11467709 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 30, 2012)

Ex Parte Kumar

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesAug 30, 2012

11467709 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 30, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________ Ex parte ICHIJI KAGEISHI, YUMI ANDO, HIROYUKI KOBAYASHI, YOSHITAKA OSANAI, and YASUKAZU SUGA ____________ Appeal 2010-005218 Application 11/467,709 Technology Center 2600 ____________ Before MARC S. HOFF, CARLA M. KRIVAK, and ELENI MANTIS MERCADER , Administrative Patent Judges. MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-005218 Application 11/467,709 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 8-11, 22-25, and 36-39. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. THE INVENTION Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to a printer that may receive commands specifying a raster operation to be performed to generate a bit map representing the portion of a page to be printed (Spec. 2). The printer determines whether performing the raster operation would result in a same value being generated for all of the points of the image portion and if the same value would be generated, the printer performs the raster operation for one point of the image portion to determine the value, and uses the same value for all of the points (Spec. 3). Independent claim 8, reproduced below, is exemplary of the subject matter on appeal. 8. A method of filling an image portion of a page to be printed with a corresponding color, said method being performed in a printer, said method comprising: receiving a plurality of commands specifying content for said image portion of said page, said image portion containing a plurality of points, said plurality of commands including at least one command specifying a raster operation to be performed to generate a bit map representing said image portion, said raster operation being performed on at least one operand, an indicating that said one operand is to be filled with corresponding color; determining for each raster operation whether performing said raster operation of said at least one command would result Appeal 2010-005218 Application 11/467,709 3 in a same value of said corresponding color being generated for all of said plurality of points of said image portion of said page; if said same value would be generated for all of said plurality of points of said image portion of said page, performing said raster operation for only one of said plurality points to determine said same value and using said same value for all of said plurality of points of said image portion of said page; and if said same value would not be generated for all of said plurality of points of said image portion of said page, performing said raster operation for each of said plurality points to determine a value for each corresponding point and using said value for said corresponding point of said image portion of said page. REFERENCES and REJECTIONS The Examiner rejected claims 8, 22, and 36 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) based upon the teachings of Sumiya (US Patent No. 5,315,691, May 24, 1994). The Examiner rejected claims 9-11, 23-25, and 37-39 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of Sumiya and Mori (US Patent No. 7,161,711, January 9, 2007, filed August 9, 2001). ISSUE The pivotal issue is whether the Examiner erred in finding that Sumiya teaches the limitations of: “including at least one command specifying a raster operation to be performed to generate a bit map representing said image portion . . . determining for each raster operation whether performing said raster operation of said at least one command would result in a same value of said Appeal 2010-005218 Application 11/467,709 4 corresponding color being generated for all of said plurality of points of said image portion of said page” as recited in claim 8. ANALYSIS Claims 8, 22, and 36 Appellants point out that the Examiner relies on Sumiya for teaching two types of commands, graphic image command and bit image command, to determine whether the command is a graphic image command or a bit image command, and proceeding with differing actions dependent upon the command type (App. Br. 14). Appellants argue that performing differing actions based upon different command types as taught by Sumiya does not anticipate performing differing actions on the same command type (raster operation) depending on the nature of the operation (App. Br. 14). We agree with Appellants. Claim 8 requires that at least one command specifying a raster operation to be performed to generate a bit map representing the image portion and determining for each raster operation whether performing the raster operation would result in a same value of the corresponding color being generated for all of the plurality of points of the image portion and if the same value would not be generated for all of the plurality of points of the image portion, performing the raster operation for each of the plurality points (see claim 8). Thus, we agree with Appellants that the claimed invention requires a command that generates a bit map and determining whether the same value could be generated for the plurality of points or whether the same value cannot be generated for the same points. On the contrary, Sumiya teaches two commands and depending on whether the command data is a graphic image data or whether it is a bit Appeal 2010-005218 Application 11/467,709 5 image command data (col. 13, ll. 57-59) assigning the same color value for all the points or assigning a color value for each point, respectively (see Ans. 9-10; and col. 14, l. 34-col. 15, l. 32). Thus, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 8 and for the same reasons the rejections of claims 22, and 36 which recite similar recitations. Claims 9-11, 23-25, and 37-39 We also reverse the Examiner’s rejections of claims 9-11, 23-25, and 37-39 for the same reasons because Mori does not cure the above cited deficiencies. CONCLUSION The Examiner erred in finding that Sumiya teaches the limitations of: “including at least one command specifying a raster operation to be performed to generate a bit map representing said image portion . . . determining for each raster operation whether performing said raster operation of said at least one command would result in a same value of said corresponding color being generated for all of said plurality of points of said image portion of said page” as recited in claim 8. DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 8-11, 22-25, and 36-39 is reversed. REVERSED Vsh