Ex Parte Wood et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Apr 14, 2010

10449559 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 14, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte PATRICK H. WOOD,
BORIS ARONSHTAM, and
SOL GOLDENBERG
____________________

Appeal 2009-011811
Application 10/449,559
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Decided: April 14, 2010
____________________

Before LEE E. BARRETT, HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP, and
DEBRA K. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judges.

STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2009-011811
Application 10/449,559

2
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) (2002) from a final
rejection of claims 1-25. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b)
(2008) and we heard the appeal on March 24, 2010.
We REVERSE.
Introduction
According to Appellants, the invention is a system and method for
“converting a page description language data stream that describes an image
to a bitmap representation of the image” (Spec. 1, ll. 16-18). The invention
divides the PDL data stream into PDL segments and creates two data files
for each PDL segment (Abstract). The first or second data file associated
with the PDL segment is assigned to a plurality of the PDL processors (id.).

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Exemplary Claim
Claim 1 is an exemplary claim and is reproduced below:
1. A method for processing a page description language
("PDL") data stream that describes a document, the method
comprising:
creating a segmenting rule for segmenting the PDL data
stream;
segmenting the PDL data stream according to the
segmenting rule to provide a plurality of PDL segments;
creating for each of the PDL segments an associated first
data file and a second data file;
providing a plurality of PDL processors;
assigning the first data file or the second data file
associated with each of the PDL segments to at least one of the
PDL processors;
processing the first and second data files with the PDL
processors;
Appeal 2009-011811
Application 10/449,559

3
combining the processed data files to form a composite
bitmap; and
displaying the composite bitmap on an output device.

References
Vennekens 5,652,711 Jul. 29, 1997
Kawamoto 5,978,563 Nov. 2, 1999
Hughes 6,295,134 B1 Sep. 25, 2001

Rejections
Claims 1, 2, 4, 7-9, 15, 16, 18-22, 24 and 25 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Hughes.
Claims 3, 5, 6, 10, 13, and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Hughes and Kawamoto.
Claims 11 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Hughes, Kawamoto, and Vennekens.
Claims 17 and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Hughes.

ISSUE
35 U.S.C. § 102(b): claim 1
Appellants argue their invention is not anticipated by Hughes (App.
Br. 4). Specifically, Appellants argue that Hughes does not disclose creating
for each PDL segment, an associated first data file and second data file (id.
at 5). Appellants contend Hughes disloses a system in which a single PDL
file defining at least two pages to be printed on a sheet is processed by two
PDL interpreters (Reply 2). Appellants contend that the Examiner’s
argument that the first PDL page file and second PDL page file are the
Appeal 2009-011811
Application 10/449,559

4
“associated” first and second file data for each individual PDL segment is
“illogical” and “does not [] comport with the actual claim language” (Reply
3). Appellants further contend that regardless of the Examiner’s
mischaracterization, Hughes does not describe creating for each of the PDL
segments an associated first data file and a second data file (id.).
In response, the Examiner maintains that Hughes does disclose the
claim limitation of “creating for each PDL segment an associated first data
file and a second data file” (Ans. 23). Specifically, the Examiner equates
each separate page disclosed by Hughes as a separate PDL segment (id.).
The Examiner notes that Hughes discloses “receiving a page description file
defining at least two pages to be printed on a surface of a media sheet” (id.).
Further, the Examiner equates the first output page of Hughes as disclosing
the created first data file associated with the first page and the second output
page of Hughes as disclosing the created second file associated with the first
page (id. at 24-25). Thus, according to the Examiner, Hughes discloses the
claimed limitations.

Issue: Have Appellants shown the Examiner erred in finding Hughes
discloses “creating for each of the PDL segments an associated first data file
and a second data file” as claimed?

FINDINGS OF FACT (FF)
Hughes Reference
(1) Hughes describes a method and apparatus for interpreting a
page description language (PDL) file that defines a sheet on which a printing
Appeal 2009-011811
Application 10/449,559

5
device will print (Abstract). A number of interpreters process the PDL file
in parallel (id.).
(2) A PDL file is received that defines at least two pages that are to
be printed on a sheet (col. 2, ll. 12-14). The PDL file is transferred to a first
and a second interpreter in parallel (col. 2, ll. 14-15). Both interpreters
process the PDL file (col. 2, ll. 15-16). The first interpreter produces a first
output PDL file that defines a first page to be printed and the second
interpreter produces a second output PDL file that defines a second page to
be printed (col. 2, ll. 17-26). While one interpreter is producing the output
PDL file for a page, the other interpreter is disabled from producing that
output PDL file for that page (id.).

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Analysis of whether a claim is patentable over the prior art under
35 U.S.C. § 102 begins with a determination of the scope of the claim. We
determine the scope of the claims in patent applications not solely on the
basis of the claim language, but upon giving claims their broadest reasonable
construction in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of
ordinary skill in the art. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359,
1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The properly interpreted claim must then be
compared with the prior art.

ANALYSIS
We find Hughes does not create an associated first data file and a
second data file for each of the pages. We find instead that Hughes
produces one file for each page (FF 2). The Examiner would have us read
Appeal 2009-011811
Application 10/449,559

6
“associated” as covering both the first page’s output file and the second
page’s output file as both output files come from the same PDL file which
includes the first page. However, we find this reading is not reasonable in
light of the recited language and the specification. The “association” the
Examiner wishes us to adopt is too distant to be reasonable and we find one
of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would not have given
“associated” such a broad reading. Specifically, we find that the second
output PDL file that defines a second page, being produced by a second
interpreter is not associated with the first page.
Thus, we find Appellants have shown the Examiner erred in finding
Hughes discloses “creating for each of the pages an associated first data file
and a second data file.” Accordingly, Appellants have shown the Examiner
erred in finding claim 1 is anticipated by Hughes. Since claims 2, 4, 7-9, 15-
22, 24 and 25 depend from representative and independent claim 1, the
anticipation rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 7-9, 15, 16, 18-22, 24 and 25 over
Hughes also fails.

Rejection under 35 U.S.C. §103(a)
Regarding the obviousness rejection of claims 17 and 23 under 35
U.S. C. § 103(a) as being obvious over Hughes, Appellants have shown the
Examiner erred in finding claim 1 is anticipated by Hughes. Since the
Examiner has provided no additional arguments, obviousness rejection of
claims 17 and 23 over Hughes also fails.
Regarding the obviousness rejections of claims 3, 5, 6, 10, 13, and 14
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hughes and
Kawamoto, we find that the Examiner has not shown Kawamoto cures the
Appeal 2009-011811
Application 10/449,559

7
deficiency of Hughes; therefore, the obviousness rejection of claims 3, 5, 6,
10, 13, and 14 over Hughes and Kawamoto also fails.
Further, the Examiner has not shown that Vennekens cures the
deficiency of Hughes; therefore, the obviousness rejection of claims 11 and
12 over Hughes, Kawamoto and Vennekens also fails.

CONCLUSION
Appellants have shown the Examiner erred in rejecting:
• claims 1, 2, 4, 7-9, 15, 16, 18-22, 24 and 25 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Hughes;
• claims 3, 5, 6, 10, 13, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
obvious over Hughes and Kawamoto;
• claims 11 and 12 under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as being obvious
over Hughes, Kawamoto, and Vennekens; and
• claims 17 and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Hughes.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 7-9, 15, 16, 18-22, 24 and
25 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Hughes is reversed.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 3, 5, 6, 10, 13, and 14 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over Hughes and Kawamoto is
reversed.
Appeal 2009-011811
Application 10/449,559

8
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 11 and 12 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being obvious over Hughes, Kawamoto, and Vennekens is
reversed.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 17 and 23 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hughes is reversed.

REVERSED

Vsh

GLENN PATENT GROUP
3475 EDISON WAY, SUITE L
MENLO PARK CA 94025