Ex Parte Braveman et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 1, 2014

11591267 (P.T.A.B. May. 1, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte GREGORY BRAVEMAN, RUTH BERGMAN,
SHLOMO HARUSH, EYAL SHELEF, and CARL STAELIN
____________

Appeal 2011-012846
Application 11/591,267
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before DONALD E. ADAMS, DEMETRA J. MILLS, and
ERICA A. FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judges.

ADAMS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1
This appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 involves claims 1-5, 7, 8, 10, 13,
14, and 21-24 (App. Br. 1). Examiner entered a rejection under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

1 The Real Party in Interest is “Hewlett-Packard Development Company, LP
. . . a wholly-owned affiliate of Hewlett-Packard Company” (App. Br. 1).
Appeal 2011-012846
Application 11/591,267

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The claims are directed to an image forming device, a method, and at
least one non-transitory computer-readable medium having processor-
readable program code embodied therein, the processor-readable program
code adapted to be executed by a processor to implement a method.
Independent claims 1, 7, and 21 are representative and are reproduced in the
Claims Appendix of Appellants’ Brief.
Claims 1-5, 7, 8, 10, 13, 14, and 21-24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Staelin.2
ISSUE
Did Examiner establish an evidentiary basis on this record that
supports a finding that Staelin teaches a device, method, or at least one non-
transitory computer-readable medium, comprising, inter alia, the mapping,
based on measurement data, of reference associations between specified dot
coverage values of a marking agent and a respective output dot coverage
value to updated associations between the specified dot coverage values and
respective output dot coverage values, as required by Appellants’ claimed
invention?
FACTUAL FINDINGS (FF)
FF 1. Appellants disclose that
Some imaging devices are susceptible to shifting of
colors over time due to process drift in an imaging device.
Some shift may be attributed to dot gain or shifts in dot gain of
an imaging device where dot gain is the relationship of a

2 Staelin et al., US 2005/0093907 A1, published May 5, 2005.
Appeal 2011-012846
Application 11/591,267

3
printed dot area divided by a digital dot area (corresponding to
an area of a dot intended to be printed).
(Spec. 1: ¶ [0004]; see also id. at 3: ¶ [0015] and 7: ¶ [0029]; (Cf. Staelin 1:
¶ [0002] (“[C]olors can shift over time due to drift in the printing press. One
consequence is that dots are not printed at their commanded sizes. The
physical (printed) dot size is different than the digital dot size (that is, the dot
size that should have been printed)”)).)
FF 2. Staelin teaches a digital printing press that “includes sensors . . . for
measuring various parameters of the digital printing press,” including
developer voltage (Staelin 2: ¶ [0024]).
FF 3. Staelin’s “developer voltage . . . controls the thickness of the ink
dots,” wherein an increase in “the developer voltage increases the thickness
of the ink dots” (id. at ¶ [0026]).
FF 4. Staelin teaches the estimation of developer voltage prior to running
prints (id. at ¶ [0028]).
FF 5. Staelin estimates a developer voltage “by measuring the ‘current
state’ of the digital printing press . . . and applying a developer voltage
estimation model to the measured current state” (id. at ¶ [0030]).
FF 6. Staelin teaches that “[t]he ‘state’ of the digital printing press . . . is
defined by a set of state parameters” and that “[t]he ‘current’ state may be
the most recent measurements of the state parameters of the digital printing
press” (id.).
FF 7. Staelin’s “state parameters” are “not limited to any particular state
parameters. For example, a set of nineteen parameters can be measured.
The set may include parameters such as ink density, ink conductivity, ink
temperature, imaging oil temperature, blanket age and ITM [(Intermediate
Transfer Member)] temperature” (id. at 2: ¶ [0034]).
Appeal 2011-012846
Application 11/591,267

4
FF 8. Staelin makes clear, however, that “developer voltage is not a
member of the set of state parameters” (id.; see generally Ans. 5).
FF 9. Staelin teaches that
The developer voltage estimation model, which provides an
estimate of developer voltage for a desired ink thickness, may
be based on past measurements of the same set of state
parameters. The control hardware . . . or a processor of the
digital printing press . . . may be used to apply the model to the
measured current state.
(Id.)
FF 10. Staelin teaches “a method of generating a developer voltage
estimation model,” wherein “[m]ultiple sets of measurements are made” that
“may include using the digital printing press . . . to print a variety of
monochrome swatches, measuring optical density of the swatches,
measuring the developer voltages at the time the swatches were printed, and
measuring the set of state parameters at the time the swatches were printed”
(id. at ¶ 0033]; see generally Ans. 5).
FF 11. Staelin teaches that the method includes the generation of “[a] table
containing all of the measurements” that “may include a column for
developer voltage, a column for optical density, and a column for each state
parameter” and “[e]ach row of the table may contain a set of measurements
for the developer voltage, optical density and state parameters” (id. at 3:
¶ [0040]; see generally Ans. 5).
FF 12. Staelin teaches that the foregoing “table is supplied to a statistical
learning system . . . to generate . . . [a developer voltage estimation] model”
(id. at ¶ [0041]; see FF 12; see generally Ans. 5).
FF 13. Staelin teaches that “[a]dditional measurement sets may be taken
after the model has been generated” and “[t]hese additional measurements
Appeal 2011-012846
Application 11/591,267

5
may be added to the [foregoing] table, and the updated table may be
supplied to the statistical learning system. In this manner, the developer
voltage estimation model is updated” (id. at ¶ [0046]; see FF 12-13).
FF 14. Staelin teaches that the “[t]he estimated developer voltage is used to
estimate developer voltages that will produce the different ink thicknesses”
(id. at 3: ¶ [0050].)
FF 15. Staelin teaches that the “developer voltage is maintained at or near
its estimated value throughout the deposition of the color plane” and “[a] dot
gain table is accessed to determine the digital dot areas that will produce the
desired coverage” (id. at ¶ [0047]).
FF 16. Staelin teaches the use of “the estimated developer voltage to
generate . . . dot gain tables” by generating “different swatches [at] . . .
different digital dot areas” and using “[t]he estimated developer voltage . . .
to estimate developer voltages that will produce the different ink
thicknesses. This can be done by interpolating the developer voltage
between 0 and the estimated developer voltage” (id. at ¶ [0050]; see
generally Ans. 5).
FF 17. In the context of dot gain tables, Staelin teaches that “a test pattern is
printed at the estimated developer voltage, and the optical density of the test
pattern [(i.e. physical dot areas)] is measured. If the measured optical
density does not match the expected optical density, the estimated developer
voltage is adjusted. This process may be repeated to further refine the
developer voltage” (id. at ¶ [0051]; see generally Ans. 5).
FF 18. Staelin teaches that the “[p]hysical dot areas are computed from the
measured optical densities” and “[d]ot area coverage is added to the dot gain
table” (id. at 4: ¶ [0053]; see generally Ans. 6).
Appeal 2011-012846
Application 11/591,267

6
FF 19. Staelin teaches a machine, which can be, inter alia, part of a digital
printing press or personal computer, comprising a processor, memory for
storing a program, and a table of past measurements. “The program . . .
instructs the processor . . . to use a statistical learning system to generate the
developer voltage estimation model . . . from the table of past
measurements” (id. at ¶ [0055]).
ANALYSIS
The image forming device of Appellants’ claim 1 comprises, inter
alia, (a) storage circuitry configured to store data comprising references
associations between specified dot coverage values of the marking agent and
respective output dot coverage values, (b) mapping, based on measured data,
the reference associations to updated associations between the specified dot
coverage values and respective output dot coverage values, and (c)
controlling printing of imaging elements of a given image by the image
engine based on the updated associations (see Appellants’ Claim 1; see
generally Appellants’ claims 7 and 21).
Appellants contend that Staelin fails to teach the “mapping”
requirement of Appellants’ claims (App. Br. 5; Reply Br. 1; see, e.g.,
Appellants’ Claim 1; see also Appellants’ Claims 7 and 21). Instead,
Appellants contend that “[i]n Staelin’s approach, . . . the dot gain tables are
computed from the actual physical dot areas that are determined from
measured optical densities of ink swatches in test patterns, without regard to
any reference associations between specified dot coverage values of the
marking agent and respective output dot coverage values” (App. Br. 5-6;
Reply Br. 2). Examiner disagrees, finding that Staelin teaches a device
comprising storage circuitry configured to store data, such as a table
Appeal 2011-012846
Application 11/591,267

7
containing measurements, or “reference associations,” relating to “developer
voltage, optical density, and state parameter” (Ans. 4-5).
Examiner, however, fails to consider the phrase “reference
associations” in the context of the claim 1 (see Ans 15-16). Specifically, the
Examiner fails to explain how the foregoing “associations” correlate to
associations “between specified dot coverage values and respective output
dot coverage values” as recited by Appellants’ claim. Contrary to this claim
limitation, Staelin teaches that the foregoing “associations” relate to an
estimation of a developer voltage (see FF 5-14; see also App. Br. 6 (“the
developer voltage estimation model . . . does not map reference associations
between specified dot coverage values of the marking agent and respective
output dot coverage values to updated associations between the specified dot
coverage values and respective output dot coverage values”); and Reply Br.
2). Further, Staelin teaches the use of a “dot gain table” to determine digital
dot areas that will produce the desired coverage and the updating of the dot
gain table based on physical dot areas computed from measured optical
densities (FF 16 and 18; see App. Br. 6; Reply Br. 3-4). As Appellants
explain,
This process does not involve mapping reference associations
between specified dot coverage values of the marking agent and
respective output dot coverage values to updated associations
between the specified dot coverage values and respective output
dot coverage values. Instead, the physical dot areas that are
added to the dot gain table are computed from the optical
density measurements, without regard to any reference
associations between the specified dot coverage values and
respective output dot coverage values.
(App. Br. 6-7; Reply Br. 3-4.) While Examiner makes reference to Staelin’s
dot gain table, Examiner failed to establish an evidentiary basis on this
Appeal 2011-012846
Application 11/591,267

8
record to support a finding that reference associations are mapped, based on
the measurement data, to updated associations between the specified dot
coverage values and respective output dot coverage values in the manner
required by Appellants’ claims (see generally Ans. 7, 10, 13, 17, and 18; Cf.
App. Br. 5 (“Staelin does not expressly nor inherently disclose the
‘mapping’ element of [Appellants’] claim[s]”); Reply Br. 4 (“Staelin uses a
different method to update the dot gain tables”).
CONCLUSION OF LAW
Examiner failed to establish an evidentiary basis on this record that
supports a finding that Staelin teaches a device, method, or at least one non-
transitory computer-readable medium, comprising, inter alia, the mapping,
based on measurement data, of reference associations between specified dot
coverage values of a marking agent and a respective output dot coverage
value to updated associations between the specified dot coverage values and
respective output dot coverage values, as required by Appellants’ claimed
invention. The rejection of claims 1-5, 7, 8, 10, 13, 14, and 21-24 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Staelin is reversed.

REVERSED

cdc