Ex Parte Braveman et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 1, 201411591267 (P.T.A.B. May. 1, 2014) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation