Ex Parte Czudak et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 15, 2013

11113528 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 15, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte JOHN C. CZUDAK and PATRICK J. WAARA
____________

Appeal 2010-008064
Application 11/113,528
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before KRISTEN L. DROESCH, HUNG H. BUI and
BARBARA A. PARVIS, Administrative Patent Judges.

DROESCH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2010-008064
Application 11/113,528

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of a final rejection
of claims 1-27. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM-
IN-PART.
BACKGROUND
Appellants’ disclosed invention is related to a print job management
method and system to receive variable information print instructions in a
container file that includes print files and resource files. The container file is
decomposed into multiple sub-container files and the sub-container files are
processed through at least two print engines. Abs. Spec. ¶¶ 0007-0010.
Independent claims 1 and 6 are illustrative and are reproduced below
(disputed limitations in italics):
1. A machine implemented print job management method
comprising:
receiving variable information print instructions in a
container file, wherein said container file comprises print files
and resource files;
decomposing said container file into multiple sub-
container files, wherein said sub-container files each comprise
a subset of said print files and all of said resource files; and
processing said sub-container files through at least two
print engines to produce printed output.
6. A machine implemented print job management method
comprising:
receiving variable information print instructions in a
container file, wherein said container file comprises print files
and resource files;
decomposing said container file into multiple sub-
container files, wherein said sub-container files each comprise a
subset of said print files;
storing said resource files on a shared resource; and
Appeal 2010-008064
Application 11/113,528

3
processing said sub-container files through at least two print
engines, wherein said print engines utilize said resource files
within said shared resource and said print files within said sub-
container to produce printed output.

Rejection
Claims 1-27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Wood (U.S. 2004/0243934 A1) and
Barry (U.S. 6,606,165 B1).
ISSUES
Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Wood and
Barry teaches or suggests:
(1) “said container file comprises print files and resource files;
decomposing said container file into multiple sub-container files, wherein
said sub-container files each comprise a subset of said print files and all of
said resource files,” as recited in independent claims 1, 11 and 16;
(2) “storing said resource files on a shared resource,” as recited in
independent claim 6, and similarly recited in independent claim 22;
(3) “creating said sub-container files; and dividing said print files
between said sub-container files,” as recited in dependent claim 7;
(4) “dividing of said print files comprises maximizing utilization of
said print engines,” as recited in dependent claim 8, and similarly recited in
dependent claim 24;
(5) “processing of said sub-container files through said print engines
comprises using aspects of said resource files with said print files, and
printing a combination of said resource files and said print files using said
print engines,” as recited in dependent claim 9, and similarly recited in
dependent claim 25;
Appeal 2010-008064
Application 11/113,528

4
(6) “preparing said container file using an originating variable
information capable application,” as recited in dependent claim 10 and
similarly recited in dependent claim 26; and
(7) “said print engines comprise xerographic print engines,” as recited
in dependent claim 27?
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellants’
arguments in the Appeal Brief presented in response to the Final Office
Action (“FOA”) and the Reply Brief presented in response to the Examiner’s
Answer. We agree with Appellants’ conclusions regarding claims 1-5 and
11-21. We disagree with Appellants’ conclusions regarding claims 6-10 and
22-27. We highlight and address specific findings and arguments for
emphasis as follows.
Claims 1-5 and 11-21
Independent claims 1, 11 and 16 each recite: “said container file
comprises print files and resource files; decomposing said container file into
multiple sub-container files, wherein said sub-container files each comprise
a subset of said print files and all of said resource files . . . .”
The Examiner finds that Wood’s PDL (page description language)
data stream describes a document that can be divided into a plurality of
segments in which two files are created for each data segment; a global data
file 20 and a segment data file 22. Ans. 3-4 (citing Fig. 2, ¶¶ 0002, 0025-
0029 and 0034); see also Ans. 10-11 (citing Fig. 2, ¶¶ 0002, 0025-0028).
The Examiner further finds that Wood describes that the global data file 20
includes all PDL operations from the associated segment that might affect
subsequent segments, such as font settings, forms from variable data files,
Appeal 2010-008064
Application 11/113,528

5
etc., and the segment data file 22 includes all PDL commands necessary to
interpret the associated segment including everything in the global data file
associated with that segment. Ans. 4, 11. The Examiner explains that by
definition, a PDL data stream specifies the arrangement of a printed page
through commands from a computer that is carried out by a printer. Id. The
Examiner asserts that a PDL data stream is analogous to a container file as it
comprises print files and resource files. Ans. 4, 11. The Examiner asserts
that Wood describes the resource files as being such things as font settings,
forms from variable data files, etc., and the print files as the images, graphics
and/or text of the document. Ans. 4. In other words, the Examiner equates
the claimed resource files with PDL control commands, and the claimed
print files with PDL data commands. See Wood ¶ 0004. The Examiner finds
that Woods describes decomposing the container file into multiple sub-
container files, each comprising a subset of said print files and all of said
resource files. Ans. 4 (citing Wood ¶¶ 0028-29 for describing the division of
the PDL stream into segments and creating two files for each segment; a
global data file 20 and an associated segment file 22). The Examiner asserts
that each segment data file 22 corresponds to the claimed sub-container file
as it contains a subset of the print file from the PDL data stream and all the
necessary resource files needed to interpret the segment, or all the resource
files for that subset (of print files). Ans. 11.
The Examiner further finds that Woods describes processing the sub-
container files through at least two processors. Ans. 4-5 (citing Wood ¶ 0032
ll. 1-4, 11-19). However, the Examiner finds that Wood does not expressly
describe processing the sub-container files through at least two print engines
to produce printed output. Ans. 5. The Examiner relies on Barry for
Appeal 2010-008064
Application 11/113,528

6
describing processing print jobs through at least two print engines to produce
printed output. Ans. 5 (citing Barry Figs. 1, 2, 4; col. 2, ll. 64-66, col. 4, ll.
40-47; col. 6, ll. 12-17). The Examiner concludes that it would have been
obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was
made to combine the dividing of a print job among a plurality of print
engines as taught by Barry with the system of Wood and would have been
motivated to do so in order to increase processing speed and allow for proper
execution of a print job having mixed characteristics. Ans. 8.
Appellants argue that based on Wood’s description that “[t]he global
data file 20 includes all PDL operations from the associated segment that
might affect subsequent segments,” Wood’s global data file includes only
elements that are: 1) from the associated segment; and 2) might affect
subsequent segments. Reply Br. 3 (emphasis omitted). Appellants argue that
in Wood, later segments would therefore not include elements or PDL
operations from earlier segments. Id. Appellants further argue that the
Examiner’s mapping of the claims does not address the features of the
claims directed to “all of said resource files” because Wood’s global data
file 20 includes only elements that are: 1) from the associated segment; and
2) might affect subsequent segments. Reply Br. 3.
We agree with Appellants’ arguments. “[A]ll of said resource files” in
the context of “said sub-container files each comprise a subset of said print
files and all of said resource files” necessarily refers back to the previous
limitation of “said container file comprises print files and resource files,”
also recited in claims 1, 11 and 16. We recognize that Wood describes that
each global data file 20 includes all PDL operations from the associated
segment that might affect subsequent segments, and that each segment data
Appeal 2010-008064
Application 11/113,528

7
file 22 includes all PDL commands necessary to interpret the associated
segment (including everything in the global data file associated with that
segment). Wood ¶ 0029. However, the Examiner does not direct us to where
Wood describes that the sub-container files (i.e., the global data file 20 or
segment data file 22) each include all of the resource files (i.e., the PDL
operations or commands for all the segments, or all of the PDL control
commands for the PDL data stream (container file)).
For at least this reason, we cannot sustain the rejection of claims 1, 11
and 16, and claims 2-5, 12-15 and 17-21 dependent therefrom, as obvious
over Wood and Barry.
Claims 6, 22 and 23
Independent claim 6 recites: “storing said resource files on a shared
resource . . . .” Similarly, independent claim 22 recites: “a shared resource
adapted to store said resource files, wherein said output manager is adapted
to provide said resource files to said shared resource when decomposing said
container file.”
The Examiner finds that Wood describes storing said resource files on
a shared resource. Ans. 6 (citing ¶ 30, ll. 6-7; ¶ 32, ll. 1-4, 11-19). More
specifically, the Examiner finds that Wood describes that the global data
files 20 and segment data files 22 are stored in memory buffers 34 and 36
respectively, and that the data files can be used by one or more PDL
processors. Ans. 13 (citing ¶¶ 0029-30). The Examiner finds that the global
data files and the segment data files are stored in a shared resource that is
being shared by a plurality of the PDL processors and both data files contain
resource data. Ans. 13.
Appeal 2010-008064
Application 11/113,528

8
Appellants argue that Wood does not describe a “shared resource,” as
recited in independent claims 6 and 22. App. Br. 16-17; Reply Br. 5-6.
Appellants acknowledge that Wood describes storing the global data file 20
and segment data file 22 in memory buffers 34 and 36 respectively. App. Br.
17; Reply Br. 5 (citing Wood ¶ 0030, ll. 6-7). However, Appellants direct
attention to Wood’s description as indicating that once scheduled, the global
data file and the segment data file are distributed to PDL processors 381, 382,
383 ... 38m, and also describes assigning the data files to the PDL processors
directly or storing the information in corresponding memory buffers 401,
402, 403, 40m, associated with discrete PDL processors. App. Br. 17 (citing
Fig. 4, ¶ 0031, ll. 4-8, 16-19); see also Reply Br. 5. On this basis, Appellants
assert that: 1) Wood’s PDL processors are not accessing a shared resource;
and 2) Wood teaches away from shared access. App. Br. 17.
We are unpersuaded by Appellants’ arguments as they are not
commensurate in scope with the claim language. Claims 6 and 22 do not
recite accessing a shared resource or shared access. Appellants’ arguments
also narrowly focus on Wood’s description of subsequent distribution of the
global data files and the segment data files to the PDL processors and the
alternative description of storing the data files in corresponding memory
buffers 401, 402, 403, 40m associated with the PDL processors. However,
Wood’s description is not as limited as Appellants’ arguments suggest. As
pointed out by the Examiner (Ans. 13), Wood describes that the memory
buffers 34 and 36 store the global data files 20 and the segment data files 22
for use by one or more PDL processors. See ¶ 0030, ll. 14-17. Since Wood
describes that one or more PDL processors can use the global data files 20
and the segment data files 22 stored on the memory buffers 34 and 36, the
Appeal 2010-008064
Application 11/113,528

9
memory buffers 34 and 36 are considered shared resources that are shared
by Wood’s one or more PDL processors.
To the extent that Appellants argue that “a shared resource” refers to a
singular resource (Reply Br. 5, l. 18-6, l. 2), we are also unpersuaded. “[A]n
indefinite article ‘a’ or ‘an’ in patent parlance carries the meaning of ‘one or
more’ in open-ended claims containing the transitional phrase ‘comprising.’”
KCJ Corp. v. Kinetic Concepts, Inc., 223 F.3d 1351, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2000)
(citations omitted). Thus, “a shared resource” recited in claims 6 and 22
refers to one or more shared resources.
For all these reasons, we sustain the rejection of independent claims 6
and 22 as obvious over Wood and Barry. Appellants do not present
substantive arguments separately addressing the limitations of dependent
claim 23. App. Br. 19-20. Accordingly, for the same reasons we sustain the
rejection of claim 23 as obvious over Wood and Barry.
Claim 7
Claim 7 depends from claim 6 and recites: “creating said sub-
container files; and dividing said print files between said sub-container
files.” Appellants argue that Wood fails to disclose the limitations of claim 7
and asserts that Wood merely describes segmenting into variable and non-
variable portions. App. Br. 23-24.
Appellants’ argument is conclusory and unpersuasive since it does not
meaningfully explain the error in the Examiner’s finding that Wood
describes the limitations of claim 7. See Ans. 9; FOA 9-10 (citing ¶¶ 0028-
0029). For this reason, in addition to the reasons addressing claim 6, we
sustain the rejection of claim 7 as obvious over Wood and Barry.
Appeal 2010-008064
Application 11/113,528

10
Claims 8 and 24
Claim 8 depends from claim 6 and recites: “dividing of said print files
comprises maximizing utilization of said print engines.” Claim 24,
dependent from claim 22, recites similar limitations.
Appellants direct attention to Barry’s description of converting
documents into single individual bit-mapped images stored on a page-by-
page basis for each document. App. Br. 20-21 (citing col. 16, ll. 40-44).
Appellants also direct attention to Barry’s description of compressing the
bit-mapped images. App. Br. 21 (citing col. 18, ll. 14-20). Appellants
attempt to distinguish Barry’s description from the claimed invention by
directing attention to paragraph 9 of Appellants’ published application which
discloses that the variable information print instructions are divisible at the
print file level rather than at the page level. App. Br. 21. Appellants’
arguments are unpersuasive as they are not commensurate in scope with the
claim limitations. Although disclosed in Appellants’ Specification, claim 8
does not recite dividing the print files at the print file level. Nor does claim 8
preclude dividing the print files at the page level.
Appellants further argue that the Examiner’s combination fails to
scale and fails its intended purpose because even with compression it is
difficult to envision how it would be possible to maintain the bitmaps (as
described by Barry) for the complete variable information print instructions
for the bill printing cycles of customers with large numbers of bills to be
printed. App. Br. 21; see also Spec. ¶¶ 0005, 0019, 0032 (providing bill
printing as an example of variable information print job). Appellants’
arguments are unpersuasive as they are not commensurate in scope with the
Appeal 2010-008064
Application 11/113,528

11
claim language. Claim 8 does not recite bill printing or variable information
print instructions for bill printing.
For these reasons, in addition to the reasons addressing claims 6 and
22, we sustain the rejection of claims 8 and 24 as obvious over Wood and
Barry.
Claims 9 and 25
Claim 9 depends from claim 6 and further recites: “processing of said
sub-container files through said print engines comprises using aspects of
said resource files with said print files, and printing a combination of said
resource files and said print files using said print engines.” Claim 25,
dependent from claim 22, recites similar limitations. Appellants argue that
the rationale discussed with respect to claims 8 and 24 is relevant for claim 9
since Barry describes the manipulation of bitmaps for each page. App. Br.
22. Appellants further argue that although the manipulation of bitmaps for
each page may facilitate efficient allocation of pages among the various
engines, it fails to disclose the limitations of claim 9. App. Br. 22-23. As to
claim 25, Appellants direct attention to Barry’s description of page-level
bitmaps and argue that Barry does not disclose the limitations of claim 25.
App. Br. 26 (citing col. 3, ll. 7-11; col. 16, ll. 40-44).
We are unpersuaded by Appellant’s arguments as they are conclusory
and do not meaningfully explain the error in the Examiner’s finding that
Barry teaches the limitations of claims 9 and 25 based on the description of
dividing the print jobs among different print engines based on processing
characteristics such as color or black and white, number of pages, number of
copies, etc. See Ans. 9, 10 (citing col. 2, l. 64-col. 3, l. 1; col. 5, ll. 26-46;
col. 9, ll. 6-18); see also col. 10, ll. 13-54. For this reason, in addition to the
Appeal 2010-008064
Application 11/113,528

12
reasons addressing claims 6 and 22, we sustain the rejection of claims 9 and
25 as obvious over Wood and Barry.
Claims 10 and 26
Claim 10 depends from claim 6 and further recites: “preparing said
container file using an originating variable information capable application.”
Claim 26, dependent from claim 22, recites similar limitations. Appellants
assert that nothing in paragraphs 28-29 of Wood mentions an information
capable application. App. Br. 23.
Appellants’ argument is conclusory and unpersuasive since it does not
meaningfully explain the error in the Examiner’s finding that Wood
describes documents created in electronic form using PDL (page description
language) and that PDL data can be made up of variable and non-variable
data. See Ans. 9; FOA 9 (citing ¶¶ 0028-0029). For this reason, in addition
to the reasons addressing claims 6 and 22, we sustain the rejection of claims
10 and 26 as obvious over Wood and Barry.
Claim 27
Claim 27 depends from claim 22 and further recites: “said print
engines comprise xerographic print engines.” Appellants argue that since
Barry fails to recite at least the features of a shared resource accessible to the
at least two print engines, it cannot disclose the features recited in claim 27.
App. Br. 27.
Appellants’ argument is unpersuasive as it is not commensurate in
scope with the claims. Claim 27 does not recite a shared resource accessible
to the at least two print engines. For this reason, in addition to the reasons
addressing claim 22, we sustain the rejection of claim 27 as obvious over
Wood and Barry.
Appeal 2010-008064
Application 11/113,528

13
DECISION
We REVERSE the rejection of claims 1-5 and 11-21 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).
We AFFIRM the rejection of claims 6-10 and 22-27 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).
TIME PERIOD
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

ELD