Ex Parte Fujimori

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 3, 2009

10247609 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 3, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte YUKIMITSU FUJIMORI
____________

Appeal 2009-002538
Application 10/247,609
Technology Center 2800
____________

Decided: 1 June 3, 2009
____________

Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, CATHERINE Q. TIMM, and
KAREN M. HASTINGS, Administrative Patent Judges.

HASTINGS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 1-6, 8-16, 18-26, 28-31, 33-39, and 41-43. Claims

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 CFR § 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 2009-002538
Application 10/247,609

7, 17, 27, 32, and 40 are allowed. An oral hearing was held May 19, 2009.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The invention relates to a printing system that enables adjustment of
positional misalignment of dot creation for bidirectional printing, a method
for adjustment of such positional misalignment, as well as a computer
program product for driving a bidirectional printing (e.g., Spec. 1, para.
[0002]; Spec. 2, para. [0007]).
Claims 1 and 34 are illustrative of the subject matter on appeal:
1. A printing system for bidirectional printing that creates dots on a
printing medium in the course of a main scan and thereby prints an image,
said printing system, comprising:
a print head comprising a plurality of nozzles, each nozzle being
configured to create n variable dots (where n is an integer of not less than 2),
which at least partly include dots of an identical ink but different ink
quantities, in response to driving signals so as to print an image on a printing
medium;
a memory configured to store output timings of n driving signals
corresponding to the n variable dots, which are to be created by each nozzle,
to adjust the driving signals to adjust positional misalignments of the n
variable dots;
a driving signal output unit configured to output at least part of the n
driving signals to said print head in the course of the main scan, according to
dots to be created in respective pixels; and
a timing adjustment unit configured to individually adjust the output
timings stored in said memory with regard to each of the n variable dots in
advance execution of said bidirectional printing to print various of said dots
in a forward pass at positions that are interposed between other of said dots
produced in a backward pass along a same print line of the main scan.
2
Appeal 2009-002538
Application 10/247,609

34. A computer program product for driving a printing system for
bidirectional printing that creates dots on printing medium in the course of a
main scan and thereby prints an image including a print head comprising a
plurality of nozzles, each nozzle being configured to create n variable dots
(where n is an integer of not less than 2), which at least partly include dots of
an identical ink but different ink quantities, in response to driving signals so
as to print the image on the printing medium, said computer program
product comprising:
a first computer code configured to store output timings of n driving
signals corresponding to the n variable dots, which are to be created by each
nozzle, to adjust the driving signals to adjust positional misalignments of the
n variable dots;
a second computer code configured to output at least part of the n
driving signals to said print head in the course of the main scan, according to
dots to be created in respective pixels; and
a third computer code configured to individually adjust the output
timings stored by the first computer code with regard to each of the n
variable dots in advance execution of said bidirectional printing to print
various of said dots in a forward pass at positions that are interposed
between other of said dots produced in a backward pass along a same print
line of the main scan.

The Examiner relies on the following prior art references to show
unpatentability:
Tazaki US 4,345,263 Aug. 17, 1982
Lin US 4,748,453 May 31, 1988
Stanley US 5,211,497 May 18, 1993
Norum US 5,923,344 Jul. 13, 1999

The Examiner has maintained the following rejections under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a):
3
Appeal 2009-002538
Application 10/247,609

(a) claims 1, 4-6, 8, 10, 11, 14-16, 18, 20, 21, 24-26, 28, 30, 31, 33,
34, 37-39, 41, and 43 as unpatentable over the combined teachings of Norum
and Lin;
(b) claims 2, 3, 12, 13, 22, 23, 35, and 36 as unpatentable over the
combined teachings of Norum, Lin, and Tazaki; and
(c) claims 9, 19, 29, and 42 as unpatentable over the combined
teachings of Norum, Lin and Stanley.
The § 103 Rejection based on Norum and Lin
ISSUE ON APPEAL
The issues on appeal arising from the contentions of Appellant and the
Examiner regarding the first ground of rejection are: has Appellant shown
that the Examiner reversibly erred in establishing a prima facie case of
obviousness because:
a) Norum does not “teach or suggest that memory is used to store the
dot shift data or that any dot shift data is adjusted, as recited in Claim 1”
(App. Br. 5);
b) Norum does not teach or suggest “a timing adjustment unit
configured to adjust any output timings stored in memory, as recited in
Claim 1” (App. Br. 9); and
c) there is no reason to combine Norum and Lin such that the dot
column correction system of Norum is used for “bidirectional printing” as
required by claim 1 (App. Br. 9)?
We answer this question in the negative with respect to each of the
issues (a), (b), and (c).
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Claim Construction
4
Appeal 2009-002538
Application 10/247,609

It is axiomatic that during examination proceedings, claims are given
their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification. In
re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Although claims are to be interpreted in light of the specification, limitations
from the specification are not to be read into the claims. See In re Van
Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993). An applicant seeking a
narrower construction must either show why the broader construction is
unreasonable or amend the claim to expressly state the scope intended. In re
Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Inherency
Where the Examiner establishes a reasonable belief that the property
or characteristic recited in the claims would have been inherent to the
product or process, the burden of proof shifts to Appellants to show that this
characteristic or property is not possessed by the prior art. In re Spada, 911
F.2d 705, 708, (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254-55 (CCPA
1977).
Attorney’s arguments do not take the place of evidence in the record.
In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA 1974).
Admitted Prior Art
It is well established that “[a] statement in a patent that something is
in the prior art is binding on the applicant and patentee for determinations of
anticipation and obviousness.” See Constant v. Advanced Micro-Devices,
Inc., 848 F.2d 1560, 1570 (Fed. Cir. 1988); see also In re Nomiya, 509 F.2d
566, 571 n.5 (CCPA 1975) (It is a "basic proposition that a statement by an
applicant, whether in the application or in other papers submitted during
5
Appeal 2009-002538
Application 10/247,609

prosecution, that certain matter is 'prior art' to him, is an admission that that
matter is prior art for all purposes . . . .").
Obviousness
The Supreme Court has instructed that although the teaching,
suggestion, and motivation test “captured a helpful insight,” an obviousness
analysis “need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject
matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences
and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.”
KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007).
“The combination of familiar elements according to known methods
is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”
KSR, 550 U.S. 398 at 416. The question to be asked is “whether the
improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according
to their established functions.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 417.
Where the rejection is based on a combination of references, the test
for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the references would have
suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. In re Young, 927 F.2d 588,
591 (Fed. Cir. 1991); In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981).
FINDINGS OF FACTS
Findings of fact (FF) throughout this decision are supported by a
preponderance of the evidence.
Appellant admits in the Discussion of the Background section of the
Specification that bidirectional printers were known wherein dots are created
during both forward and backward movements in the main scanning
direction (Spec. 3:30-33). Appellant’s also admit that techniques to correct
for positional misalignment of the dots in the forward and backward pass
6
Appeal 2009-002538
Application 10/247,609

were known (Spec. 2:2-6); however, Appellant’s state that the prior art
technique did not sufficiently reduce misalignment of dots in a variable dot
printer that creates dots of different ink quantities.
As found by the Examiner, Norum discloses a printing system for
“fractional dot column correction for scan axis alignment during printing”
(see, Norum, title) wherein correction is made to account for dots of
different ink quantities and the timing of firing pulses of the ink dots is
adjusted to correct for misalignment (Norum, e.g., col. 1, ll. 56-58; col. 3, ll.
46-61; col. 4, ll. 48-65; col. 6, ll. 37-51; Ans. 4-5).
Norum describes using sub-pixel shifts in location of the dots when
placing the dots on the print medium by time-shifting the occurrence of
pulses used to generate the dots (Abstract).
Appellant’s claim 1 call for a “memory configured to store output
timings”.
Appellant’s Specification does not define “memory”.
In one exemplified embodiment in Appellant’s Specification, depicted
in Fig. 6, reference is made to “a CPU 41[central processing unit], a PROM
42 [programmable read only memory], a RAM 43 [random access
memory],” (Spec. 17, para. [0014]; Fig. 6). Appellant’s Specification
describes that in this embodiment “the output timings . . . are stored in the
PROM 42.” (Spec. 18, ll. 8-10).
According to Appellant’s proffered definition of “memory” (i.e., “a
device where information can be stored and retrieved”)2, any component of
Norum wherein information about the output timings can be stored and

2 “memory” Microsoft Computer Dictionary (1999) p. 258 (see, Ans. 3;
App. Br. 6).
7
Appeal 2009-002538
Application 10/247,609

retrieved meets this definition. One of ordinary skill would have appreciated
that a component part is also “a device”.
Specifically, Norum describes an automated system of generating data
to control the nozzles of an ink jet printer for proper dot alignment:
From input data 21, printer electronics 11 generates uncorrected
dot data 24 for the printed characters and/or images.
Uncorrected dot data 24 indicates the location and the drop
volume for dots which will form the printed characters and/or
images. Uncorrected dot data 24 is stored in an additional
buffer within printer electronics 11, which serves to buffer
uncorrected dot data 24 to allow the modification of
uncorrected dot data 24. Printer electronics 11 modifies
uncorrected dot data 24, using dot shift data 22, in order to
produce corrected dot data 25. Corrected dot data 25 is used
by printer electronics 11 to produce pen (printhead) firing data
23 which is used to control the nozzles of an ink jet printer.

(Norum col. 3, ll. 27-35; emphasis added)

The Examiner correctly found that the alignment information
that may be encoded within the print head and read back (Norum, col.
2, ll. 8-17) is inherently stored in a memory (Ans. 3).
Appellants agree with the Examiner’s finding that the
“additional buffer” used to store “uncorrected dot data 24” is memory
(Reply Br. 2).
Norum requires manipulating the dot shift data, the uncorrected
dot data, and the corrected dot data (e.g., see Fig. 1). One of ordinary
skill in the art would have immediately appreciated that “memory”
must be used “to store output timings” (as recited in claim 1) of the
driving (firing) signals, since Norum describes individually adjusting
the timing of the pulse on which the ink drops for the particular dot
8
Appeal 2009-002538
Application 10/247,609

fired from the nozzle to vary the scan axis alignment of the dot on the
page (col. 3, ll. 57-60; col. 6, ll. 37-51).
Norum describes that the dot shift data may be used to
“compensate for shift in location of dots when the center of dots are
slightly misaligned based on the size of [the] drops” (col. 6, ll. 37-40;
emphasis added). Norum explains that the timing of the firing of the
pulse is adjusted:
For example, FIG. 12, in an exaggerated perspective,
shows how a center 122 of an ink drop 121 formed from one
droplet has a different horizontal alignment than a center 124 of
an ink drop 123 formed from four droplets. By utilizing dot
shift data 22 to delay the firing of the pulse which creates ink
drop 122, center 122 of ink drop 121 can be horizontally
aligned with center 124 of ink drop 123. This is illustrated by
FIG. 13. Alternatively, dot shift data 22 can cause the early
firing of the four pulses which creates ink drop 124 in order to
horizontally align the center 123 of ink drop 124 with center
122 of ink drop 121.

(Norum, col. 6, ll. 40-52; emphasis added).

Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated
that Norum reasonably teaches and suggests “a memory configured to store
output timings” as well as “a timing adjustment unit” as recited in claim 1.
As pointed out by the Examiner, while Norum does explicitly describe
correcting alignment of dots having different ink quantities, Norum fails to
explicitly describe this technique in a bidirectional printing system as
claimed (Ans. 5, 6).
Bidirectional printing systems are known in the art, along with their
advantages as exemplified by Lin and as also admitted by Appellant (e.g.,
Lin, col. 4, ll. 40-41; Appellant’s Spec. 1:30-34).
9
Appeal 2009-002538
Application 10/247,609

ANALYSIS
Appellant does not separately argue the claims in the first claim
grouping (App. Br. 22-25, Reply Br. 1-5). Rather, Appellant focuses the
arguments on claim 1 and states that “independent Claims 11, 21, and 34
recite substantially parallel subject matter as that argued above with respect
to claim 1” (App. Br. 8, 9). 3 Accordingly, we will also focus on
independent claim 1.
Appellant’s main argument is that Norum fails to teach or suggest
“that memory is used to store the dot shift data or that any dot shift data is
adjusted, as recited in claim 1” (App. Br. 5); and “a timing adjustment unit
configured to adjust any output timings stored in memory, as recited in claim
1” (App. Br. 9). Appellant further contends that there is no motivation to
combine Norum and Lin such that the dot column correction system of
Norum is used for “bidirectional printing” as required by claim 1 (App. Br.
9). We disagree.
Even using the definition of “memory” provided by Appellants,
Norum’s printing system must contain memory to carry out its functions.
That is, using sub-pixel shifts in location of the dots when placing the dots
on the print medium by time-shifting the occurrence of pulses used to
generate the dots, as set forth in the FF above, necessarily requires the use of

3However, neither method claim 21 nor computer program product claim 34
explicitly recites a “memory” or a “timing adjustment unit” as recited in
claim 1 (see, claims 21, 34). Rather, e.g., claim 34 recites a series of
computer code instructions. Accordingly, claims 21 and 34 present separate
issues from the system of claim 1. However, since Appellant does not
separately argue these claims and we affirm the Decision of the Examiner
with respect to claim 1, there is no need for us to separately consider any of
the non-argued claims, including independent claims 11, 21, and 34.
10
Appeal 2009-002538
Application 10/247,609

“memory” to “store the output timings” as recited in claim 1. The Appellant
has not provided any persuasive evidence that the encoded data of Norum
can not be construed as being stored in a memory. Likewise, Norum’s
system reasonably must contain “a timing adjustment unit” in order to carry
out its described “time-shifting” of the pulses. We decline to read the terms
“memory” and “timing adjustment unit” as recited in the claim in the narrow
sense urged by Appellant. See Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1323
(Fed. Cir. 2005)(en banc)(“[A]lthough the specification often describes very
specific embodiments of the invention, we have repeatedly warned against
confining the claims to those embodiments.”).
Thus, we are in agreement with the Examiner that the claimed printing
system which “adjusts positional misalignments of the n variable dots” (i.e.,
dot correction) as recited in claim 1 reasonably encompasses the dot column
correction printing system of Norum, except that Norum does not explicitly
describe using the dot correction technique described therein for a
bidirectional printing system (see, e.g., Ans. 4-6; FF above).
Bidirectional printing is a well known technique as admitted by
Appellant and as exemplified in Lin (see FF). To modify Norum’s system
for use in a bidirectional printing process appears to be no more than the use
of two known techniques (bidirectional printing and dot alignment
correction for dots containing different ink quantities) for their predictable
functions and advantages thereof. Thus, the use of Norum’s technique of
dot misalignment correction in an admittedly known bidirectional printing
system would have been no more than a predictable use of a known
technique for its predictable result. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 416.
11
Appeal 2009-002538
Application 10/247,609

Accordingly, it would have been obvious to use Norum’s dot
placement correction technique for dots of different ink quantities in a
bidirectional printing system. See also KSR, 550 U.S. at 421 (one of
ordinary skill in the art is “also a person of ordinary creativity, not an
automaton”).
In summary, Appellant has not directed us to any persuasive
reasoning or evidence sufficient to refute the Examiner’s findings that
Norum includes a memory and timing adjustment unit as claimed.
Appellant has also not shown that the Examiner reversibly erred in his
obviousness determination.
TTherefore, we agree with the Examiner that the subject matter of
independent claim 1, (as well as not separately argued independent claims
11, 21 and 34 and all the other claims not separately argued) would have
been obvious over the combined teachings of Norum and Lin when
considered by one of ordinary skill in the art.
Other Issues
The 103 Rejection Based on Norum, Lin, and Tazaki
The Examiner adds Tazaki to the combination of Norum and Lin to
show that the claim features at issue are known in the art and concludes “it
would have been obvious . . . to employ the bidirectional printing
compensation techniques as taught in Tazaki for the method and apparatus”
of the Norum/Lin combination in order “to avoid print distortion” as taught
by Tazaki (Ans. 8).
Appellant does not dispute the Examiner’s factual findings with
respect to any of the claims rejected using the teachings of Tazaki (Ans. 7, 8;
generally App. Br., Reply Br.). Instead, Appellant contends that there is no
12
Appeal 2009-002538
Application 10/247,609

motivation to combine Tazaki with Norum and Lin, since both Norum and
Lin already achieve the intended result of avoiding print distortion (App. Br.
12). This is not persuasive of reversible error in the Examiner’s rejection.
As the Examiner aptly points out, one of ordinary skill in the art
would have readily appreciated that the techniques detailed in Tazaki would
have been useful to further reduce or complement the print distortion
achieved in an ink jet printing system, as in the combined prior art of Norum
and Lin (see e.g., Ans. 10, 11).
The 103 Rejection based on Norum, Lin, and Stanley
Appellant focuses on claim 9 as representative of this rejection. We
will likewise focus on claim 9. Claim 9 requires that “the reference dot [of
claim 8, which depends from claim 1] has a substantially intermediate ink
ejection speed among the n variable dots.”
The Examiner added Stanley to the Norum/Lin combination to
illustrate that normalizing the ejection speed of dots around a reference drop
speed to improve print quality was known in the art (Ans. 8, 9).
Appellant contends that there is no motivation to combine Stanley
with Norum and Lin since neither Norum or Lin suggests that their devices
suffer from unnormalized drop velocities, the problem that is addressed in
Stanley (App. Br. 13). Appellant also contends that Stanley fails to disclose
or teach creation of a “reference dot” whatsoever (id.). This is not
persuasive of reversible error in the Examiner’s rejection.
First, it is not persuasive of error that neither Norum nor Lin explicitly
discuss the problem of unnormalized drop velocities. Stanley is concerned
with tuning an ink jet printing system so that each orifice ejects ink drops at
the same desired velocity (col. 1, ll. 5-8). One of ordinary skill in the art
13
Appeal 2009-002538
Application 10/247,609

would have readily appreciated that the problem discussed in Stanley, of
unacceptably large deviations from the desired ink velocity (e.g., col. 2, ll. 1-
5), may also be shared by other ink jet printers, such as those discussed in
Norum and Lin.
Second, Appellant has offered no credible argument nor evidence that
Stanley’s teaching of “establishing a standard that represents a position of a
print medium [e.g., ink] with respect to an orifice” (Stanley. e.g., col. 2, ll.
23-25; emphasis added) in order to adjust the velocity of ink from a print
head may not reasonably be considered as establishing “a reference dot” as
explained by the Examiner (Ans. 8, 9, 11; Stanley, col. 2, ll. 8-39).
Appellant’s contention that Stanley uses an optimal ink ejection speed rather
than an intermediate speed is also not persuasive of error (App. Br. 13). The
Examiner’s implicit position that it would have been obvious to establish a
reference dot that has a substantially intermediate ink ejection speed
“among” the dots (as recited in claim 9) appears reasonable.
Furthermore, Appellant did not separately argue dependent claim 8
(rejected with independent claim 1 over the combined teachings of Norum
and Lin) which recites the timing adjustment unit adjusts the timing of
another dot relative to “an output timing . . . corresponding to one reference
dot selected among the n variable dots”. The Examiner made the explicit
factual finding that Norum describes a reference dot as claimed in claim 8
(Ans. 6). Appellant did not dispute this finding. A factual finding not
shown by Appellant to be erroneous may be accepted as fact. In re
Kunzman, 326 F. 2d 424, 426, n. 3 (CCPA 1964).
Claim 9 does not appear to further limit the structure of the system of
claim 8, rather, it merely requires the printing system has the capability of
14
Appeal 2009-002538
Application 10/247,609

one output timing corresponding to a reference dot with “a substantially
intermediate ink ejection speed”. Appellant provides no convincing
evidence or argument that the combined printing system of Norum, Lin and
Stanley does not have such a capability.
Accordingly, Appellant has not shown that the Examiner reversibly
erred in his obviousness determination of claim 9 over the applied prior art.
ORDER
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 4-6, 8, 10, 11, 14-16, 18, 20, 21,
24-26, 28, 30, 31, 33, 34, 37-39, 41, and 43 as unpatentable over the
combined teachings of Norum and Lin is affirmed.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 2, 3, 12, 13, 22, 23, 35, and 36 as
unpatentable over the combined teachings of Norum, Lin, and Tazaki is
affirmed.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 9, 19, 29, and 42 as unpatentable
over the combined teachings of Norum, Lin and Stanley is affirmed.
The Examiner’s decision is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal maybe extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
tc

OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND, MAIER & NEUSTADT, P.C.
1940 DUKE STREET
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314
15