2020003564 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 3, 2021)

HEWLETT-PACKARD INDIGO B.V.

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardAug 3, 2021

2020003564 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 3, 2021)

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. 15/514,121 03/24/2017 Motti-Mordechay SILBERBERG 84611184 2710 22879 7590 08/03/2021 HP Inc. 3390 E. Harmony Road Mail Stop 35 Fort Collins, CO 80528-9544 EXAMINER GUILLERMETY, JUAN M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2674 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/03/2021 ELECTRONIC 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. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address(es): ipa.mail@hp.com jessica.pazdan@hp.com yvonne.bailey@hp.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte MOTTI-MORDECHAY SILBERBERG and YARON HERSHMAN ____________________ Appeal 2020 -003564 Application 15/514,121 Technology Center 2600 ____________________ Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, MARC S. HOFF, and JENNIFER L. MCKEOWN, Administrative Patent Judges. HOFF, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a Final Rejection of claims 1−20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. Appellant’s invention is a system and method for visualizing image registration information. The method includes imaging a printed page on an impression drum of a digital printing press, determining image registration 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as HP Indigo B.V. App. Br. 1. Appeal 2020-003564 Application 15/514,121 2 information from printed content on the page, and displaying a graphical visualization of the image registration information on a user interface screen. Abstract. Claim 1 is reproduced below: A printing method for a digital printing press, the method comprising: a print job image on a page including transferring each of multiple individual color separations successively from an intermediate transfer member to the page while the page is held on an impression drum; printing target registration points on the page together with the print job image; capturing an image of the printed page while the printed page is still on the impression drum; determining image edge registration information from the captured image by measuring a distance between target registration points printed on the printed page and an edge of the printed page; displaying a graphical visualization of the image edge registration information on a user interface screen of the digital printing press; and making press adjustments to overcome an edge registration error shown in the displayed visualization. The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence is: Name Reference Date Kojima US 2015/0063889 A1 Mar. 5, 2015 Hoover et al. US 2011/0304886 A1 Dec. 15, 2011 Madden et al. US 2015/0356717 A1 Dec. 10, 2015 Michel et al. US 2012/0136579 A1 Sept. 26, 2002 Jeon US 2008/0089704 Apr. 17, 2008 Kulkarni et al. US 2010/0309526 A1 Dec. 9, 2010 Van Horssen et al. US 2016/0105571 A1 Apr. 14, 2016 Reid US 2009/0165663 A1 July 2, 2009 Appeal 2020-003564 Application 15/514,121 3 Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 8−13, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kojima, Hoover, and Madden. Final Act. 3−4. Claims 3 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kojima, Madden, Hoover, and Michel. Final Act. 9. Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kojima, Madden, Hoover, and Jeon. Final Act. 10. Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kojima, Hoover, Madden, Kulkarni, Van Horseen, Reed, and Jeon. Final Act. 11. Throughout this decision, we make reference to the Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.,” filed Dec. 6, 2019), the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Apr. 4, 2020), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Mar. 6, 2020) for their respective details. ISSUES Does the combination of Kojima, Hoover, and Madden teach or suggest printing a print job image on a page including transferring each of multiple individual color separations successively from an intermediate transfer member to the page while the page is held on an impression drum? ANALYSIS Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 8–13, and 15 Independent claims 1, 8, and 12 each recite, in pertinent part, printing a print job image on a page including transferring each of multiple individual color separations successively from an intermediate transfer member to the page while the page is held on an impression drum. The Examiner finds that Kojima teaches this limitation. Ans. 3. In support, the Examiner cites to paragraphs 50 and 51 of Kojima, finding that Appeal 2020-003564 Application 15/514,121 4 Kojima “states that respective colors are transferred from an intermediate transfer belt to a sheet while the sheet is still on a print engine.” Ans. 3. We determine that the Examiner erred in finding that Kojima teaches this limitation. Kojima teaches that “[t]he intermediate transfer image is formed to be transferred onto a pre-printed sheet fed from a sheet feeding tray 13.” Kojima ¶ 50. In Kojima, the “[i]mages of the respective colors . . . are transferred onto the conveying belt 11 to be overlaid on one another to form a full-color image.” Kojima ¶ 51. Next, the “full-color image formed on the conveying belt in this manner is transferred onto the preprinted sheet.” Reply Br. 1; Kojima ¶ 51. Kojima therefore teaches that all of the “images of the respective colors” are formed on the intermediate transfer belt first; subsequently, the full-color image is transferred to a sheet all at once. Kojima does not teach transferring each individual color separation successively. Appeal Br. 5−6. We find that the combination of Kojima, Hoover, and Madden fails to teach or suggest all the limitations of the invention recited in independent claims 1, 8, and 12. Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 8-13, and 15. Claims 3, 4, 7, and 14 Claims 3, 4, and 7 depend from independent claim 1. Claim 14 depends from independent claim 12. The Examiner does not find that Michel, or Michel and Jeon taken together, or Kulkarni, Van Horseen, Reid, and Jeon taken together, teach the limitation we find to be absent from Kojima, Hoover, and Madden, supra. We therefore do not sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claims 3 and 14 over Kojima, Hoover, Madden, and Michel, the rejection of claim 4 over Kojima, Hoover, Appeal 2020-003564 Application 15/514,121 5 Madden, and Jeon, or the rejection of claim 7 over Kojima, Hoover, Madden, Kulkarni, Van Horseen, Reid, and Jeon, for the same reasons given supra with respect to the § 103 rejection of claims 1 and 12 over Kojima, Hoover, and Madden. CONCLUSION The combination of Kojima, Hoover, and Madden does not teach or suggest printing a print job image on a page including transferring each of multiple individual color separations successively from an intermediate transfer member to the page while the page is held on an impression drum. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/ Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 2, 5, 6, 8- 13, 15 103 Kojima, Hoover, Madden 1, 2, 5, 6, 8- 13, 15 3, 14 103 Kojima, Hoover, Madden, Michel 3, 14 4 103 Kojima, Hoover, Madden, Michel, Jeon 4 7 103 Kojima, Hoover, Madden, Kulkarni, Van Horseen, Reid, Jeon 7 Overall Outcome 1-15 ORDER The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1−15 is reversed. Appeal 2020-003564 Application 15/514,121 6 REVERSED