Xerox Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 26, 2021

2020000007 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 26, 2021)

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.
14/875,959 10/06/2015 Jeffrey J. Folkins 1776-0738 3824
76360 7590 03/26/2021
MAGINOT, MOORE & BECK LLP
ONE INDIANA SQUARE
SUITE 2200
INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46204
EXAMINER
GRACE, KELSEY C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1742
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/26/2021 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 JEFFREY J. FOLKINS
_______________
Appeal 2020-000007
Application 14/875,959
Technology Center 1700
_______________
Before MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, GEORGE C. BEST, and
DEBRA L. DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL1
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–8, 10–15, and 21–23 of Application
14/875,959, which constitute all the claims pending in this application. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
For the reasons set forth below, we REVERSE.

1 In our Decision, we refer to the Specification filed Oct. 6, 2015 (“Spec.”)
of Application 14/875,959 (“the ’959 Application”); the Final Office Action
dated Nov. 13, 2018 (“Final Act.”); the Appeal Brief filed Mar. 26, 2019
(“Appeal Br.”); the Examiner’s Answer dated Aug. 6, 2019 (“Ans.”); and
the Reply Brief filed Sept. 30, 2019 (“Reply Br.”).
2 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant
identifies Xerox Corp. as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2020-000007
Application 14/875,959

2
BACKGROUND
The ’959 Application relates to three-dimensional object printers and,
more particularly, to ejector-to-ejector pixel height normalization in these
printers. Spec. ¶ 1. The ’959 Application describes that conventional three-
dimensional object printers have multiple ejectors in their ejector heads that
may provide inconsistent drop mass or drop volume. Id. ¶ 3. According to
the ’959 Application, this leads to the undesirable deposition of material
layers which are not uniform in height. Id. The ’959 Application describes
normalizing the height of the layers by printing a test pattern, measuring the
height of the drops of material that are formed from each ejector in the test
pattern, and performing an actuation to compensate for any differences in
the measured heights. Id. ¶ 21. According to the Specification, the
described method achieves uniform printed material layer heights. Id.
Claim 1 is representative of the ’959 Application’s claims and is
reproduced below from the Appeal Brief’s Claims Appendix.
1. A method of calibrating ejectors in an ejector head of a
three-dimensional object printer, the ejector head having a
plurality of ejectors configured to eject drops of material
towards a surface, the method comprising:
operating the plurality of ejectors to eject drops of
material to form a plurality of pixels corresponding to a test
pattern on the surface, each ejector in the plurality of ejectors
being operated to form a group of directly adjacent pixels in a
cross-process direction in the test pattern, each group of
adjacent pixels being at least n pixels wide in a cross-process
direction for the printer;
operating a sensor to measure heights of pixels for each
group of adjacent pixels in the test pattern; and
adjusting an operation of the plurality of ejectors by
adjusting at least one ejector in the plurality of ejectors to
change a mass of each drop subsequently ejected by the at least
Appeal 2020-000007
Application 14/875,959

3
one ejector, the adjustment to the at least one ejector is made
with reference to the measured heights for the group of directly
adjacent pixels in which the at least one ejector formed pixels to
normalize heights of layers of material formed by the plurality
of ejectors.
Appeal Br. 15 (Claims App.).
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies on the following prior art in rejecting the claims
on appeal:
Name Reference Date
Batchelder US 5,653,925 Aug. 5, 1997
Kerekes US 6,492,651 B2 Dec. 10, 2002
Donaldson US 2013/0201245 A1 Aug. 8, 2013
REJECTION
The Examiner maintains the rejection of claims 1–8, 10–15, and 21–
23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Kerekes, in view of
Donaldson, and further in view of Batchelder.3 Final Act. 3.
DISCUSSION
Our decision in this case turns on the Examiner’s interpretation of the
claim term “directly adjacent.” The claims require, inter alia, that “each
ejector in the plurality of ejectors being operated to form a group of directly
adjacent pixels in a cross-process direction in the test pattern.” See Appeal
Br. 15 (Claims App.). The Specification supports that the pixels in the test

3 Because this application was filed after the March 16, 2013, effective date
of the America Invents Act, we refer to the AIA version of the statute.
Appeal 2020-000007
Application 14/875,959

4
pattern are directly adjacent to each other. See Spec. ¶ 19, Fig. 2. Appellant
challenges the Examiner’s interpretation. Appeal Br. 6.
The Examiner finds that the Specification does not provide support for
any difference in meaning between the claim terms “adjacent” and “directly
adjacent.” Ans. 11. In view of this silence, the Examiner relies on “on
conventional definitions” for the disputed claim terms without citing any
particular dictionary definition. Id. According to the Examiner, “‘adjacent’
and ‘directly adjacent’ . . . mean the same thing.” Id.; see also Final Act. 9.
During prosecution, an application’s claims are given their broadest
reasonable scope consistent with the specification. In re Am. Acad. of Sci.
Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The words used in a claim
must be read in light of the specification, as it would have been interpreted
by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Id.; see also
In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054–55 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (holding that during
prosecution claim terms are given “the broadest reasonable meaning of the
words in their ordinary usage as they would be understood by one of
ordinary skill in the art, taking into account whatever enlightenment by way
of definitions or otherwise that may be afforded by the written description
contained in the applicant’s specification.”). “[W]ords in a claim are
generally given their ordinary and customary meaning, [but] a patentee may
choose to be his own lexicographer and use terms in a manner other than
their ordinary meaning, as long as the special definition of the term is clearly
stated in the patent specification or file history.” Vitronics Corp. v.
Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996).
The Examiner’s interpretation of “directly adjacent” as having the
same meaning as “adjacent” is inconsistent with the plain meaning of the
Appeal 2020-000007
Application 14/875,959

5
adverb “directly” and how one or ordinary skill in the art would have
understood the term in light of the Specification. See In re Baker Hughes,
Inc., 215 F.3d 1297, 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (the PTO cannot adopt a
construction that is “beyond that which was reasonable in light of the totality
of the written description”). As Appellant persuasively argues, the
Examiner’s interpretation impermissibly
ignores the function of the adverb “directly” in the term
“directly adjacent.” An adverb is “a modifier of a verb, an
adjective, another adverb, a preposition, a phrase, a clause, or a
sentence, expressing some relation of manner or quality, place,
time, degree, number, cause, opposition, affirmation, or denial,
and in English also serving to connect and to express comment
on clause content.”
Reply Br. 2 (citing https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/adverb)
(emphasis added by Appellant).
Appellant also provides a definition of the term “directly adjacent” in
the Specification. Appeal Br. 7 (citing Spec. ¶¶ 19, 20, Fig. 2). The
Specification describes twelve ejectors, which eject twelve contiguous single
drops for each of 12 lines. See Spec. ¶ 19, Fig. 2. The Specification
describes that “[l]ines not touching each other are referred to as ‘not directly
adjacent to one another.’” Id. ¶ 20. In the absence of physical support
between directly adjacent lines, the Specification describes that the three-
dimensional object printer test pattern cannot be used to achieve uniform
printed material layer heights. Id. ¶ 28. The Specification clearly states that
“if the [drop’s] edge transition is to air and not supported, the material would
likely droop,” thereby leading to inefficiencies in providing “a reliable
height at the center of the image.” Id.
We agree with Appellant that, based on the Specification, “directly
adjacent” means that “drops are touching or are contiguous” and “excludes
Appeal 2020-000007
Application 14/875,959

6
the presence of space in the cross-process direction between directly
adjacent pixels in a group of pixels formed by drops ejected from each
ejector in the plurality of ejectors.” Appeal Br. 8; see also Vitronics, 90 F.3d
at 1582.
In the Final Office Action, the Examiner finds that Donaldson’s
printed dashes in a test pattern describes or suggests the adjacent pixel
arrangement required by the claims. Final Act. 4 (citing Donaldson ¶ 54).
Appellant shows reversible error by the Examiner when finding that
Donaldson discloses or suggests directly adjacent pixels. See Appeal Br. 7.
One of ordinary skill in the art would not have considered Donaldson’s
dashes, which are separated by a predetermined dash period distance, to
teach or suggest touching or contiguous dashes. Id. at 15 (Claims App.).
Therefore, Donaldson fails to disclose or suggest “each ejector in the
plurality of ejectors being operated to form a group of directly adjacent
pixels in a cross-process direction in the test pattern,” and does not render
obvious independent claim 1 or any of the dependent claims.
We do not sustain the rejection of claims 1, 2–8, 10–15, and 21–23 as
obvious over Kerekes, in view of Donaldson, and further in view of
Batchelder.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§ Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–8, 10–
15, 21–23
103 Kerekes,
Donaldson,
Batchelder
1–8, 10–15,
21–23
REVERSED