`
`______________________
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`______________________
`
`PRINTING INDUSTRIES OF AMERICA
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`CTP INNOVATIONS, LLC
`
`Patent Owner
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,738,155 to Vogt et al.
`
`IPR Trial No. TBD
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`CLAIMS 1-20 OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 6,738,155
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 312 AND 37 C.F.R. §42.104
`
`
`John M. Adams (Lead Counsel)
`Reg. No. 26,697
`Price & Adams, P.C.
`4135 Brownsville Road
`P.O. Box 98127
`Pittsburgh, PA 15227-0127
`Telephone No. (412)882-7170
`Facsimile No. (412)884-6650
`Email: paip.law@verizon.net
`
`Lawrence G. Zurawsky (Back-up Counsel)
`Reg. No. 22,776
`Zurawsky & Associates
`429 Forbes Avenue, Suite 600
`Pittsburgh, PA 15219
`Telephone No. (412)281-7766
`Facsimile No. (412)281-7769
`Email: szurawsky@aol.com
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`I. MANDATORY NOTICES.................................... 1
`
`
`
` A. Real Party In Interest................................. 1
`
` B. Related Matters........................................ 1
`
` C. Counsel................................................ 1
`
` D. Service Information.................................... 2
`
`II. CERTIFICATION OF GROUNDS FOR STANDING................ 2
`
`III. OVERVIEW OF CHALLENGE AND RELIEF REQUESTED.......... 2
`
` A. Prior Art Patent Documents.............................. 2
`
` B. Prior Art Non-Patent Documents.......................... 3
`
` C. Grounds of Challenge.................................. 4
`
`IV. LEGAL PRINCIPLES......................................... 4
`
`V. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION......................................... 5
`
` A. The term “end user facility”.......................... 6
`
` B. The term “communication network” .................... 6
`
` C. The term “central service facility”.................. 7
`
` D. The term “printing company facility”................. 7
`
` E. The term “communication routing device”............... 7
`
` F. The term “plate-ready file”............................ 7
`
`VI.OVERVIEW OF THE ‘155 PATENT............................... 8
`
`A. Brief Description......................................... 8
`B. Summary of the Prosecution History of the ‘155 Patent 9
`
`VII. THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE NOT PATENTABLE.............. 18
`
`
`
` A. Independent Claim 1 is Not Patentable................ 19
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
` 1. Claim 1 is Anticipated By Andersson et al. Under
` 35 U.S.C. §102(b) .................................. 19
`
`
` 2. Claim 1 is Obvious over Lucivero et al.
` in View of Andersson et al., Benson et al.
` And Sanders et al. Under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) ....... 26
`
` 3. Claim 1 is Obvious over Lucivero et al. in
` View of Sands et al. and Buckley Under
`35 U.S.C. §103(a) .................................. 32
`
`
`
`B. Independent Claim 10 is Not Patentable............... 34
`
` 1. Claim 10 is Anticipated by Zilles in View
` Under 35 U.S.C. §102(b) ............................. 34
`
`
` 2. Claim 10 is Obvious Over Lucivero et al. in View
` Andersson et al. Under 35 U.S.C. §103(a)............ 36
`
` 3. Claim 10 is Obvious Over Benson (‘818) in View
` Of Buckley Under 35 U.S.C. §103(a)................. 40
`
`
` C. Independent Claim 16 is Not Patentable............... 42
`
` Claim 16 is Obvious Over Lucivero et al. in View
` of Andersson et al., Sands et al., and Zilles
`Under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) ............................. 42
`
`
`
`
`
`D. The Dependent Claims Recite Additional Features
`That Are Not Patentable ............................ 47
`
`
`1. Dependent Claim 2.................................... 47
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2. Dependent Claim 3..................................48
`
`3. Dependent Claim 4..................................49
`
`
`4. Dependent Claim 5....................................49
`
`5. Dependent Claim 6....................................50
`
`6. Dependent Claim 7....................................51
`
`7. Dependent Claim 8....................................52
`
`8. Dependent Claim 9....................................52
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`9. Dependent Claim 11...................................53
`
`
` 10.Dependent Claim 12...................................54
`
`
`
` 11.Dependent Claim 13...................................54
`
`
`
` 12.Dependent Claim 14...................................55
`
`
`
` 13.Dependent Claim 15...................................56
`
`
`
` 14.Dependent Claim 17...................................57
`
`
`
` 15.Dependent Claim 18...................................58
`
`
`
` 16.Dependent Claim 19...................................58
`
`
`
` 17.Dependent Claim 20...................................59
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` VIII. CONCLUSION.......................................... 60
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`FEDERAL CASES
`
`Biotech Biologische Naturverpackungen GmbH & Co. KG v.
`Biocorp, Inc. 249 F.3d. 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2001)……………………………5
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ............................................................................................. 5
`
`In re Schreiber,
`128 F.3d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 1997) .........................................................................................4
`
`In re Yamamoto,
`740 F.2d 1569 (Fed. Cir. 2004) .........................................................................................5
`
`FEDERAL STATUTES
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102 ......................................................................................................2, 3, 4,10,18
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ..................................................................................... 4,10,21,23,27,32,35,42
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112 .....................................................................................………………….30,31
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) ...................................................................................................................4
`
`
`REGULATIONS
`
`37 CFR 42.22(a)(1) ..................................................................................................................2
`
`
`
`37 CFR 42.104 .................................................................................................................. 2, 17
`
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) .............................................................................................................5
`
`
`77 Fed. Reg. 48764 (Aug. 14, 2012) ...................................................................................5
`
`
`v
`
`
`
`
`
`1201
`
`‘155 patent
`
`EXHIBITS
`
`
`1202
`
`Office action dated January 29, 2003
`
`1203
`
`
`1204
`
`
`1205
`
`Amendment dated February 4, 2004
`
`Andersson et al., PDF Printing and Publishing,
`Micro Publishing Press 1997
`
`The Lucivero et al. patent (U.S. Patent No. 7,242,487)
`
`1206
`
`The Benson et al. patent European Patent Application No.
`
`EP0878303
`
`1207
`
`The Sands et al. patent (U.S. Patent No. 5,634,091)
`
`1208
`
`
`1209
`
`
`
`1210
`
`
`1211
`
`
`1212
`
`1213
`
`
`1214
`
`
`
`
`Buckley, “A Framework for Digital Data Workflow in a
`Graphic Arts System”, TAGA Proceedings, Technical
`Association of the Graphic Arts, 1997
`
`Zilles, “Using PDF for Digital Data Exchange”, TAGA
`Proceedings, Technical Association of the Graphic
`Arts, 1997
`
`The Holub patent (U.S. Patent No. 6,043,909)
`
`The Dorfman et al. patent (European Patent Application
`No. EP0920667)
`
`The Benson patent (U.S. Patent No. 6,046,818)
`
`Aldus Corporation, “OPI Open Prepress Interface
`Specification 1.3”, 1993
`
`Adams II et al., “Computer-to-Plate” Automating the
`Printing Industry”, GAFT, 1996
`
`vi
`
`