Ex Parte Schulmeister

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 12, 2012

11639897 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 12, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte PETER SCHULMEISTER
____________

Appeal 2010-006996
Application 11/639,897
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before DENISE M. POTHIER, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and
BARBARA A. BENOIT, Administrative Patent Judges.

BENOIT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 8-10, all of the claims pending in the application. Claims 1-7 have
been canceled. App. Br. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

Appeal 2010-006996
Application 11/639,897

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
To reduce distortions in a printed image, Appellant’s invention
compensates for differences in the nozzle-to-substrate travel time caused by
different distances between the various nozzles directing ink and the
substrate being printed. See generally Abstract; Spec. ¶ 0001, 0020. Claim
8 is the only independent claim and reads as follows, with key disputed
limitations emphasized:
8. A method for operating an inkjet printing device with at least one
inkjet printhead having a row of nozzles for directing ink onto a
substrate being conveyed in a transport direction over a cylinder in an
offset press, said method comprising
arranging said at least one printhead transversely of said transport
direction so that adjacent nozzles lie at different distances from the
substrate, whereby the ink from adjacent nozzles has different nozzle
to substrate travel times;
generating a bitmap of an image to be printed on the substrate by
each said printhead, each said bitmap comprising image data assigned
to respective nozzles;
adjusting each said bitmap in a pre-printing stage so that image
data assigned to nozzles which are farther away from the substrate is
shifted upstream in the printing direction relative to image data for
nozzles which are closer to the substrate; and
actuating the nozzles in each said row so that the different nozzle
to substrate travel times for the nozzles of each row are compensated
by the adjusted bitmap.
The Examiner relies on the following as evidence of unpatentability:

Kneezel US 5,043,740 Aug. 27, 1991
Williams US 5,103,731 Apr. 14, 1992

Appeal 2010-006996
Application 11/639,897

3
The Rejection
The Examiner rejected claims 8-10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Kneezel and Williams. Ans. 3-5.1

Contentions
The Examiner finds Kneezel discloses arranging the printhead,
actuating the nozzles in each row so that the different nozzle-to-substrate
travel time for the nozzles of each row are compensated, and various
features related to other claim limitations recited in claim 8, including image
data assigned to nozzles which are farther away from the substrate is shifted
upstream in the printing direction relative to image data from nozzles which
are closer to the substrate. Ans. 3-4. The Examiner acknowledges that
Kneezel does not expressly disclose the steps of generating or adjusting.
Ans. 4. The Examiner cites Williams’ disclosure of using a bitmap to
control printing positions in concluding it would have been obvious “to
modify Kneezel to generate a bitmap of an image to be printed and adjust
the bitmap so that the nozzles which are farther away from the substrate are
shifted upstream in the printing direction relative to image data for nozzles
which are closer to the substrate. . . .” Ans. 4-5 (citing Williams 15:20-27).
Appellant asserts, among other contentions, the Examiner erred
because the proposed combination of Kneezel and Williams, even if the
bitmap of Williams is used to represent the character to be printed in
Kneezel, does not teach or suggest adjusting each bitmap in a pre-printing
stage as recited in claim 8. App. Br. 5-8; Reply Br. 2-3.

1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the Appeal Brief filed January 8, 2010
(App. Br.), the Examiner’s Answer mailed February 19, 2010 (Ans.), and the
Reply Brief filed April 19, 2010 (Reply Br.).
Appeal 2010-006996
Application 11/639,897

4
Issue
Under § 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 8-10 by
finding that Kneezel and Williams collectively teach or suggest “adjusting
each said bitmap in a pre-printing stage so that image data assigned to
nozzles which are farther away from the substrate is shifted upstream in the
printing direction relative to image data for nozzles which are closer to the
substrate”?

ANALYSIS
On this record, we agree with Appellant that the combination of
Kneezel and Williams falls short of teaching or suggesting adjusting each
bitmap in a pre-printing stage so that image data assigned to nozzles which
are farther away from the substrate is shifted upstream in the printing
direction relative to image data for nozzles which are closer to the substrate,
as recited in claim 8.
The crux of this appeal is whether Kneezel teaches “that image data
assigned to nozzles which are farther away from the substrate is shifted
upstream in the printing direction relative to image data from nozzles which
are closer to the substrate.” The Examiner concludes this limitation is
obviousness by relying on Kneezel (Ans. 4 (citing Kneezel 3:50-52)) in
combination with Williams’ bitmap used to control printing positions. In
disputing the Examiner’s findings and conclusion, Appellant asserts that the
cited passage of Kneezel merely teaches “that individual nozzles of a
printhead are activated by impulses to form or not form a drop based on a
character to be printed, where the sequence of impulses proceeds from the
furthest nozzles to the nearest nozzles.” App. Br. 5; see also Reply Br. 3.
Appeal 2010-006996
Application 11/639,897

5
We agree with Appellant. Kneezel discloses that nozzles of an inkjet
printhead are actuated by electrical impulses to form, or not form, a drop of
ink where the sequence of actuating the nozzles of a printhead proceeds
from the nozzles located furthest from the cylindrical platen supporting the
print medium to the nozzles located closest to the cylindrical platen. See
Kneezel 3:41-52. Contrary to the Examiner’s position (Ans. 4), this
disclosure does not teach or suggest, alone or in combination with Williams’
teaching of using a bitmap to control printing positions, shifting the image
data upstream in the printing direction, much less doing so in the pre-
printing stage and in the manner recited in claim 8.
Rather, Kneezel’s disclosure is similar to Appellant’s unclaimed
alternative embodiment in which the bitmap of the image to be printed
remains unchanged and the ink-to-substrate travel-time are equalized or
compensated by actuating the nozzles in the row of the inkjet printhead
which are farther away from the substrate to be printed sooner than the
nozzles which are closer to the substrate to be printed. Spec. ¶ 0022. In
contrast with this embodiment, Appellant’s Specification juxtaposes an
alternative embodiment in which the bitmap is adjusted in a pre-printing
stage to compensate or equalize the travel-time differences such that “the
image data assigned to the nozzles which are farther away from the substrate
to be printed are shifted in the bitmap to a position which is situated earlier
in the printing direction than the image data assigned to the nozzles which
are closer to the substrate to be printed.” Spec. ¶ 0021.
Based on the record before us, we are persuaded that Kneezel and
Williams collectively do not teach or suggest “adjusting each said bitmap in
a pre-printing stage so that image data assigned to nozzles which are farther
Appeal 2010-006996
Application 11/639,897

6
away from the substrate is shifted upstream in the printing direction relative
to image data for nozzles which are closer to the substrate.”
Accordingly, Appellants have persuaded us of error in the rejection of
independent claim 8 and dependent claims 9 and 10 for similar reasons.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 8-10 under § 103.

ORDER
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 8-10 is reversed.

REVERSED

rwk