Ex Parte Jörgens et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 24, 2013

10572274 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 24, 2013)

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.
10/572,274 12/11/2006 Dieter Jörgens P06,0048 9256
26574 7590 07/25/2013
SCHIFF HARDIN, LLP
PATENT DEPARTMENT
233 S. Wacker Drive-Suite 6600
CHICAGO, IL 60606-6473
EXAMINER
WASHINGTON, JAMARES
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2675
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/25/2013 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 DIETER JÖRGENS, HERBERT GIBISCH,
and PETER THIEMANN
__________

Appeal 2011-007783
Application 10/572,274
Technology Center 2600
__________

Before TONI R. SCHEINER, DONALD E. ADAMS, and
FRANCISCO C. PRATS, Administrative Patent Judges.

SCHEINER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal1 under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the rejection of claims
31-58, directed to a method and device for printing an image on a recording
medium while compensating for shrinkage of the medium. The claims have
been rejected as obvious. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

1 Appellants identify the Real Party-In-Interest as Oce Printing Systems
GmbH (App. Br. 1).
Appeal 2011-007783
Application 10/572,274

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The invention concerns a method and a device for printing of a
recording medium in which a recording medium is printed with
a first toner image in a first printing process by a printing
device; the first toner image is fixed on the recording medium
in a fixing device, whereby the recording medium shrinks along
at least one main axis; and in which the same recording medium
is subsequently printed with a second toner image in a second
printing process.
(Spec. 1: 4-9.)
According to the invention . . . shrinking correction occurs via a
software-technical intervention in the generation of the bitmap
for the generation of the latent image for the first printing
process or for the second printing process. The number of the
image points to be taken into account in the printing is hereby
changed corresponding to the expected shrinkage in the
direction of the main axis.
(Id. at 3: 17-22.)
Claims 31-58 are pending and on appeal. Claims 1-30 have been
canceled (App. Br. 2). Claims 31 and 38 are representative of the subject
matter on appeal and are reproduced below:
31. A method for printing a recording medium, comprising:
providing digital data for a corresponding print page;
during generation of a software generated bit map from said digital
data and having image points corresponding to image points to be inked for
generation of a latent image for a first print process or a second print
process, inserting or omitting image points in said bit map for said first print
process or said second print process in a direction of at least one main axis
corresponding to an expected shrinkage of said recording medium along said
main axis;
printing the recording medium with a first toner image in the first
print process;
fixing the first toner image on the recording medium in a fixing device
where said expected shrinkage occurs along said at least one main axis; and
in the second print process, applying a second toner image on the recording
Appeal 2011-007783
Application 10/572,274

3
medium wherein the first toner image or the second toner image is
compressed or expanded to compensate for said shrinkage of the first toner
image.
38. A device for printing of a recording medium, comprising:
a printing group that prints the recording medium with a first toner
image in a first print process, and the printing group or a further printing
group prints the recording medium with a second toner image in a second
print process;
a fixing device that fixes the first toner image on the recording
medium where the recording medium has expected shrinkage of said
recording medium along at least one main axis as a result of said fixing;
a control unit which, for a corresponding print page based on digital
data, generates a software generated bitmap from said digital data and
having image points corresponding to image points to be inked for
generation of a latent image, said control unit, for the first print process or
the second print process, implementing an insertion or an omission of image
points in said bit map in a direction of a main axis corresponding to said
expected shrinkage; and
the printing group or said further printing group in the second print
process, when it applies the second toner image on the recording medium,
the first toner image or the second toner image is compressed or expanded to
compensate for said shrinkage of said first toner image.
The Examiner relies on the following evidence:
Saund et al. US 5,485,565 Jan. 16, 1996
Klassen US 5,919,815 May 21, 1996
Revankar et al. US 5,767,978 Jun. 16, 1998
Al-Hussein US 5,818,978 Oct. 6, 1998
Thomas US 6,094,560 Jul. 25, 2000
Stephens US 2002/0181021 A1 Dec. 5, 2002
Conrow et al. US 6,806,896 B2 Oct. 19, 2004
The claims stand rejected by the Examiner as follows:
Claims 31, 38, 45, and 52 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Conrow, Stephens, and Klassen (Ans. 4-9).
Appeal 2011-007783
Application 10/572,274

4
Claims 32, 33, 37, 37, 39, 40, 43, 44, 46, 47, 50, 51, 53, 54, 57, and 58
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Conrow, Stephens, Klassen,
and Revankar (Ans. 9-13).
Claims 43, 41, 48, and 55 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Conrow, Stephens, Klassen, Revankar, and Al-Hussein (Ans. 14-15).
Claims 35, 42, 49, and 56 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Conrow, Stephens, Klassen, and Saund (Ans. 15-17).
FINDINGS OF FACT
The following findings of fact are supported by a preponderance of
the evidence of record.
1. Conrow discloses a method and system for compensating for
paper shrinkage due to fusion during a duplex printing operation:
The relationship between first and second side images is
evaluated to determine how the position of the paper and/or the
size and arrangement of an image can be manipulated to
compensate for paper shrinkage caused by fusing. Show
through is reduced by performing setup to adjust a pixel clock
frequency and/or a photoreceptor speed, determining a residual
magnification error, determining margin shifts to compensate
for the residual magnification error, and applying the margin
shifts. Paper shrink effects on registration can be compensated
for using determinations made during a typical printer setup . . .
Using information obtained during setup, a margin shift is
determined that results in a significant reduction in the
maximum show through for each image.
(Conrow Abstract.)
2. Stephens teaches that duplex printing involves printing an
image on a first side of a print medium (e.g., paper), turning the medium
over, and printing a second image on the second side of the medium. In
standard duplex printing, one edge of the medium is used for page
Appeal 2011-007783
Application 10/572,274

5
registration when printing the first image and the opposite edge of the
medium is used for registering the second printed image. Thus, the leading
edge for printing the first image becomes the trailing edge for printing the
second image (Stephens ¶¶ 2, 4). When “the leading and trailing edges of a
print media vary in both length and parallelism[,] [t]his presents problems in
aligning the first and second side images” (id. at ¶ 4).
3. Stephens discloses a method and system wherein:
[T]he printing system tracks the placement of the medium 10 in
the print zone in directions orthogonal to the feed direction 30
to enable shifting the image for alignment in those directions.
By measuring and tracking the media characteristics and its
placement in the printer, the printer controller digitally shifts
and rotates if necessary the image to optimally align the second
image printed with the first image printed. This can be
accomplished by digitally shifting the image, trimming the
image (i.e. electronically discarding some pixels), or modifying
the initial starting position of the medium (i.e. top of the sheet
or form) by moving the medium.
(Stephens ¶ 23.)
4. Klassen discloses:
[A] method of reducing marking material coverage in
reproduction of areas of text or line art of a fully saturated
secondary color, including the steps of: a) determining the
locations of text or line art pixels having excessive marking
material coverage; b) upon determining the locations of color
pixels having excessive marking material coverage, processing
separation pixels to tum OFF a predetermined portion of the
separation pixels corresponding to color pixels having
excessive marking material coverage; and c) to prevent artifacts
from occurring in the pixel reduction step, processing a given
area of separation pixels in an order which tends to randomize
the locations of pixels turned off.
(Klassen, col. 3, ll. 43-45.)
Appeal 2011-007783
Application 10/572,274

6
DISCUSSION
All four of the Examiner’s rejections are based, in whole or in part, on
the combined teachings of Conrow, Stephens, and Klassen, so we will
discuss the rejections together.
The Examiner finds, in relevant part, that Conrow discloses a method
and device for printing a first and second toner image onto a recording
medium “wherein the first and second toner image is compressed or
expanded to compensate for shrinkage of the first toner image” (Ans. 5).
The Examiner acknowledges that Conrow does not disclose “inserting or
omitting image points in a bit map for a first print process of a second print
process in a direction of at least one main axis corresponding to an expected
shrinkage of said recording medium along said main axis” (id. at 6).
However, the Examiner finds that
Stephens . . . teaches inserting or omitting image points
in a bit map for a first print process or a second print process in
a direction of at least one main axis corresponding to an
expected shrinkage of said recording medium along said main
axis (¶ [23]) wherein pixels may be “discarded” to trim the
image, which is well known in the art to occur at one axis
corresponding to an expected shrinkage of a recording medium
as evidence by Klassen . . . which depicts pixels being removed
along one main axis corresponding to an expected shrinkage to
“trim” the image).
(Id. (brackets original).)
The Examiner concludes that:
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at
the time the invention was made for the invention as disclosed
by Conrow et al wherein image points corresponding to image
points to be inked for generation of a latent image for a first
print process or a second print process have been identified to
utilize the technique of Stephens, wherein inserting or omitting
Appeal 2011-007783
Application 10/572,274

7
image points in a bit map for a first print process or a second
print process in a direction of at least one main axis
corresponding to an expected shrinkage of said recording
medium along said main axis is taught, to allow the printer to
digitally trim pixels from the image to optimally align the
second image printed with the first image printed[.]
(Id.)
Appellants contend that Conrow “adjusts a pixel clock frequency to
correct for shrinkage caused by fusing[,] [t]here is no mention, however, of
any changes to a bitmap” (App. Br. 6).
Appellants contend that the “claim language requires inserting or
omitting image points in a bit map corresponding to an expected shrinkage”
(Reply Br. 2) due to fixing between printing first and second images on a
recording medium. Appellants acknowledge that Stephens “eliminates
pixels at a leading edge of an image so that the edges of the image are
aligned” (App. Br. 7), but contend that “[t]his has absolutely nothing to do
with shrinking” (id.). Appellants contend:
Even . . . if Stephens is substituted into Conrow and
pixels are eliminated for aligning leading edges of the two
printed images, the number of pixels discarded for leading edge
alignment would not be the correct number of pixels to discard
to solve the shrinking problem in the direction of page
shrinking because the back edges would not align along the
recited main axis. Thus, substituting the teaching of Stephens
into Conrow does not result in a workable system to solve the
shrinking.
(Id.)
Similarly, Appellants contend:
[E]ven if Klassen[] was combined with Conrow, one would
simply eliminate pixels to solve the excess ink marking
problem, but the number of pixels eliminated to solve excessive
ink marking problems would not be the correct number of
Appeal 2011-007783
Application 10/572,274

8
pixels to eliminate to correct paper shrinkage so that both front
and back edges align along the main axis and, thus, it would be
an unworkable system to solve the shrinkage problem.
(Id. at 8.)
Appellants’ arguments are persuasive. We agree with Appellants that
neither Stephens nor Klassen discloses inserting pixels into the bitmap of a
first toner image, or eliminating pixels from the bitmap of a second toner
image, in such a way as to correspond to and compensate for shrinkage of
the recording medium between printing successive images. Thus, the
Examiner has not established that even if one were to modify Conrow’s
method at the bitmap level according to Stephens, Klassen, or both, the
resultant method would omit or insert pixels in a manner that corresponds to
and compensates for shrinkage of the medium between successive printings.
SUMMARY
The obviousness rejections of the claims based, in whole or in part, on
the combined teachings of Conrow, Stephens, and Klassen are reversed.

REVERSED

lp