Ex Parte Simske et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 21, 2013

11465763 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 21, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
__________

Ex parte STEVEN J. SIMSKE and JASON S. ARONOFF1
__________

Appeal 2011-010972
Application 11/465,763
Technology Center 2600
__________

Before ERIC GRIMES, TONI R. SCHEINER, and ERICA A. FRANKLIN,
Administrative Patent Judges.

GRIMES, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 involving claims relating to
target patterns for providing quality assurance verification and security
authentication. The claims have been rejected for obviousness. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 Appellants identify the Real Party in Interest as Hewlett-Packard
Development Company, LP (Appeal Br. 1).
Appeal 2011-010972
Application 11/465,763

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Specification’s Figure 1 is reproduced below:

Figure 1 shows “a diagram of an exemplary sequence of modulation
transfer function (MTF) target patterns” (Spec. 2:2-3). “The sequence 100
of the MTF target patterns 102 is employed to measure an MTF of the
quality of a reading device, such as an optical scanning device. . . . [T]he
MTF measures a reading device’s ability to discern high frequency black-to-
white transitions.” (Id. at 4:4-9.)
The Specification states that MTF target patterns can be adapted to
provide quality assurance verification (id. at 7:4-5), which is “the process of
having a reading device, such as an optical scanning device, read a number
of MTF target patterns, determine the resulting MTF values, and compare
the MTF values against expected values or tolerances” (id. at 7:17-20). The
same MTF target patterns can also be adapted to provide security
authentication (id. at 8:20-21) to “ensure that a given product in a box
indeed originates from the company, and is not counterfeit” (id. at 1:21-22).
Specifically,
[a] given pair of MTF target patterns having the LPI [lines-per-
inch] pair {low, high} can be considered a security code for
these MTF target patterns. By specifying a number of such
Appeal 2011-010972
Application 11/465,763

3
pairs of MTF target patterns, an effective security
authentication mechanism can be provided. . . . Where all these
LPI values match, then authentication is considered successful.
(Id. at 8:22-30.)
Claims 1-10 and 12-20 are on appeal. Claim 1 is illustrative and reads
as follows:
1. A method comprising:
determining a plurality of modulation transfer function (MTF)
target patterns capable of being printed on a medium, the MTF target
patterns adapted to:
provide quality assurance (QA) verification of at least a
reading device capable of reading the MTF target patterns printed on
the medium; and,
provide security authentication of an entity associated
with printing of the MTF target patterns on the medium; and,
printing the MTF target patterns on the medium,
wherein the security authentication that the MTF target patterns
are adapted to provide comprises:
determining a sequence of MTF target patterns within the
MTF target patterns received from a reading device;
for each MTF target pattern within the sequence of MTF
target patterns,
determining a printed lines-per-inch (LPI) value of
the MTF target pattern;
comparing the printed LPI value of the MTF target
pattern with a specified authentication LPI value for the MTF target
pattern;
where the printed LPI value of any MTF target pattern
differs by more than a threshold from the specified authentication LPI
value for the MTF target pattern, failing the security authentication;
and,
where the printed LPI value of each MTF target pattern
equals within the threshold the specified authentication LPI value for
the MTF target pattern, passing the security authentication.

Appeal 2011-010972
Application 11/465,763

4
The Examiner has rejected claims 1-10, 12-16, and 18-20 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious based on Wicker ʼ0702 and Weiser3 (Answer 3).
The Examiner has rejected claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
based on Wicker ʼ070, Weiser, and Wicker ʼ3944 (Answer 13). The same
issue is dispositive for both rejections.
The Examiner finds that Wicker ʼ070 discloses a method that meets
all of the limitations of claim 1 (id. at 3-4), but “does not elaborate on
modulation transfer function (MTF)” (id. at 5). The Examiner finds that
“Weiser teaches obtaining MTF from plurality of bar patterns and
determining a scanner’s performance based on MTF value” (id.). The
Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious based on Wicker ʼ070
and Weiser to “apply various line stripe patterns that can be printed on a
medium as MTF target patterns for the purpose of determining interference
scanning frequencies and the ability of an optical device to transfer signals
faithfully” (id.).
Appellants contend that Wicker ʼ070 is directed to ensuring that an
original document can be printed so that it cannot be counterfeited (Appeal
Br. 6) and counterfeiting prevention is a different type of problem than
security authentication (id. at 8). Appellants contend that Wicker ʼ070 is
directed to a different problem than the claimed method because the goal of
Wicker ʼ070 is to identify patterns with an LPI value that is not easily
scanned, whereas “claim 1 relates to authentication, and therefore the LPI

2 Wicker, US 2007/0086070 A1, Apr. 19, 2007.
3 Weiser, US 3,743,427, July 3, 1973.
4 Wicker et al., US 2007/0029394, Feb. 8, 2007.
Appeal 2011-010972
Application 11/465,763

5
value at which an original document is printed is an LPI value that is easily
scanned – because ultimately the goal is to be able to match this LPI value
with a specified authentication LPI value” (id. at 7).
The issue presented is whether a method encompassed by claim 1 on
appeal would have been obvious based on the disclosures of Wicker ʼ070
and Weiser.
Findings of Fact
1. Wicker ʼ070 discloses “methods and products for printing and
obtaining original documents that can be readily differentiated from copies
made of those documents” (Wicker ʼ070 1, ¶ 4).
2. Wicker ʼ070 discloses that scanning devices “have various
interference scanning frequencies, i.e. line frequencies which do not scan
accurately. . . . For example, typical scanning devices have interference
frequencies of more than one first order moiré at 80, 95, 105, 245 and 200
lpi.” (Id. at 3, ¶ 34.)
3. Wicker ʼ070 discloses a method of determining interference
frequencies comprising “scanning a plurality of images and generating a
plurality of scanned images, each image having a unique line frequency;
comparing the scanned images to the images and determining if the scanned
images contain distortions, moiré patterns,” etc. (id. at 2, ¶ 23).
Appeal 2011-010972
Application 11/465,763

6
4. Figure 6 of Wicker ʼ070 is reproduced below:

Figure 6 “illustrates an exemplary test pattern 600 that may be used to
determine interference frequencies of scanning and copying devices” (id. at
4, ¶ 48).
5. “Test pattern 600 preferably has a plurality of rows 602 of different
line frequencies ranging from about 50 lpi to about 400 lpi” (id.).
6. “When test pattern 600 is scanned, the scanner operator can view
the scanned copy to determine which line frequencies provide the greatest
distortion. The line frequencies which provide the greatest distortion may be
used as the interference frequencies in a printing operation.” (Id.)
7. Wicker ʼ070 discloses that
[d]ata of the scanned image is preferably provided to processor
702. . . . Processor 702 preferably contains the test pattern in a
memory 708. . . . Processor 702 also preferably contains a
microprocessor 710 which is programmed to compare each line
frequency and corresponding density in the original test pattern
Appeal 2011-010972
Application 11/465,763

7
600 recalled from memory 708 with the scanned image
provided by scanner 700.
(Id. at 4, ¶ 50.)
8. The Specification states that an exemplary sequence of MTF target
patterns is a series of black-and-white parallel straight lines or bars having
the same width within a given MTF target pattern (Spec. 2:23-28).
9. The Specification states that “where series of black-and-white
parallel straight lines are employed for an MTF target pattern, the lines-per-
inch frequencies typically are measured in the tens to the hundreds” (id. at
3:25-27).
10. The Specification states that “[g]enerally, a number of sequences
of MTF target patterns . . . are employed to measure the quality of a reading
device, where different sequences have different low-frequency MTF target
patterns and different high-frequency target patterns” (id. at 4:9-13).
11. The MTF values determined by the reading device “can then be
compared against specified MTF values, to determine whether the reading
device is able to properly distinguish between black and white within
specifications” (id. at 4:14-16).
12. The Specification states that “the MTF target patterns are also
adapted to provide security authentication. . . . A given pair of MTF target
patterns having the LPI pair {low, high} can be considered a security code
for these MTF target patterns.” (Id. at 8:20-24.)
13. The Specification states that
[t]o determine whether the MTF target patterns printed on a
medium indeed originated by or under the authority of a given
entity, such as a company, a user simply has to read the
appropriate MTF target patterns, and compare their read, or
Appeal 2011-010972
Application 11/465,763

8
printed, LPI values with previously specified authentication LPI
values. Where all these LPI values match, then authentication is
considered successful.
(Id. at 8:25-30.)
Analysis
We begin by clarifying the scope of claim 1. During proceedings at
the USPTO, claims are given the broadest reasonable interpretation that is
consistent with the Specification. See In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372
(Fed. Cir. 2000) (“[D]uring examination proceedings, claims are given their
broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification.”).
Claim 1 recites two active steps: (1) determining a plurality of MTF
target patterns and (2) printing them on a medium. Claim 1 also requires
that the printed target patterns be capable of providing two functions:
(1) QA verification and (2) security authentication based on a comparison of
measured LPI values to expected LPI values. However, the claimed method
does not require actually carrying out either the step of QA verification or
the step of security authentication. Claim 1 requires only that the MTF
target patterns printed in the second step of the claimed method are capable
of being used as recited in the remainder of the claim.
The Specification does not describe the functions recited in claim 1 as
requiring a specific number of MTF target patterns, or MTF target patterns
having particular LPI values or other specific parameters. With regard to
QA verification, the Specification states that “a number” of MTF target
patterns are used, and that the patterns have “different low-frequency MTF
target patterns and different high-frequency target patterns” (FF 10). The
Specification also states that the LPI frequencies of MTF target patterns are
Appeal 2011-010972
Application 11/465,763

9
typically in the tens-to-hundreds range (FF 9). Thus, the broadest reasonable
interpretation of the claimed plurality of MTF target patterns capable of
being used for QA verification is a plurality of MTF target patterns with
LPIs in the lower part of the tens-to-hundreds range, and a plurality of MTF
target patterns with LPIs in the higher part of the tens-to-hundreds range.
With regard to security authentication, the Specification states that a
“pair of MTF target patterns having the LPI pair {low, high} can be
considered a security code” (FF 12). The Specification states that security
authentication is provided by “simply . . . read[ing] the appropriate MTF
target patterns, and compar[ing] their read, or printed, LPI values with
previously specified authentication LPI values” (FF 13). Authentication is
successful if the read values match the specified values (id.). Thus, the
broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed plurality of MTF target
patterns capable of being used for security authentication is a pair of MTF
target patterns, one with a known LPI in the lower part of the tens-to-
hundreds range, and one with a known LPI in the higher part of the tens-to-
hundreds range.
Wicker ʼ070 discloses determining a plurality of images having
different frequencies of black and white lines (FFs 3, 4). The line-frequency
images disclosed by Wicker ʼ070 are reasonably interpreted to be MTF
target patterns in view of the Specification’s description of MTF target
patterns as a series of black-and-white parallel straight lines having the same
width within a given pattern (FF 8). Wicker ʼ070 also describes printing its
images on a medium (FF 4) so that the images can be scanned (FF 6).
Wicker ʼ070 thus describes both of the active steps recited in claim 1.
Appeal 2011-010972
Application 11/465,763

10
Wicker ʼ070 discloses that the pattern of images has a plurality of
rows having different line frequencies in the range of 50 LPI to 400 LPI
(FF 5). The pattern of images disclosed by Wicker ʼ070 thus includes a
plurality of MTF target patterns with LPIs in the lower part of the tens-to-
hundreds range, and a plurality of MTF target patterns with LPIs in the
higher part of the tens-to-hundreds range. The pattern therefore meets the
requirements described in the Specification for use in QA verification.
The pattern of images disclosed by Wicker ʼ070 also meets the
requirements described in the Specification for use in security
authentication, since it includes images with known line frequencies varying
from 50 LPI to 400 LPI, and therefore necessarily includes at least one pair
of MTF target patterns, one with a known LPI in the lower part of the tens-
to-hundreds range, and one with a known LPI in the higher part of the tens-
to-hundreds range. Wicker ʼ070, in fact, describes scanning a pattern of
images and comparing the measured line frequency to the expected (or
“specified”) line frequency (FF 7).
Appellants argue that the use of LPI values in Wicker ʼ070 is different
from their use in claim 1 (Appeal Br. 6-7). That is, the goal of Wicker ʼ070
is to prevent counterfeit reproduction of an original document, so that in
Wicker ʼ070, “an LPI value is determined at which to print an original
document so that easy copying of the original document is minimized – i.e.,
so that this LPI value is not easily scanned” (id. at 7). Appellants argue that
“[b]y comparison, claim 1 relates to authentication, and therefore the LPI
value at which an original document is printed is an LPI value that is easily
Appeal 2011-010972
Application 11/465,763

11
scanned – because ultimately the goal is to be able to match this LPI value
with a specified authentication LPI value” (id.).
Appellants also argue that “claim 1 relates to security authentication,
which is explicitly performed by comparing a printed LPI value to a
specified authentication LPI value” (id.). Appellants argue that “the claim
language includes ‘comparing the printed LPI value of the MTF target
pattern . . . with a specified authentication LPI value’” (Reply Br. 1), which
“is diametrically opposite the subject matter suggested by the prior art” (id.).
These arguments are not persuasive. As discussed above, claim 1
does not require carrying out the steps required for either QA verification or
security authentication; it only requires printing a plurality of MTF target
patterns that are capable of being used as recited. Thus, the fact that the test
pattern disclosed by Wicker ʼ070 was intended to be used to identify images
that may be incapable of being used as intended by Appellants is immaterial;
the test pattern itself includes a printed plurality of MTF target patterns that
are capable of being used as required by claim 1.
Conclusion of Law
A method encompassed by claim 1 on appeal would have been
obvious based on the disclosures of Wicker ʼ070 and Weiser.
Claims 2-10, 12-16, and 18-20 have not been argued separately and
therefore fall with claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Appellants have waived any arguments directed specifically to the
rejection of claim 17 as obvious based on Wicker ʼ070, Weiser, and Wicker
ʼ394 (see Appeal Br. 9). Therefore, we also affirm the rejection of claim 17.
Appeal 2011-010972
Application 11/465,763

12
SUMMARY
We affirm both of the rejections on appeal.
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).

AFFIRMED

lp