IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`___________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`___________________________
`
`EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY, AGFA CORPORATION,
`ESKO SOFTWARE BVBA, and HEIDELBERG, USA,
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`CTP INNOVATIONS, LLC
`Patent Owner
`___________________________
`
`Case IPR2014-00788
`Patent 6,738,155
`___________________________
`
`REQUEST TO FILE CORRECTED EXHIBIT
`
`Patent Owner CTP Innovations, LLC respectfully requests leave to file the
`
`
`
`attached corrected Exhibit 2014. Exhibit 2014 is the Declaration of Robert L.
`
`Stevenson, and was filed on April 2, 2015. The declaration itself is complete, but
`
`it was filed without including his curriculum vitae with litigation experience,
`
`despite indicating that it was attached. The proposed corrected Exhibit 2014 is
`
`attached hereto. A copy of the exhibit with attachment has been provided to
`
`Petitioners on April 3, 2015, as soon as the error was discovered. It is obvious
`
`from the declaration that the curriculum vitae with litigation experience was
`
`intended to be submitted. See Safeway, Inc., et a. v. Kroy IP Holdings, LLC,
`
`
`___________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`___________________________
`
`EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY, AGFA CORPORATION,
`ESKO SOFTWARE BVBA, and HEIDELBERG, USA,
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`CTP INNOVATIONS, LLC
`Patent Owner
`___________________________
`
`Case IPR2014-00788
`Patent 6,738,155
`___________________________
`
`REQUEST TO FILE CORRECTED EXHIBIT
`
`Patent Owner CTP Innovations, LLC respectfully requests leave to file the
`
`
`
`attached corrected Exhibit 2014. Exhibit 2014 is the Declaration of Robert L.
`
`Stevenson, and was filed on April 2, 2015. The declaration itself is complete, but
`
`it was filed without including his curriculum vitae with litigation experience,
`
`despite indicating that it was attached. The proposed corrected Exhibit 2014 is
`
`attached hereto. A copy of the exhibit with attachment has been provided to
`
`Petitioners on April 3, 2015, as soon as the error was discovered. It is obvious
`
`from the declaration that the curriculum vitae with litigation experience was
`
`intended to be submitted. See Safeway, Inc., et a. v. Kroy IP Holdings, LLC,
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00685 (Paper 9) (granting leave to file declaration originally filed
`
`without curriculum vitae). Accordingly, Patent Owner respectfully requests that
`
`the Board grant this request.
`
`
`
`Dated: April 3, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`BAKER, DONELSON, BEARMAN,
`CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, P.C.
`
`
`
`/W. Edward Ramage/
`W. Edward Ramage, Reg. No. 50,810
`Samuel F. Miller (pending pro hac
`vice admission)
`BAKER, DONELSON, BEARMAN,
`CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, P.C.
`Baker Donelson Center
`211 Commerce Street, Suite 800
`Nashville, Tennessee 37201
`Tel: (615) 726-5771
`Fax: (615) 744-5771
`Email: eramage@bakerdonelson.com
`smiller@bakerdonelson.com
`
`
`for Patent Owner CTP
`Counsel
`Innovations, LLC
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that, on April 3, 2015, the foregoing
`
`Request (including attachments) was served in its entirety via U.S. Express Mail,
`
`postage prepaid, and electronic mail upon the following:
`
`
`
`Scot A. McKeown
`OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND,
`MAIER & NEUSTADT, LLP
`1940 Duke Street
`Alexandria, VA 22314
`Tel: (703) 412-6297
`Fax: (703) 413-2220
`Email: cpdocketmckeown@oblon.com
` cpdocketkiklis@oblon.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/W. Edward Ramage/
`W. Edward Ramage, Reg. No. 50,810
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`1IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`___________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`___________________________
`
`EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY, AGFA CORPORATION,
`ESKO SOFTWARE BVBA, and HEIDELBERG, USA
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`CTP INNOVATIONS, LLC
`Patent Owner
`___________________________
`
`Case IPR2014-00788
`Patent 6,738,155
`___________________________
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF ROBERT L. STEVENSON
`IN SUPPORT OF VALIDITY OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,738,155
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CTP Exhibit 2014
`Eastman Kodak v. CTP Innovations
`IPR 2014-00788
`Page 1
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`QUALIFICATIONS ........................................................................................ 3
`
`II. MATERIALS CONSIDERED ........................................................................ 5
`
`III. SUMMARY OF OPINIONS ........................................................................... 6
`
`IV. OPINIONS AND BASES FOR THOSE OPINIONS ................................... 11
`
`A. One of Ordinary Skill in the Art. ........................................................ 11
`
`B.
`
`Claims 10-13 and 15-20 Are Not Obvious from Jebens and
`Apogee ................................................................................................. 11
`
`C.
`
`Claim 14 Is Not Obvious from Jebens, Apogee and Andersson ......... 25
`
`D.
`
`Claims 10-13 Are Not Obvious from Dorfman and Apogee .............. 26
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`Claims 14-15 Are Not Obvious from Dorfman, Apogee and
`Andersson ............................................................................................ 36
`
`Claims 16-20 Are Not Obvious from Dorfman, Apogee, and
`OPI White Paper .................................................................................. 38
`
`CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................................... 41
`
`
`
`CTP Exhibit 2014
`Eastman Kodak v. CTP Innovations
`IPR 2014-00788
`Page 2
`
`V.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I, Robert L. Stevenson, have been retained to testify as an expert on behalf
`
`of CTP Innovations, LLC in this matter. I declare as follows:
`
`
`
`I. QUALIFICATIONS
`
`
`
`1.
`
`I am a professor of electric of electrical engineering and computer
`
`science at the University of Notre Dame, where I have been employed for the last
`
`24 years. I was granted tenure in 1996 as an Associate Professor and promoted to
`
`the academic rank of full Professor in 2002. I serve concurrently on the faculties
`
`of the Department of Electrical Engineering and the Department of Computer
`
`Science and Engineering. I also presently serve as the Associate Chair and
`
`Director of Undergraduate Studies in the Department of Electrical Engineering.
`
`
`
`2.
`
`I received my bachelor's degree from the University of Delaware in
`
`1986 and my Ph.D. from Purdue University in 1990, both in electrical engineering.
`
`My Ph.D. research was in the area of communications and signal processing. I
`
`have been actively engaged in the field of electrical engineering for over 30 years
`
`and in the field of image processing since 1986.
`
`
`
`3.
`
`I am a member of the Institute of Electronics and Electrical Engineers
`
`(IEEE), the Society of Photographic Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE), and the
`
`
`
`CTP Exhibit 2014
`Eastman Kodak v. CTP Innovations
`IPR 2014-00788
`Page 3
`
`
`
`Society for Imaging Science and Technology (IS&T). In addition, I am a panel
`
`member and reviewer for the National Science Foundation.
`
`
`
`4.
`
`For the past 20 years my work has focused on the design of
`
`techniques, hardware, and software for the processing of digital signals using
`
`digital computing devices, such as image processing. My academic research
`
`focuses on developing novel ideas for systems, then publishing and presenting
`
`those ideas to the technical community.
`
`
`
`5. My early work on digital techniques for printing and image capture
`
`devices led to significant interaction with companies developing consumer
`
`products in the early 1990s as they worked to incorporate those ideas into their
`
`products.
`
`
`
`6.
`
`Several
`
`leading computing companies,
`
`including
`
`Intel, Sun
`
`Microsystems, Apple, and Microsoft, have been involved with and supported my
`
`research at Notre Dame. I have also received significant support for my research
`
`from several U.S. Department of Defense agencies.
`
`
`
`7.
`
`I have published over 100 technical papers related to the field of
`
`image processing and digital systems. In addition, I am an inventor of U.S. Patent
`
`No. 6,081,552, “Video Coding Using A Maximum A Posteriori Loop Filter,”
`
`which issued June 27, 2000.
`
`CTP Exhibit 2014
`Eastman Kodak v. CTP Innovations
`IPR 2014-00788
`Page 4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8.
`
`A copy of my curriculum vitae is attached to this declaration as an
`
`appendix. It includes additional detail regarding my academic and professional
`
`background, and listings of various honors and awards I have received,
`
`professional activities with which I have been involved, papers and other
`
`publications I have authored or co-authored, and matters in which I have testified
`
`during the previous four (4) years.
`
`
`
`9.
`
`I am being compensated for my time working on this case at my
`
`customary hourly rate for all work performed on the case. My compensation is not
`
`in any way related to the outcome of the case.
`
`
`
`II. MATERIALS CONSIDERED
`
`10.
`
`I base the opinions that I express in this declaration on my education
`
`and decades of experience in the fields of electrical engineering and image
`
`processing. I also base my opinions on a review of the materials provided by the
`
`parties in this trial, including a review of United States Patent Nos. 6,611,349 (“the
`
`’349 patent”), 6,738,155 (“the ’155 patent”), and 6,321,231 (“Jebens”), PCT
`
`International Application Publication No. WO 98/08176 (“Dorfman”), as well as
`
`the AGFA Apogee: The PDF-based Production System paper (“Apogee”), Apple
`
`
`
`CTP Exhibit 2014
`Eastman Kodak v. CTP Innovations
`IPR 2014-00788
`Page 5
`
`
`
`Computer's OPI White Paper (“OPI White Paper”), and the PDF Printing and
`
`Publishing guide by Mattias Andersson and others (“Andersson”).
`
`
`
`11. The list of materials I reviewed in formulating my opinions consists of
`
`Petitioners’ Corrected Petition (Paper 4) and associated Exhibits (Exhibits 1001-
`
`1022), Patent Owner's Preliminary Response (Paper 8) and associated exhibits
`
`(Exhibits 2001-2013), the Institution Decision (Paper 9), the Deposition Transcript
`
`of Professor Brian P. Lawler (Ex. 2017), and Chapter 8 ("Digital Printing") in The
`
`Columbia Guide to Digital Publishing (Ex.2015).
`
`
`
`III. SUMMARY OF OPINIONS
`
`
`
`12.
`
`I submit this declaration in response to the May 20, 2014 Declaration
`
`of Brian P. Lawler (Ex. 1021), and respond to Professor Lawler's allegations that
`
`certain claims of the ’155 patent are invalid on the following grounds:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`a. Claims 10-13 and 15-20: obviousness based on Jebens and Apogee;
`
`b. Claim 14: obviousness based on Jebens, Apogee and Andersson;
`
`c. Claims 10-13: obviousness based on Dorfman and Apogee;
`
`d. Claims 14-15: obviousness based on Dorfman, Apogee and Andersson;
`
`e. Claims 16-20: obviousness based on Dorfman, Apogee and OPI White
`
`paper.
`
`
`
`CTP Exhibit 2014
`Eastman Kodak v. CTP Innovations
`IPR 2014-00788
`Page 6
`
`
`
`I understand that the trial is limited to the five grounds identified above. This
`
`declaration is limited to responding to the arguments and testimony related to the
`
`grounds set forth above. Should Petitioners attempt to rely upon an argument or
`
`testimony not previously identified as relevant to the above grounds, I reserve the
`
`right to supplement this declaration to address any such argument or testimony.
`
`Paragraphs 13-17 below summarize my opinion as to the patentability of claims
`
`10-20 of the ’155 patent.
`
`
`
`13. Claims 10-13 and 15-20 of the ’155 patent are not obvious in light of
`
`the combination of Jebens and Apogee because it would not have been obvious to
`
`a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the ’155 patent effective filing
`
`date, i.e., July 30, 1999, (“POSITA”) to modify the system of Jebens to replace the
`
`job order developer and conduit function of the central service facility of Jebens
`
`with the Apogee PDF RIP process. More specifically:
`
`
`
`(a)
`
`Jebens does not disclose processing a created document from
`
`the end-user facility to generate a plate-ready file; instead, it simply passes the
`
`created document, along with copies of high-resolution images, on to a publishing
`
`entity. Jebens does not insert high-resolution images into the created document.
`
`
`
`
`
`(b) Apogee discloses the generation of a PIF file from a PDF RIP
`
`process carried out at a print facility, not at a central service facility.
`
`
`
`CTP Exhibit 2014
`Eastman Kodak v. CTP Innovations
`IPR 2014-00788
`Page 7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`14. Claim 14 of the ’155 patent is not obvious in light of the combination
`
`of Jebens, Apogee and Andersson for the same reasons that claim 10 is not obvious
`
`in view of the combination of Jebens and Apogee, as discussed above. The
`
`addition of Andersson does not cure the defects of the combination of Jebens and
`
`Apogee.
`
`
`
`15. Claims 10-13 of the ’155 patent are not obvious in light of the
`
`combination of Dorfman and Apogee because it would not have been obvious to a
`
`POSITA to modify a digital printing system with variable data and short-run
`
`features, as disclosed in Dorfman, to incorporate printing plates or plate-ready
`
`files. More specifically:
`
`
`
`
`
`(a) Dorfman discloses a digital printing system with variable data
`
`and short-run features. These systems do not use printing plates or plate-ready
`
`files. The suggested modification would require modifying the principle of
`
`operation of Dorfman, and render it unfit for its intended purposes.
`
`
`
`
`
`(b) Dorfman does not describe a separate central service facility
`
`and remote printer. Dorfman describes these functions as all being present at the
`
`same remote location: i.e., the facilities of a commercial printing service.
`
`
`
`16. Claims 14-15 of the ’155 patent are not obvious in light of the
`
`combination of Dorfman, Apogee and Andersson because, as discussed above with
`
`CTP Exhibit 2014
`Eastman Kodak v. CTP Innovations
`IPR 2014-00788
`Page 8
`
`
`
`
`
`regard to claims 10-13, it would not have been obvious to a POSITA to modify the
`
`digital printing system of Dorfman, which does not involve printing plates or plate-
`
`ready files, to incorporate printing plates or plate-ready files. More specifically:
`
`
`
`
`
`(a) Dorfman discloses a digital printing system with variable data
`
`and short-run features. These systems do not use printing plates or plate-ready
`
`files. The suggested modification would require modifying the principle of
`
`operation of Dorfman, and render it unfit for its intended purposes.
`
`
`
`
`
`(b) Dorfman does not describe a separate central service facility
`
`and printing company facility. Dorfman describes these functions as all being
`
`present at the same remote location: i.e., the facilities of a commercial printing
`
`service.
`
`
`
`
`
`(c) Neither Dorfman nor Andersson disclose the step of logging
`
`files into a content management database.
`
`
`
`17. Claims 16-20 of the ’155 patent are not obvious in light of the
`
`combination of Dorfman, Apogee and OPI White Paper because, as discussed
`
`above with regard to claims 10-13, it would not have been obvious to a POSITA to
`
`modify the digital printing system of Dorfman, which does not involve printing
`
`plates or plate-ready files, to incorporate printing plates or plate-ready files. More
`
`specifically:
`
`
`
`CTP Exhibit 2014
`Eastman Kodak v. CTP Innovations
`IPR 2014-00788
`Page 9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(a) Dorfman discloses a digital printing system with variable data
`
`and short-run features. These systems do not use printing plates or plate-ready
`
`files. The suggested modification would require modifying the principle of
`
`operation of Dorfman, and render it unfit for its intended purposes.
`
`
`
`
`
`(b) Dorfman does not describe a separate central service facility
`
`and printing company facility. Dorfman describes these functions as all being
`
`present at the same remote location: i.e., the facilities of a commercial printing
`
`service.
`
`
`
`
`
`(c) Dorfman does not provide a plate-ready file to a remote printer.
`
`In Dorfman, a dynamic PDF file with low resolution images (which is not a plate-
`
`ready file) is sent directly by the end-user to the remote printing system for
`
`processing. Any swapping of high resolution files for low resolution files in
`
`Dorfman occurs at the remote printer.
`
`
`
`
`
`(d)
`
`In Dorfman, the file generated and sent by the end-user is a
`
`dynamic PDF file, not a PostScript file. There is no conversion of a PostScript file
`
`to a PDF file.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CTP Exhibit 2014
`Eastman Kodak v. CTP Innovations
`IPR 2014-00788
`Page 10
`
`
`
`IV. OPINIONS AND BASES FOR THOSE OPINIONS
`
`
`
`
`
`A. One of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`18. Professor Lawler expresses the opinion that “a person of ordinary skill
`
`in the field, at the time the ’155 patent was effectively filed, would have been
`
`familiar with digital workflows, networked printing and publishing systems, and
`
`the page design, prepress, and printing activities incorporated into digitized
`
`workflows.” Lawler Decl. (Ex. 1021), at ¶ 20. I accept this definition for purposes
`
`of this trial. At the time of the invention, I possessed at least these minimum
`
`credentials, as well as others. I am therefore well qualified to testify regarding
`
`what one of skill in the art would have understood at the time of the invention.
`
`
`
`
`
`B. Claims 10-13 and 15-20 Are Not Obvious from Jebens and Apogee
`
`19.
`
`I understand that a patent claim is invalid for obviousness if the
`
`differences between the subject matter of the claim and the prior art are such that
`
`the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention
`
`was made to a POSITA to which the subject matter pertains. I understand that an
`
`obviousness analysis may also take into account certain objective indicia of
`
`nonobviousness, such as copying, commercial success, and long-felt need.
`
`
`
`20. A POSITA would recognize that claim 10 is a method claim, with
`
`method steps being carried out at a facility separate from a remote client and a
`
`CTP Exhibit 2014
`Eastman Kodak v. CTP Innovations
`IPR 2014-00788
`Page 11
`
`
`
`
`
`remote printer. Based upon the specification, this facility would correspond to the
`
`central service facility described therein. A POSITA also would recognize that
`
`claim 10 also requires that this facility carry out the steps of generating a PDF file
`
`from the page layout designed by the remote client, generating a plate-ready file
`
`from the PDF file, and providing said plate-ready file to a remote printer. See ’155
`
`Patent (Ex. 1001), claim 10, elements (b), (c), (d) and (e). The specification of the
`
`’155 patent confirms these operations. See, e.g., id. at 4:25-33; 11:35-49.
`
`
`
`21. A POSITA also would recognize that claim 11 requires that the PDF
`
`file generated by the facility separate from the remote client and remote printer be
`
`sent to the remote client for proofing and revision. See id., claim 11. Further, a
`
`POSITA would recognize that claim 12 further describes the step of providing the
`
`plate-ready file to a remote printer as requiring communicating the plate-ready file
`
`to the remote printer via a communication network. See id., claim 12.
`
`
`
`22. A POSITA would recognize that claim 16 also is a method claim,
`
`with method steps being carried out at a facility separate from a remote client and a
`
`remote printer. See id., claim 16. Based upon the specification, this facility would
`
`correspond to the central service facility described therein. A POSITA also would
`
`recognize that claim 16 also requires that this facility carry out the steps of
`
`generating a PDF file from the page layout designed by the remote client,
`
`CTP Exhibit 2014
`Eastman Kodak v. CTP Innovations
`IPR 2014-00788
`Page 12
`
`
`
`
`
`providing the PDF file to the remote client, and providing a plate-ready file to a
`
`remote printer. See id., claim 16, elements (d), (e), and (f). The specification of
`
`the ’155 patent confirms these operations. See, e.g., id. at 4:25-33; 11:35-49.
`
`
`
`23. A POSITA also would recognize that claim 18 further describes the
`
`process of generating a PDF file by the separate facility, where the page layout
`
`received from the remote client is a PostScript file, and low resolution files used in
`
`the page layout are swapped with high resolution files. See id., claim 18.
`
`
`
`24. A POSITA also would recognize that claim 19 further describes the
`
`process of providing a plate-ready file to a remote printer requires converting the
`
`format of the PDF file to a plate-ready file format, and communicating the plate-
`
`ready file to the remote printer via a communication network. See id., claim 19.
`
`
`
`25. Professor Lawler asserts the system of Jebens replaces the low-
`
`resolution copies of the digital assets with the original high-resolution copies
`
`before the document created by the graphic designer is routed to the printer.
`
`Lawler Decl. (Ex. 1021), at ¶ 85 (“Before the document is routed to the printer,
`
`Jebens includes a system that replaces the low-resolution copies of the digital
`
`assets with the original high-resolution copies.”). I understand that he maintains
`
`this position in his deposition testimony. However, Professor Lawler has mis-read
`
`Jebens, and Jebens does not teach this. The system of Jebens does not actually
`
`CTP Exhibit 2014
`Eastman Kodak v. CTP Innovations
`IPR 2014-00788
`Page 13
`
`
`
`
`
`replace low-resolution images with high-resolution images in a document; instead,
`
`it simply serves as an image warehouse and job order forwarding service. Jebens
`
`teaches a data management and order delivery system that includes an image
`
`database for archiving low and high resolution copies of digital image files. See
`
`Jebens (Ex. 1005), at Abstract. The graphic designer or advertising agency
`
`downloads low resolution copies of images to be used, and creates a document
`
`incorporating the downloaded images. Id. at 5:11-17. Upon completion of the
`
`document creation, the agency re-connects to the system, and requests that the
`
`system route the created document (i.e., the document created by the graphic
`
`designer) along with high resolution copies of the selected digital images to a
`
`publishing entity, such as a printer:
`
`The agency would then disconnect or logoff from the system and
`
`begin its efforts to create a document incorporating the downloaded
`
`images. Upon completion of that process, the agency would re-
`
`connect to the system to request that the system electronically route
`
`the created document with high resolution copies of the selected
`
`digital images to a publishing entity such as a printer, where the
`
`finalized brochure would be published.
`
`Id. at 5:15-22. The Petitioners in this case gloss over the fact that the system of
`
`Jebens is not creating a plate-ready file and sending it to a printing facility, but
`
`
`
`CTP Exhibit 2014
`Eastman Kodak v. CTP Innovations
`IPR 2014-00788
`Page 14
`
`
`
`merely passing along the document created by the advertising agency along with
`
`high-resolution copies of images in the document.
`
`
`
`26. This is supported by Jebens' detailed discussion of “work orders” and
`
`“job orders.” A “work order" is the set of data transmitted from the first user to the
`
`host system requesting routing to a second user (e.g., printing facility). Id. at
`
`14:11-19. The work order includes a set of instructions identifying the second
`
`user, and identifying any files to be sent from the database. Id. at 14:15-18. The
`
`work order also includes local files created outside of the system (such as the PDL
`
`file or other document created by the first user). Id. at 14:11-25; 14:36-54; 22:51-
`
`55. A “job order” is a collection of data assembled or other developed by the host
`
`system for routing to the second user. Id. at 14:27-29. The job order includes the
`
`created document received from the first user, other local files received from the
`
`first user, and any original data files (such as high resolution image files identified
`
`in the work order). Id. at 14:26-35; 14:45-50.
`
`Preferably, the job order includes any local files forwarded by the user
`
`in the work order, and copies of any data files in the database that
`
`were identified in the work order by the first user.
`
`
`
`CTP Exhibit 2014
`Eastman Kodak v. CTP Innovations
`IPR 2014-00788
`Page 15
`
`
`
`Id. at 14:26-35. The local documents contained in the work order, and the original
`
`data files, are compressed and forwarded to the receiving user (i.e., printing
`
`facility):
`
`
`
`Upon receiving the work order, the host site 10 develops a job
`
`order in accordance with the instructions contained in the work order.
`
`The development of a job order is preferably initiated by the internet
`
`server 24 which parses the destination and instruction form for the
`
`address of the receiving user (block 516). Next, the internet server
`
`locates any original data file(s) (such as high resolution image file(s))
`
`identified in the work order (block 518). The original data files(s) and
`
`any local documents contained in the work order are then compressed
`
`(preferably, pursuant to a user defined algorithm as discussed above in
`
`connection with FIGS. 4A-4C) (block 520) and forwarded to the
`
`receiving user specified in the destination and instruction form (block
`
`522).
`
`Id. at 14:55-66.
`
`
`
`27. The above description of the preparation of a job order corresponds to
`
`Figures 8A and 8B of Jebens, as shown below:
`
`
`
`
`
`CTP Exhibit 2014
`Eastman Kodak v. CTP Innovations
`IPR 2014-00788
`Page 16
`
`
`
`FIG 8B
`
`
`
`CTP Exhibit 2014
`Eastman Kodak v. CTP Innovations
`IPR 2014-00788
`Page 17
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CTP Exhibit 2014
`Eastman Kodak v. CTP Innovations
`IPR 2014-00788
`Page 18
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The Abstract of Jebens refers to this process as routing a job order compiled by the
`
`job order developer. Id. at Abstract; see also id. at 4:59-62 (“As explained below,
`
`the system is also adapted to serve as a job order developer and conduit for routing
`
`files from a browser or client such as an advertising agency to a jobber or supplier
`
`such as a printer.”).
`
`
`
`28. The fact that the host facility of Jebens does not replace the low
`
`resolution images in the user-created document (which can be a PDL file, see id. at
`
`13:62-67) with high resolution images is further supported by Jebens' later
`
`discussion of the transmission of a job order through its “hot-foldering” process:
`
`
`
`As shown in FIG. 10G, upon receipt of the work order (block
`
`850), the host site 10 will parse the work order for the identifications
`
`of images to be included in the job order and the name of the supplier
`
`16 (block 852) to receive the job. The address of the jobber 16 will be
`
`located in the configuration database 731 (block 854) and high
`
`resolution copies of the identified files will be downloaded from the
`
`file system 729 (block 856). The assembled job order including the
`
`high resolution copies of the images selected by any user and the user
`
`created attachments such as PDF files, will then be automatically
`
`transferred to a sending hot-folder associated with the selected
`
`destination (block 858). The hot folder transport system will then take
`
`
`
`CTP Exhibit 2014
`Eastman Kodak v. CTP Innovations
`IPR 2014-00788
`Page 19
`
`
`
`over, compressing the job order and transferring the job order to the
`
`selected destination as described above in connection with FIG. 10A.
`
`Id. at 22:43-57.
`
`
`
`29. Thus, a POSITA would recognize that there is no substantive
`
`processing of the created document file received from the advertising agency (or
`
`other first user) in the system of Jebens; it is simply bundled with other files and
`
`compressed for transmission to a jobber or supplier. The processing of the created
`
`document file must take place at the jobber or supplier, although Jebens provides
`
`no details of that processing since it is focused on the interaction between the
`
`advertising agency and the central image storage facility, and with the creation and
`
`transmission of the job order to a jobber or supplier at the direction of the
`
`advertising agency.
`
`
`
`30. To the extent that Apogee discloses the generation of a plate-ready
`
`file in the form of a Print Image File (“PIF”) through the Apogee PDF RIP process,
`
`see Apogee (Ex. 1007), at pp. 6-7, a POSITA would consider this process to be
`
`taking place at the jobber or supplier, i.e., at a printing company facility. It would
`
`not be obvious to a POSITA to replace the job order developer and conduit
`
`function of the central facility of Jebens with the Apogee PDF RIP process. In
`
`fact, such a modification would substantially change the manner of operation of the
`
`
`
`CTP Exhibit 2014
`Eastman Kodak v. CTP Innovations
`IPR 2014-00788
`Page 20
`
`
`
`central facility of the Jebens system. Thus, a POSITA would not find claim 10
`
`obvious in light of the combination of Jebens and Apogee.
`
`
`
`31. A POSITA would recognize that dependent claims 11-14 require the
`
`same elements as claim 10 as described above, and thus would not find it obvious
`
`to combine Jebens and Apogee in the suggested manner for these claims for the
`
`same reasons given above with regard to claim 10. With specific regard to claim
`
`12, a POSITA would recognize that the system of Jebens does not communicate a
`
`plate-ready file to a remote printer via a communication network; instead, Jebens
`
`merely transmits the created document from the agency to a remote printer, along
`
`with high resolution copies of selected digital image files, as discussed above.
`
`Since the high resolution copies of the images are not swapped into or inserted into
`
`the created document at this point, the created document is not a plate-ready file.
`
`The host facility of Jebens does not create or provide plate-ready files.
`
`
`
`32. Further, with specific regard to claim 11, Jebens does not disclose
`
`sending a PDF file generated by the central service facility back to the remote
`
`client for proofing and revision. In the Jebens system, the advertising agency (or
`
`other first user) creates a document incorporating downloaded low resolution
`
`images while disconnected from the system. Jebens (Ex. 1005), at 5:11-17. After
`
`the document has been created, the agency re-connects with the system, uploads a
`
`CTP Exhibit 2014
`Eastman Kodak v. CTP Innovations
`IPR 2014-00788
`Page 21
`
`
`
`
`
`copy of the created document with low-resolution images, and requests that this
`
`created document be sent to a publishing entity along with high resolution copies
`
`of the images as part of a "job order." Id. at 5:17-22; 14:26-35. Not only does
`
`Jebens not disclose converting the created document received from the agency to a
`
`PDF, it does not disclose sending any form of a processed document back to the
`
`agency. In fact, the system of Jebens is based upon avoiding sending high
`
`resolution files to the agency, thereby avoiding the problems of transmitting and
`
`storing high resolution image files with large amounts of data. Thus, while
`
`Apogee discloses that a PDF digital master can be used for remote viewing,
`
`proofing, approval, and editing, to the extent that PDF digital master is an
`
`extremely large data file with high resolution images, Jebens teaches away from
`
`the suggested modification (i.e., it teaches away from sending files with high
`
`resolution images to a remote client). and a POSITA would not be motivated to
`
`combine Jebens with Apogee as suggested.
`
`
`
`33. With regard to independent claim 16, a POSITA would recognize that
`
`claim 16 requires several of the same elements as claims 10 and 11 above, and thus
`
`would not find it obvious to combine Jebens and Apogee in the suggested manner
`
`for these claims for the same reasons given above with regard to claims 10 and 11.
`
`In particular, claim 16 requires the steps of generating a PDF file from the page
`
`CTP Exhibit 2014
`Eastman Kodak v. CTP Innovations
`IPR 2014-00788
`Page 22
`
`
`
`
`
`layout designed by the remote client, providing the PDF file to the remote client,
`
`and providing a plate-ready file to a remote printer. See ’155 Patent (Ex. 1001),
`
`claim 16, elements (d), (e), and (f). As discussed above, the host system of Jebens
`
`does not generate a PDF file from the document created by the agency (and, in
`
`fact, does not process the document created by the agency at all, other than to
`
`include it in a job order sent to a printer), does not disclose sending any form of a
`
`processed document back to the agency, and does not disclose providing a plate-
`
`ready file to a remote printer. To the extent that Apogee discloses the generation
`
`of a plate-ready file in the form of a PIF through the Apogee PDF RIP process, see
`
`Apogee (Ex. 1007), at pp. 6-7, a POSITA would consider this process to be taking
`
`place at the jobber or supplier, i.e., at a printing company facility, and neither
`
`Jebens nor Apogee suggest that this process take place in the host system of
`
`Jebens. In fact, such a modification would substantially change the manner of
`
`operation of the central facility of the Jebens system, as discussed above. Thus, a
`
`POSITA would not find claim 16 obvious in light of the combination of Jebens and
`
`Apogee.
`
`
`
`34. A POSITA would recognize that dependent claims 17-20 require the
`
`same elements as claim 16 as described above, and thus would not find it obvious
`
`to combine Jebens and Apogee in the suggested manner for these claims for the
`
`CTP Exhibit 2014
`Eastman Kodak v. CTP Innovations
`IPR 2014-00788
`Page 23
`
`
`
`
`
`same reasons given above with regard to claim 16. Further, with specific regard to
`
`claim 18, Jebens does not disclose that the step of generating a PDF file at a central
`
`facili
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
