Ex Parte Fejfar et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 9, 2013

11412584 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 9, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte FLORIAN FEJFAR and ANDREAS METZNER
____________

Appeal 2010-009977
Application 11/412,584
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and
BARBARA A. BENOIT, Administrative Patent Judges.

BENOIT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the rejection of
claims 1-7, which constitute all the claims pending in the application. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse.

Appeal 2010-009977
Application 11/412,584

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention relates to automatic determination of presetting
values for an inking unit of a printing press. See generally Abstract;
Spec. ¶ 0001. Claim 1 is illustrative and reads as follows, with a key
limitation emphasized:
1. A method for the automatic determination of presetting values for
the opening positions of inking zone setting elements of an inking unit of a
printing press, the method comprising:
providing an image data set from a prepress stage, at least one mark
being integrated into the image data set;
determining a region or an extract of the image data set automatically
by scanning said at least one mark, said region or extract comprising image
data relevant to the determination of zonal area coverage values;
determining zonal area coverage values for a print exclusively from
the image data of said region or said extract of said image data set; and
determining the presetting values for the inking zone setting elements
from the zonal area coverage values.
The Rejection
The Examiner rejected claims 1-7 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Mizuno (US 5,058,500; issued Oct. 22, 1991). Ans. 3-5.

ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds that Mizuno discloses every recited element of
illustrative claim 1, including relying on Mizuno’s lithographic plate as
disclosing the recited image data set. Ans. 4 (citing Mizuno, col. 6, ll. 11-
18; col. 7, ll. 43-46; col. 8, ll. 8-58; col. 9, ll. 17-46). There is no dispute
that Mizuno discloses a printing apparatus that prints an image of an original
picture file on a lithographic plate and attaches a calibration mark and a
specific identification mark on the lithographic plate. Mizuno, col. 6, ll. 11-
18; see generally Ans. 4, 5-7; App. Br. 5; Reply Br. 3. Mizuno also
Appeal 2010-009977
Application 11/412,584

3
discloses that the lithographic plate with the image of the original picture
film and marks is used by a printing press to print images. Mizuno, col. 8, ll.
22-32. Thus, Mizuno discloses providing the lithographic plate to the
printing press before printing the images and, as such, provides the
lithographic plate from a prepress stage. See Reply Br. 2 (indicating a
prepress stage means “prior to performing the printing of an image”); Ans. 7
(indicating “the prepress stage is considered to include the entire process of
forming and developing the printing plate before it is used in the press
itself”).
Appellants assert that the Examiner’s interpretation of an image data
set is overbroad and the broadest reasonable construction of an image data
set in light of the Specification does not encompass Mizuno’s lithographic
plate. See App. Br. 5-6; Reply Br. 2-3.
This appeal turns on one question: What is an “image data set” as
recited in claim 1? On the record before us, we find the evidence of record
weighs in favor of Appellants. See Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075
(BPAI 2010) (precedential).
At first glance, the Examiner’s interpretation of the recited image data
set as encompassing Mizuno’s lithographic plate having an image and
identification and calibration marks (Ans. 4) seems reasonable, particularly
because the lithographic plate includes identification and calibration marks,
is created by a printing apparatus, and then is provided to the printing press,
which uses the lithographic plate to print copies of the images (Mizuno,
col. 6, ll. 11-18; col. 8, ll. 22-32). Despite this similarity, Appellants’
invention differs from the cited prior art by reciting “an image data set” –
not merely an image. Image data would have been understood by a skilled
Appeal 2010-009977
Application 11/412,584

4
artisan as information1 about an image, not merely the image itself.
Moreover, a “data set” means a collection of related information made up of
separate elements that can be treated as a unit in data handling.2 Thus, in the
context of claim 1, a skilled artisan would have understood an “image data
set” to mean a collection of image information made up of separate elements
that can be used in printing the image.
This construction is consistent with the plain language of claim 1
which also recites “determining . . . an extract of the image data set
automatically”; “determining zonal area coverage values for a print
exclusively from . . . said extract of said image data set”; and “determining
the presetting values for the inking zone setting elements from the zonal area
coverage values.” Making the recited determinations most reasonably
comports with Appellants’ argument that Mizuno’s lithographic plate is a
physical component (App. Br. 5, Reply Br. 3) and, as such, is not an image
data set, which is a collection of information about the image. This
construction of an image data set also is consistent with the Specification:
The color configuration of a printed product to be
printed, what is known as the subject, is defined in a prepress
stage in the form of image data. Here, what are known as area
coverage values are defined for all colors to be printed and
therefore for all the inking units involved in the print. For each
individual image point of each inking zone of an inking unit
involved in the print, an area coverage value is predetermined,
an average or zonal area coverage value of the respective inking

1 MICROSOFT COMPUTER DICTIONARY 141 (5th ed. 2002) (defining “data n.
Plural of the Latin datum, meaning an item of information”).
2 MICROSOFT COMPUTER DICTIONARY 144 (5th ed. 2002) (defining “data set
n. 1. A collection of related information made up of separate elements that
can be treated as a unit in data handling”).
Appeal 2010-009977
Application 11/412,584

5
zone resulting from the area coverage values of the individual
image points of an inking zone.
Spec. ¶ 0003.
We are mindful not to import limitations from the Specification into
the claims but also recognize that a construction that stays true to the claim
language and most naturally aligns with the Specification’s description of
the invention is the correct construction. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d
1303, 1316, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Thus, in accordance with the
broadest reasonable construction of “image data set” in light of the
Specification as it would have been interpreted by one of ordinary skill in
the art, the Examiner’s reliance on Mizuno’s disclosure of a lithographic
plate to anticipate claim 1 is unreasonable.
We are therefore persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
(1) independent claim 1 and (2) dependent claims 2-6 for similar reasons.
We also do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 7,
which similarly recites “means for scanning at least one mark integrated into
an image data set from a prepress stage,” for similar reasons.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-7 under § 102.

ORDER
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-7 is reversed.

REVERSED

babc