Ex Parte Snyder et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Apr 30, 2009

11139549 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 30, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte TREVOR J. SNYDER, DAVID L. KNIERIM,
and JOEL CHAN
_____________

Appeal 2009-2041
Application 11/139,549
Technology Center 2800
____________

Decided:1 May 1, 2009
____________

Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, MARC S. HOFF,
and ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judges.

MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. 1.304, begins to run from the decided date
shown on this page of the decision. The time period does not run from the
Mail Date (paper delivery) or Notification Date (electronic delivery).
Appeal 2009-2041
Application 11/139,549

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s
final rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

INVENTION
Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to a Soft Drop-Size-
Switching (DSS) mode printer having full length wavelengths for ejecting an
alternating small and large fluid drop sizes from a fluid ejector nozzle array
during two or more passes (¶¶ [0009], [0010], and [0029]).
Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on
appeal:
1. A method for ejecting at least two different fluid drop
sizes from a fluid ejector nozzle array having common nozzle
geometry in accordance with a page patterning methodology,
comprising:
selecting, from at least two different full length
waveforms, a particular first waveform to drive each individual
nozzle of the array with, to eject a predetermined pattern of a
first drop size at a first predetermined resolution in a first pass;
selecting, from at least two different full length
waveforms, a particular second waveform different from the
first waveform to drive each individual nozzle of the array with,
to eject a predetermined pattern of a second, different drop size
at a second predetermined resolution in a subsequent pass;
receiving image data; and
driving the nozzle array using the selected patterns to
eject fluid based on the received image data in first and second
Appeal 2009-2041
Application 11/139,549

3
passes to form a composite image having a pattern containing
both the first and second drop sizes.

THE REJECTION
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of
unpatentability:
Fujimori US 6,338,542 B1 Jan. 15, 2002

The following rejection is before us for review:
The Examiner rejected claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Fujimori.

ISSUE
The Examiner finds that Appellants’ Specification describes as prior
art two half length waveforms as waveforms that fit into a jetting time period
of 1/fop, which is the “frequency of operation,” or, otherwise stated, the
frequency at which drops eject from each jet of a print head when firing
continuously (Ans. 7). The Examiner finds that, while the Specification
mentions that full length waveforms are easier to develop and implement
than half length waveforms, “full length waveforms” are not defined (Ans.
7).
The Examiner finds that neither the claim language nor the
Specification requires that only a single waveform constitutes a full
wavelength waveform in each printing cycle or a jetting time period 1/fop
(Ans. 7-8). The Examiner asserts that Fujimori’s Figures 6 and 7, disclosing
Appeal 2009-2041
Application 11/139,549

4
multiple waveforms in each printing cycle 1/fop, are not precluded from the
claim language and the Specification (Ans. 8).
Appellants contend that their Specification adequately defines the
meaning of a “full length waveform” (App. Br. 15). Appellants explain that
Figure 1 is a prior art “on the fly” system in which one of the two
waveforms is selected “on the fly” for each pixel (App. Br. 14). Appellants
state that, because two half length waveforms must be provided within the
operating frequency 1/fop, these are referred to as partial length waveforms,
as each occupies about 1/2 of the wavelength of the firing period (1/fop)
(App. Br. 14). Appellants further explain that because the jetting time
(firing period) has two waveforms provided end-to-end, even though only
one is selected for firing, the jetting time period occupies the combined
length of the partial waveforms (App. Br. 14). In contrast, Appellants point
to their invention as shown in Figure 2 wherein use of a full length
waveform results in a single waveform that occupies the jetting time period
(1/fop) (App. Br. 14). Pass 1, for example, selects use of only waveform 1,
while pass 2 selects use of only waveform 2 (App. Br. 14). Appellants state
that, because each pass only has a single waveform provided depending on
the selection (waveform 1 or 2), the selected waveform is the only one that
occupies the jetting period (1/fop) (App. Br. 14). Thus, each of these
waveforms constitutes a “full length waveform” as only one waveform is
available during each jetting period (1/fop) (App. Br. 14).
The issue before us, then, is as follows:
Appeal 2009-2041
Application 11/139,549

5
Have Appellants defined the meaning of a “full length waveform” as
only one waveform available during each jetting period (1/fop), so as to
preclude the Examiner’s application of Fujimori’s Figures 6 and 7 disclosing
multiple waveforms fitted into a jetting time period?

FINDINGS OF FACT
The relevant facts include the following:
1. Appellants’ Figure 1 shows two half length waveforms provided
within the operating frequency, 1/fop; these are partial length
waveforms as each occupies about 1/2 of the wavelength of the firing
period (1/fop) (Fig. 1; ¶ [0003]).
2. Appellants further explain that because the jetting time (firing period)
has two waveforms provided end-to-end, even though only one is
selected for firing, the jetting time period occupies the combined
length of the partial waveforms (Fig. 1 designated as “prior art” and ¶
[0004]).
3. Appellants’ own invention is indicated in Figure 2 wherein each of the
two different waveforms (i.e., waveform 1 or waveform 2) occupies
the jetting time period (1/fop) (Fig. 2).
4. Each one of Appellants’ two full length waveforms is used in different
passes wherein waveform 1 may provide a small drop size and
waveform 2 may provide a large drop size (¶¶ [0010], [0029], and
[0034]).

Appeal 2009-2041
Application 11/139,549

6
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
“A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in
the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior
art reference.” Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 814 F.2d 628,
631 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
Analysis of whether a claim is patentable over the prior art under 35
U.S.C. § 102 begins with a determination of the scope of the claim. We
determine the scope of the claims in patent applications not solely on the
basis of the claim language, but upon giving claims their broadest reasonable
construction in light of the Specification as it would be interpreted by one of
ordinary skill in the art. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359,
1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
The claims, of course, do not stand alone. Rather, they are part
of a ‘fully integrated written instrument’ consisting principally
of a specification that concludes with the claims. For that
reason, claims ‘must be read in view of the specification, of
which they are a part.’ . . . . [T]he specification ‘is always
highly relevant to the claim construction analysis. Usually, it is
dispositive; it is the single best guide to the meaning of a
disputed term.’

Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citations
omitted).

ANALYSIS
Appellants’ Figure 1 shows two half length waveforms provided
within the operating frequency, 1/fop; these are partial length waveforms as
Appeal 2009-2041
Application 11/139,549

7
each occupies about 1/2 of the wavelength of the firing period (1/fop)
(Finding of Fact 1). Appellants further explain that because the jetting time
(firing period) has two waveforms provided end-to-end, even though only
one is selected for firing, the jetting time period occupies the combined
length of the partial waveforms (Finding of Fact 2). Appellants’ own
invention is indicated in Figure 2 wherein each of the two different
waveforms (i.e., waveform 1 or waveform 2) occupies the jetting time
period (1/fop) (Finding of Fact 3). Each one of these full length waveforms
is used in different passes wherein waveform 1 may provide a small drop
size, while waveform 2 may provide a large drop size (Finding of Fact 4).
Thus, it is clear that each pass only has a single waveform provided
depending on the selection (waveform 1 or 2), and the selected waveform is
the only one that occupies the jetting period (1/fop). Accordingly, each of
the waveforms (i.e., waveforms 1 and 2) constitutes a “full length
waveform,” as only one waveform is available during each jetting period
(1/fop).
We agree with Appellants that Figure 2 along with the other cited
sections of the Specification adequately defines waveform 1 or waveform 2
as a “full length waveform,” which is the only waveform available during
each jetting period (1/fop). As stated supra, the Specification is the single
best guide to the meaning of a disputed term. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1315.
For the above reasons, Appellants have shown error in the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) because Fujimori does not
teach a “full length waveform” as claimed.
Appeal 2009-2041
Application 11/139,549

8

CONCLUSION
Appellants define the meaning of a “full length waveform” as only
one waveform available during each jetting period (1/fop), so as to preclude
the Examiner’s application of Fujimori’s Figures 6 and 7, disclosing
multiple waveforms fitted into a jetting time period. Thus, Appellants have
shown error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. §
102(b) because Fujimori does not teach a “full length waveform” as claimed.

ORDER
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. §
102(b) is reversed.

REVERSED

babc

OLIFF & BERRIDGE, PLC.
P.O. BOX 320850
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22320-4850