 5, and 8-14 Appellants initially argue, with respect to the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of independent claim 1, that Catt does not disclose a “signature” of input image data that includes data of an image area. According to Appellants, Catt’s imposition template 100 merely dictates where images are to be located within the image area of an imagesetter 62 or platesetter 64 (App. Br. 5). In a related argument, Appellants contend that neither Catt’s imposition template 100 nor the press sheet assembly includes a section that corresponds to an imaging format of an imaging unit as a function of geometric parameters of an image area of the input image data (App. Br. 6; Reply Br. 2-3). We do not agree with Appellants. We find no error in the Examiner’s determination that Catt discloses a signature that includes a layout or format of an image area (Ans. 4, citing Fig. 4 and ¶ [0050] of Catt). We also agree with the Examiner that a portion of Catt’s signature includes an imaging format of the platesetter or imagesetter imaging units as a function of the geometric parameters such as position, offset, and orientation of the input image area (id., citing ¶¶ [0054], [0055], and [0063] of Catt). As described by Catt, the signature includes position data relative to the type of output Appeal 2011-001120 Application 10/855,094 4 device 46 and target media used on the press 56 (¶¶ [0054], [0064], and [0065]). Appellants’ further argument that Catt does not disclose that only a defined section of the signature that corresponds to an imaging format of an imaging unit is rasterized is unpersuasive (App. Br. 6; Reply Br. 3). This argument is not commensurate in scope with claim 1 which has no requirement that only the imaging unit signature section is rasterized. In view of the above discussion, we find that the Examiner did not err in concluding that all of the limitations of independent claim 1 are present in the disclosure of Catt. Accordingly, the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) rejection of independent claim 1, as well as the rejection of dependent claims 5 and 8-14 not separately argued by Appellants, is sustained. Claims 2 and 4 We also sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection, based on Catt, of dependent claims 2 and 4. Appellants’ arguments (App. Br. 7) are unpersuasive of any error in the Examiner’s determination that the geometric parameters of the image are at least temporarily stored in the raster image processor (RIP) at the time of processing (Ans. 10, citing ¶¶ [0015] and [0063] of Catt). We also find Appellants’ further argument (App. Br. 7-8) unpersuasive of any error in the Examiner’s determination that Catt discloses a user interface to select from different templates with different geometric parameters (Ans. 10, citing ¶¶ [0079] and [0054] of Catt). Contrary to Appellants’ contention, as pointed out by the Examiner, there is Appeal 2011-001120 Application 10/855,094 5 no claim language which precludes the signature from being previously rasterized (Ans. 10-11). 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) REJECTION We also sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection, based on the combination of Catt and Santos, of dependent claims 3 and 7, as well as the rejection of dependent claim 6 not separately argued by Appellants. We find Appellants’ arguments (App. Br. 9-10; Reply Br. 3) unpersuasive of any error in the Examiner’s determination that Santos discloses a shiftable mask (selection box 71) enabling a user to indicate imageable and nonimageable regions in accordance with an imaging format of an imaging unit (Ans. 6, 7, 11, citing Figs. 7, 10; col. 2, ll. 33-34, col. 3, ll. 43-68). Further, contrary to Appellants’ contention (id.) that Catt teaches away from a combination with Santos, we agree with the Examiner (Ans. 7, 11) that Santos’s teaching of enabling a user to preview an input image to indicate imageable and nonimageable regions would have served as an obvious enhancement to the system of Catt. DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-14 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 gvw Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation