HP INDIGO B.V.

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardDec 23, 2021

2020005809 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 23, 2021)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 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 APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 16/098,190 11/01/2018 Tsafrir Yedid Am 85010771 6169 22879 7590 12/23/2021 HP Inc. 3390 E. Harmony Road Mail Stop 35 Fort Collins, CO 80528-9544 EXAMINER WAIT, CHRISTOPHER ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2672 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/23/2021 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): ipa.mail@hp.com jessica.pazdan@hp.com yvonne.bailey@hp.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte TSAFRIR YEDID AM, RIVAY MOR, and PAVEL BLINCHUK Appeal 2020-005809 Application 16/098,190 Technology Center 2600 Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, ERIC S. FRAHM, and BETH Z. SHAW, Administrative Patent Judges. SHAW, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM IN PART. 1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a) (2012). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Hewlett- Packard Development Company, LP. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2020-005809 Application 16/098,190 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to printing calibration. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method for use with a printing system, the method comprising: obtaining a correction to be applied to a printing system during print calibration, the correction having been determined on the basis of a first expected output and a first measurement of a first output of the printing system; applying a distortion to the correction; causing a print on the printing system based at least in part on the distorted correction, to generate a second output of the printing system; determining a relationship between a second expected output and a second measurement of the second output of the printing system; and calibrating the printing system on the basis of the determined relationship. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Overall US 2005/0134874 A1 June 23, 2005 Yedid US 2016/0078324 A1 Mar. 17, 2016 REJECTIONS Claims 1–8 and 10–20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as anticipated by Yedid or in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103, as being unpatentable over Yedid. Appeal 2020-005809 Application 16/098,190 3 Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103, as being unpatentable over Yedid and Overall. OPINION Claim 1 We agree with the Examiner that Yedid teaches or at least suggests the disputed elements of claim 1. As the Examiner explains, and Appellant does not dispute, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed “distortion” includes mathematical operations, such as subtracting and averaging. Ans. 24. Thus, Yedid teaches or at least suggests “applying a distortion to the correction,” as recited in claim 1, because Figure 5 of Yedid illustrates omitting the first corrections from the next iteration measurements. Id. at 24–25. Moreover, Yedid teaches averaging the first iteration measurements with the pseudo iteration measurements. Id. We find unavailing Appellant’s argument that “Yedid also does not determine any relationship between a second expected output and the second measurements (taken in the second/next iteration), on which basis the printing system is calibrated.” Appeal Br. 6; Reply Br. 3. As the Examiner explains, the subsequent iteration of Yedid would be understood by one skilled in the art as another print and measure iteration. Ans. 27. Yedid explains that “measurement module 105 and iterative calibration module 107 comprise instructions executable on processor 300 to implement the iterative calibration process that uses a calibration pattern 306 and measurement data accumulated over all calibration iterations to calibrate the CPR of printing press 100.” Id. (citing Yedid ¶ 31). Yedid’s process at least suggests many iterations. See id. Appellant provides insufficient evidence that the Specification or claims limit the claimed “relationship” in a way that, under Appeal 2020-005809 Application 16/098,190 4 a broad but reasonable interpretation, is not encompassed by Yedid’s teachings. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. We also sustain the rejection of claims 2–17, which are not argued separately with particularity. Because we affirm the rejection of claims 1–17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, we do not reach the § 102 rejection. C.f., In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (not reaching other rejections after upholding an anticipation rejection); Beloit Corp. v. Valmet Oy, 742 F.2d 1421, 1423 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (indicating an agency (e.g., the ITC) can decide a single dispositive issue of numerous issues resolved by the presiding officer and that there is no need for the Commission to decide all issues decided by the presiding officer); Ormco Corp. v. Align Tech., Inc., 463 F.3d 1299, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (not reaching certain issues). Dependent Claims 18–20 On this record, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner has not explained sufficiently how Yedid discloses, teaches, or suggests the elements of dependent claims 18 and 19. Other than quoting a small portion of paragraphs of Yedid in the Final Office Action, the Examiner does not explain how Yedid teaches the disputed claim limitations. Moreover, the Examiner does not respond in the Answer to any of Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief regarding claims 18 and 19. We will not resort to speculation or assumptions to cure the deficiencies in the Examiner’s fact finding. See In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967). Accordingly, on this record, we do not sustain the anticipation and obviousness rejections of dependent claims 18 and 19. We also do not Appeal 2020-005809 Application 16/098,190 5 sustain the anticipation and obviousness rejection of claim 20, which depends from dependent claim 19. CONCLUSION We affirm the rejection of claims 1–8 and 10–17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, as being unpatentable over Yedid. We affirm the rejection of claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, as being unpatentable over Yedid and Overall. We reverse the rejections of claims 18–20. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–8, 10– 20 103 Yedid 1–8, 10– 17 18–20 18–20 102 Yedid 18–20 9 103 Yedid, Overall 9 Overall Outcome 1–17 18–20 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2013). AFFIRMED IN PART