Ex Parte Nelson et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 3, 2013

11895781 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 3, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
_____________

Ex parte TERRY M. NELSON and MARK SHAW
_____________

Appeal 2011-001151
Application 11/895,781
Technology Center 2600
______________

Before, DAVID M. KOHUT, LARRY J. HUME, and
LYNNE E. PETTIGREW, Administrative Patent Judges.

KOHUT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-001151
Application 11/895,781

2
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Final
Rejection of claims 1-18 and 20.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of these claims.

INVENTION
The invention is directed to a method and device for calibrating a
printer using a calibration procedure. Abstract. Claim 1 is representative of
the invention and is reproduced below:
1. A method of calibrating a printing device, said method
comprising:
with said printing device, receiving a transmission of a
calibration procedure;
implementing said calibration procedure in said printing
device;
storing current calibration data in said printing device; and
with said calibration procedure, modifying each incoming
print job using said calibration data stored in said printing
device.

REFERENCES
Van Hoof US 6,067,406 May 23, 2000

McVey US 6,108,100 Aug. 22, 2000

Dandekar US 2007/0055707 A1 Mar. 8, 2007

REJECTION AT ISSUE
Claims 1, 4-12, 15-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Van Hoof. Ans. 3-11.

1 Claim 19 was previously cancelled.
Appeal 2011-001151
Application 11/895,781

3
Claims 2 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Van Hoof and McVey. Ans. 11-12.
Claims 3 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Van Hoof and Dandekar. Ans. 12-13.

ISSUES
Did the Examiner err in finding that Van Hoof teaches or suggests the
limitations of claim 1?
Did the Examiner err in finding Van Hoof teaches or suggests,
“modifying a PostScript operator located on said printing device to execute
said PostScript calibration procedure for each incoming print job,” as recited
in claim 7?
Did the Examiner err in finding Van Hoof teaches or suggests,
“wherein said operator is located behind the server loop of the printing
device,” as recited in claim 9?

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
contentions that the Examiner has erred.
We disagree with Appellants’ conclusions. We adopt as our own
(1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from
which this appeal is taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in
the Examiner’s rejection of the claims and in the Examiner’s Answer in
response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief. We concur with the conclusions
reached by the Examiner. In addition, below we highlight the following
arguments for emphasis.
Appeal 2011-001151
Application 11/895,781

4
Regarding claim 1, Appellants argue that Van Hoof does not teach
receiving a transmission of a calibration procedure with said printing device
because Van Hoof does not show an actual calibration procedure being
transmitted to a printing device. App. Br. 11; Reply Br. 5. However, we
agree with the Examiner (Ans. 14) that the claim is written broadly enough
such that the limitation includes receiving a transmission of the calibration
procedure to be used by the printing device. Thus, we do not find
Appellants’ argument to be persuasive.
Additionally, Appellants argue that Van Hoof does not teach “storing
current calibration data in said printing device” because Van Hoof teaches
that the print data is processed by the Raster Image Processor (RIP) before a
printer is selected. App. Br. 12; Reply Br. 6. The Examiner interprets Van
Hoof’s transfer curves that generate transfer functions as the claimed
calibration data. Ans. 14. These curves are stored within the RIP and the
transfer functions are stored close to or within the output device. Ans. 14
(citing Van Hoof, col. 3, ll. 22-31). Therefore, the Examiner finds that at
least one embodiment of Van Hoof stores the transfer curves within the
output device. Ans. 14. We agree with the Examiner, as Appellants have
not provided sufficient evidence to address the Examiner’s specific finding,
except to contend that one embodiment does not include the RIP in the
printing device. App. Br. 12; Reply Br. 6. Thus, we do not find Appellants’
argument to be persuasive.
Lastly with regard to claim 1, Appellants argue that each incoming
print job is not modified using the calibration data stored in the printing
device because the print data varies according to print job. App. Br. 13;
Reply Br. 6-7. However, we agree with the Examiner (Ans. 15) that when
Appeal 2011-001151
Application 11/895,781

5
the transmission of the calibration procedure (the transmission of which
calibration procedure to be used) is received, the current calibration data
(current transfer functions) are stored, and then that data is used to format
the print job. Thus, we do not find Appellants’ arguments to be persuasive.
For the reasons indicated supra, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, Appellants argue that Van Hoof does not teach
“modifying a PostScript operator located on said printing device to execute
said PostScript calibration procedure for each incoming print job” because
Van Hoof only teaches each transfer mode corresponding to a specific
output mode, not a single transfer mode applied to all output modes. App.
Br. 15; Reply Br. 9. The Examiner finds that Van Hoof teaches that after an
output device is selected, each print job uses the appropriate calibration data,
i.e., transfer function in PostScript format, to print. Ans. 16. We agree with
the Examiner since the claim only requires that each printing job execute a
particular calibration function. Thus, we do not find Appellants’ arguments
to be persuasive.
Regarding claim 9, Appellants argue that Van Hoof does not teach
“wherein said operator is located behind the server loop of the printing
device” because Van Hoof’s downloading occurs prior to the selection of a
printing device. App. Br. 16-17; Reply Br. 10-11. We disagree. As
discussed above with respect to claim 1, the Examiner finds, and we agree,
that in at least one embodiment of Van Hoof, the transfer curves are stored
on the printing device. Ans. 14. Thus, we do not find Appellants’ argument
to be persuasive.

Appeal 2011-001151
Application 11/895,781

6
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in finding that Van Hoof teaches or suggests
the limitations of claim 1.
The Examiner did not err in finding Van Hoof teaches or suggests
“modifying a PostScript operator located on said printing device to execute
said PostScript calibration procedure for each incoming print job,” as recited
in claim 7.
The Examiner did not err in finding Van Hoof teaches or suggests
“wherein said operator is located behind the server loop of the printing
device,” as recited in claim 9.
SUMMARY
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-18 and 20 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED

tj