Ex Parte Rhoads

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 25, 2016

10792400 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 25, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 101792,400 0310212004 Geoffrey B. Rhoads 99103 7590 04/27/2016 Foley & Lardner LLP 3000 K STREET N.W. SUITE 600 WASHINGTON, DC 20007-5109 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 098888-1825 2136 EXAMINER VO,QUANGN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2672 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/27/2016 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): ipdocketing@foley.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte GEOFFREY B. RHOADS Appeal2014-007357 Application 10/792,400 Technology Center 2600 Before LINZY T. McCARTNEY, MELISSA A. HAAPALA, and MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges. McCARTNEY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from a rejection of claims 1, 2, 7, 8, 10-14, 16-20, and 22. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We AFFIRM. Appeal2014-007357 Application 10/792,400 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The present application "relates [to] optical user interfaces that sense digitally-encoded objects, and systems using same to control computers, to navigate over or act as ... portals on networks." Spec. 1: 15-16. Claim 1 illustrates the claimed subject matter: 1. A method comprising: receiving, at a processor, text data; receiving plural-bit digital watermark data, wherein the text data and the plural-bit digital watermark data are separate; generating, using the processor, printer commands for a printer based on the text data and the plural-bit digital watermark data, wherein the printer commands configure the printer to control printing of text associated with the text data and a watermark associated with the plural-bit digital watermark data such that the watermark is imperceptible to a human viewer, wherein the printer commands adjust the print density to a first density based upon printing the text, wherein the printer commands adjust the print density to a second finer density based upon printing the watermark, and wherein the watermark comprises a component that is machine-detectable in a frequency domain. REJECTIONS Claims 1, 7, 8, 11, 13, 14, 17, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Weinberger (US 5,644,682; July 1, 1997), Braudaway (US 5,825,892; Oct. 20, 1998), and Itoh (US 6,700,989 Bl; Mar. 2, 2004). Claims 2, 12, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Weinberger, Braudaway, and Haslop (US 4,296,326; Oct. 20, 1981). 2 Appeal2014-007357 Application 10/792,400 Claims 10, 16, and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Weinberger, Braudaway, and Wang (US 6,263,086 Bl; July 17, 2001). ANALYSIS Appellant contends the Examiner's combination of Weinberger, Braudaway, and Itoh fails to teach or suggest the following limitation recited in claim 1: "wherein the printer commands adjust the print density to a first density based upon printing the text, wherein the printer commands adjust the print density to a second finer density based upon printing the watermark." Br. 10-14. In particular, Appellant asserts that Itoh teaches adjusting a watermark's "tonal density (i.e., the brightness or darkness)" and argues adjusting tonal density "is not the same as adjusting the 'print density' as recited in [c]laim 1." Id. at 12-13. We disagree. The Examiner found Appellant's specification does not define the term "print density" and concluded that the broadest reasonable interpretation of "print density" encompasses "tonal density." See Ans. 5. Although Appellant asserts a tonal density "is not the same as ... [a] 'print density,"' Appellant has provided no persuasive evidence or reasoning to support this assertion. See id. at 10-14. On its face, the term "print density" encompasses any print-related density, including Itoh's tonal density used to print a watermark, see Itoh col. 20, 11. 11-20; col. 37, 1.62---col. 38, 1.11; Final Act. 2, 6; Ans. 3-5. Accordingly, we find Appellant's arguments unpersuasive and sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1. Because Appellant has not presented separate, persuasive patentability arguments for 3 Appeal2014-007357 Application 10/792,400 claims 2, 7, 8, 10-14, 16-20, and 22, we also sustain the Examiner's rejections of these claims. DECISION For the above reasons, we affirm the rejections of claims 1, 2, 7, 8, 10-14, 16-20, and 22. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 4