throbber
IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`PATENT TRIAL & APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`Rosenlund et al.
`In re Patent of:
`U.S. Patent No.: 6,738,155
`Issue Date:
`May 18, 2004
`Appl. No.:
`
`09/364,935
`Filing Date:
`July 30, 1999
`Title:
`System and Method of Providing Publishing
`And Printing Services Via a Communication
`Network
`
`
`
`(1.)
`
`DECLARATION OF PROFESSOR BRIAN P. LAWLER
`
`I am Professor Brian P. Lawler. This declaration is submitted in
`
`support of the inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 6,738,155 (“the ‘155 patent”)
`
`filed in the names of Eastman Kodak Company (“Kodak”), Agfa Corporation
`
`(“Agfa”), Esko Software BVBA (“Esko”), and Heidelberg (collectively,
`
`“Petitioners”).
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`A.
`
` Qualifications
`
`(2.) My professional career has spanned close to 50 years. During these
`
`years, I have continually gained extensive experience in design, analysis, research,
`
`and teaching in general fields of printing and publishing technologies.
`
`(3.)
`
`I am currently a tenured Associate Professor in the Graphic
`
`Communication Department at California Polytechnic State University in San Luis
`
`Obispo, California. I was previously the Chairman and a member of the
`1
`
` 
`
`PETITIONERS Ex. 1021, p. 1
`
`

`

`Instructional Advisory Committee on Computing at California Polytechnic State
`
`University, which is the committee responsible for making policy regarding
`
`computer services used by the faculty of the University. I am also a faculty
`
`advisor to the Shakespeare Press Museum, a working collection of historic printing
`
`machinery, and to University Graphic Systems, the management seminar for the
`
`student-run printing enterprise.
`
`(4.)
`
`I was awarded a Masters of Science (M.Sc.) degree in industrial and
`
`technical studies from California Polytechnic State University in 2005. I received
`
`a Bachelors of Science (B.Sc.) degree in graphic communication from California
`
`Polytechnic State University in 1975. I also hold a California Secondary Teaching
`
`Credential.
`
`(5.) For close to 50 years, I have studied, designed, and worked in the
`
`general fields of printing and publishing technologies with a focus on graphic arts
`
`technologies, prepress, and photography. For my work in the graphic arts industry,
`
`I was named Educator of the Year in 2010 by the Electronic Document Systems
`
`Foundation, a graphic arts industry scholarship foundation. I was also honored by
`
`the International Graphic arts Education Association in 2006 for my work on
`
`developing a taxonomy for the printing industry. I have also received two Awards
`
`of Excellence for graphic design from Communication Arts magazine. I am a
`
` 
`
`2
`
`PETITIONERS Ex. 1021, p. 2
`
`

`

`member of the board of directors of the Technical Association for the Graphic
`
`Arts, an international organization of scientists in the graphic arts industry.
`
`(6.) Prior to my current position, I was a Lecturer and an Assistant
`
`Professor at California Polytechnic State University and, from 1993-2003, I
`
`researched, wrote, and illustrated editorial content for Apple Computer, Inc. on
`
`color management and proofing technologies. In 2003, I developed a suite of test
`
`documents for Hewlett Packard Company for testing variable-data projects for
`
`their Indigo printing press. In 2001, I wrote and illustrated booklets and electronic
`
`content for Adobe Systems Incorporated related to the Adobe Trapping
`
`Technologies. In 2000, I developed documentation for Hewlett-Packard Company
`
`on color management of their wide-format ink-jet printers. In 2001, I developed
`
`the online help system for the Nikon SuperCoolScan film scanner. Also between
`
`2000 and 2003 I prepared documentation for Nikon to promote their digital
`
`cameras to professional photographers. In 2002, I wrote a white paper on the OS
`
`X operating system for Apple Computer, Inc. From 1995-1998 I was a trainer for
`
`Eastman Kodak Company’s PhotoCD technology. PhotoCD was a product for
`
`scanning film to disk and I traveled across the country and abroad to explain this
`
`technology to professional photo lab owners. From 1992-2005, I was a partner in
`
`the Imaging Prepress and Multimedia Forum and Digital Imaging Seminars, a
`
`seminar series sponsored by Apple Computer, Eastman Kodak, and SuperMac
`
` 
`
`3
`
`PETITIONERS Ex. 1021, p. 3
`
`

`

`Technologies. My partners and I similarly traveled the country promoting
`
`different products from our sponsors—primarily Apple Quadra computers and
`
`Kodak scanners. From 1973-1992, I was the Founder, Vice President, and general
`
`manager of Tintype Graphic Arts in San Luis Obispo, which was a graphic design,
`
`photography, typography, and prepress business.
`
`(7.)
`
`I have designed and implemented numerous digitized workflow
`
`printing systems including a script-based system for automated business card
`
`printing using cathode-ray-tube typesetting machines and a similar system for
`
`automating the production of professional résumés. I also wrote a meta-language
`
`for creating typesetting code for book composition. In 1992, working with another
`
`consultant, I converted a large garment printing company from analog printing
`
`processes to a full digital system using Macintosh computers, Agfa imagesetters,
`
`inline processing machines, and a precision pin-register system for making screen-
`
`printing stencils for garment printing. As a consultant, I have made numerous
`
`recommendations for commercial offset printing companies for the implementation
`
`of digital prepress systems, and methods for managing color in printing production.
`
`(8.)
`
`I have published a book through Adobe Press, entitled the “Print
`
`Publishing Guide,” which is a reference book for those who prepare artwork for
`
`printing. I have also published an electronic book, called “Beep!,” which is now in
`
`its fifth edition and explains how to use AppleScript. I am the author of “The
`
` 
`
`4
`
`PETITIONERS Ex. 1021, p. 4
`
`

`

`Complete Guide to Trapping,” a book on the subject of color trapping for file
`
`preparation in printing (trapping is the intentional overlap of colors to prevent
`
`visible register error on a printing press). That book, now out of print, sold nearly
`
`10,000 copies. I have also published technical papers in the field of printing and
`
`publishing technologies.
`
`(9.)
`
`I make this declaration based on personal knowledge and I am
`
`competent to testify about the matters set forth herein.
`
`(10.) A copy of my lasted curriculum vitae (CV) is attached to this
`
`declaration as Appendix A.
`
`B.
`
`
`
`Basis of My Opinion and Materials Considered
`
`(11.) I have reviewed the ‘155 patent and its file history. I have reviewed
`
`the prior art and other documents and materials cited herein. My opinions are also
`
`based in part upon my education, training, research, knowledge, and experience.
`
`For ease of reference, the full list of information that I have considered is included
`
`in Appendix B.
`
`C.
`
` Understanding of Legal Standards
`
`1. Obviousness
`
`(12.) A patent claim is invalid if the differences between the patented
`
`subject matter and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would
`
` 
`
`5
`
`PETITIONERS Ex. 1021, p. 5
`
`

`

`have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person of ordinary skill
`
`in the art. I am informed that this standard is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
`
`(13.) When considering the issues of obviousness, I am to do the following:
`
`(i) determine the scope and content of the prior art; (ii) ascertain the differences
`
`between the prior art and the claims at issue; (iii) resolve the level of ordinary skill
`
`in the pertinent art; and (iv) consider objective evidence of non-obviousness. I
`
`appreciate that secondary considerations must be assessed as part of the overall
`
`obviousness analysis (i.e. as opposed to analyzing the prior art, reaching a tentative
`
`conclusion, and then assessing whether objective indicia alter that conclusion).
`
`(14.) Put another way, my understanding is that not all innovations are
`
`patentable. Even if a claimed product or method is not explicitly described in its
`
`entirety in a single prior art reference, the patent claim will still be denied if the
`
`claim would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
`
`the patent application filing.
`
`(15.) In determining whether the subject matter as a whole would have been
`
`considered obvious at the time that the patent application was filed by a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art, I have been informed of several principles regarding the
`
`combination of elements of the prior art:
`
`a. First, a combination of familiar elements according to known
`methods is likely to be obvious when it yields predictable results.
`
` 
`
`6
`
`PETITIONERS Ex. 1021, p. 6
`
`

`

`b. Second, if a person of ordinary skill in the art can implement a
`“predictable variation” in a prior art device, and would see the
`benefit from doing so, such a variation would be obvious. In
`particular, when there is pressure to solve a problem and there are
`a finite number of identifiable, predictable solutions, it would be
`reasonable for a person of ordinary skill to pursue those options
`that fall within his or her technical grasp. If such a process leads to
`the claimed invention, then the latter is not an innovation, but more
`the result of ordinary skill and common sense.
`
`(16.) The “teaching, suggestion, or motivation” test is a useful guide in
`
`establishing a rationale for combining elements of the prior art. This test poses the
`
`question as to whether there is an explicit teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the
`
`prior art to combine prior art elements in a way that realizes the claimed invention.
`
`Though useful to the obviousness inquiry, I understand that this test should not be
`
`treated as a rigid rule. It is not necessary to seek out precise teachings; it is
`
`permissible to consider the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art (who is considered to have an ordinary level of creativity and is not
`
`an “automaton”) would employ.
`
`II.
`
`Description of the Relevant Field and the Relevant Timeframe
`
`(17.) I have carefully reviewed the ‘155 patent .
`
`(18.) Based on my review of this material, I believe that the relevant field
`
`for the purposes of the ‘155 patent is printing and publishing systems. I have been
`
`informed that the relevant timeframe is on or before July 30, 1999.
`
` 
`
`7
`
`PETITIONERS Ex. 1021, p. 7
`
`

`

`(19.) As described in Section I above and as shown in my CV, I have
`
`extensive experience in the field of printing and publishing. Based on my
`
`experience, I have a good understanding of the relevant field in the relevant
`
`timeframe.
`
`III.
`
`The Person of Ordinary Skill in the Relevant Field in the Relevant
`Timeframe
`(20.) I have been informed that “a person of ordinary skill in the relevant
`
`field” is a hypothetical person to whom an expert in the relevant field could assign
`
`a routine task with reasonable confidence that the task would be successfully
`
`carried out. I have been informed that the level of skill in the art is evidenced by
`
`prior art references. The prior art discussed herein demonstrates 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.
`
`(21.) Based on my experience, I have an understanding of the capabilities
`
`of a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field. I have supervised and directed
`
`many such persons over the course of my career. Further, I had those capabilities
`
`myself at the time the patent was effectively filed.
`
` 
`
`8
`
`PETITIONERS Ex. 1021, p. 8
`
`

`

`IV.
`
`Engineering Principles Underlying the ‘155 Patent
`
`(22.) The ‘155 patent relates to a system and method for providing printing
`
`and publishing services over a communication network, such as the internet. 1
`
`More particularly, the ‘155 patent claims the basic and widely published idea of
`
`using a communication network to connect the creative or front-end of the printing
`
`and publishing industry (e.g., graphic artists, publishers, and those creating page
`
`designs) with the services end (e.g., service bureaus and printing facilities that
`
`actually prepare for printing, and print, the designs created by the front-end users).
`
`In other words, the ‘155 patent claims a digitized workflow connecting end-users
`
`performing page building operations to the companies that perform prepress and
`
`printing operations, such as an intermediary service bureau and a printer, or a
`
`company performing both functions. For this to be appreciated, a background of
`
`the three relevant aspects of the claimed invention – page building, prepress, and
`
`printing operations – is provided below.
`
`(23.) I will sometimes refer to the state of the art as “before the ‘155
`
`patent.” Accordingly, when I speak about the state of the art “before the ‘155
`
`patent,” I mean at least before July 30, 1999.
`
`                                                            
`1 See, e.g., Ex. 1001 at 1:7-10.
`
` 
`
`9
`
`PETITIONERS Ex. 1021, p. 9
`
`

`

`A.
`
` Overview of Printing Operations
`
`(24.) From the time of Johannes Gutenberg, who brought movable type and
`
`mass-produced printing to Western Europe in the mid-15th century, to the mid-
`
`20th century, the printing industry relied primarily on a printing process, called
`
`relief printing or letterpress, that uses a relief image pressed against a piece of
`
`paper to make a printed image. Other printing processes were developed in the late
`
`18th century and into the 19th century, but the majority of printed pieces produced
`
`well into the 20th century were printed by the same process used by Gutenberg
`
`hundreds of years earlier.
`
`
`
`Figure 1 – “Type” case from type metal. The image is raised in relief above the body of
`the letters. Illustration by the author from a forthcoming book on printing processes.
`
`(25.) In 1796, the invention of lithographic printing – printing an image
`
`from a slab of limestone – changed the character of illustrative printing, because
`
`the image on the limestone could be painted or lettered directly onto the stone.
`
` 
`
`10
`
`PETITIONERS Ex. 1021, p. 10
`
`

`

`This form of printing became very popular, but still remained a minority producer
`
`because of the complexity of making the image on the stone (backwards!), and the
`
`complexity of printing with lithographic stones. The invention of offset
`
`lithography in the early 20th century set the stage for the massive shift in printing
`
`production that took place over the following 50 years. Offset lithography changed
`
`the lithographic process from imaging on slabs of limestone to imaging on thin and
`
`light sheets of aluminum, which were subsequently wrapped around the cylinder of
`
`a printing press, as shown in Figure 2 (below).
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 2 – Two printing units of a modern offset lithographic press, showing how sheets of paper
`are printed between the Blanket cylinder and the Impression cylinder. Illustration from
`Print Publishing Guide, by Brian P. Lawler, published by Adobe Press, 2005.
`
`(26.) By the mid-1960s, offset lithography was becoming the predominant
`
`printing process around the world. Printing plates were inexpensive and easy to
`
` 
`
`11
`
`PETITIONERS Ex. 1021, p. 11
`
`

`

`handle, and the processes for making images on those plates were relatively
`
`simple. The quality of offset printing is also superior to most relief printing.
`
`Offset, as it began to be known, quickly pushed relief printing into the back shop,
`
`and ultimately into museums.
`
`
`
`Figure 3 - A paste-up was made-up of type from letterpress proofs or photocomposition
`machines, and the other line art was added as pasted “photostat” copies of line art made on a
`process camera. Illustration by Brian P. Lawler.
`
`(27.) In its early days, offset lithography required typography made by
`
`letterpress typesetting (relief images), which were then printed on a smooth white
`
`“repro” proofing material with black ink. These images, and other line art were
`
`subsequently assembled by an artist onto a heavy paper sheet called a “paste-up”
`
`which was comprised of all the parts of a printing project that were strictly black
`
`and white (no tonality). The paste-up was then photographed onto a large sheet of
`
`film using a large camera called a “process camera.” Photographs, called
`
` 
`
`12
`
`PETITIONERS Ex. 1021, p. 12
`
`

`

`“continuous tone” images (or “CT”), were separately re-photographed on the same
`
`process cameras. This involved putting a special glass or plastic screen between
`
`the image and the photosensitive film in the camera. Light traveling through the
`
`lens of the process camera had to pass through the special screen – called a
`
`halftone screen – on its way to the film. The continuous-tone image was broken
`
`into thousands of microscopically small dots, the size of these dots being
`
`proportional to the tones in the original photo. Each dot is solid black, but the size
`
`of the dots vary to create the illusion of tonality. After a bit of retouching, the
`
`negative was then positioned for exposure to a printing plate, done in a vacuum
`
`frame with an ultraviolet light source to expose the printing plate.
`
`(28.) For early offset printing, the marriage of the two films was an
`
`important step in making a printing plate and the printed product. Men and women
`
`skilled in the trade worked over large light tables (glass-topped tables with a light
`
`source underneath), assembling the two (or more) films to make a set of “flats”
`
`with which a printing plate would be made. The steps involved the accurate
`
`positioning of the film pieces, retouching photographic defects (called
`
`“opaquing”), masking non-image areas with photo-safe materials (photo-safe red
`
`gelatin film and orange paper), and making openings in these same materials to
`
`allow light to show through when making the printing plates. The pieces of film,
`
`and their plastic and paper carriers, were positioned using small steel register pins,
`
` 
`
`13
`
`PETITIONERS Ex. 1021, p. 13
`
`

`

`which allowed the quick and accurate positioning of the various film overlays and
`
`masks.
`
`(29.) Once the films were completed, a printing plate could be made. These
`
`plates are typically made of a porous aluminum sheet, usually 0.012 in. thick. The
`
`plate is coated in manufacture with an emulsion that is sensitive to ultraviolet light.
`
`In a separate step, the plates are placed face-up in a frame, with the film materials
`
`(called “flats”) hung on the register pins on top. A glass cover is closed over the
`
`top of the sandwich of materials, a vacuum pump is activated, and the air between
`
`the film and the plate is removed. Once the air is removed, the two are said to be
`
`in intimate contact. The operator then activated an ultraviolet light to expose the
`
`photosensitive areas of the plate through the clear areas of the negative. These
`
`exposures were typically from one to three minutes in duration.
`
`(30.) If the printed project included photographs, those were exposed in a
`
`second exposure on the same plate (called a “double-burn”) in the same vacuum
`
`device. Some jobs required several layers of film negatives to be exposed in series
`
`to make a complete image on the plate. Once the exposure was complete, the plate
`
`was processed to remove the non-image areas (those not exposed to ultraviolet
`
`light). The resulting printing plate had a visible image where the parts that print
`
`are visible as a green-colored, smooth image, while the non-image areas are
`
`smooth to the touch, but show bare aluminum. The finished plates are punched for
`
` 
`
`14
`
`PETITIONERS Ex. 1021, p. 14
`
`

`

`press register on a large and very accurate punch table, then bent along one edge to
`
`create what is known as a “gripper edge.” Once these modifications are made, the
`
`plates are wrapped around the plate cylinder of the offset press, clamped to that
`
`cylinder, and prepared for printing by adding ink and water. An offset printing
`
`plate will typically last for 50,000 to 100,000 impressions without any special
`
`treatment. Plates needed for longer runs can be baked in a special oven that
`
`hardens the image area on the plate, giving it greater resistance to wear, and
`
`allowing it to be run longer on the press.
`
`(31.) In the 1960s, the printing industry put its engineers and inventors to
`
`work to eliminate the tedious process of setting type with metal characters,
`
`proofing, and making paste-ups of the images (then discarding the metal type).
`
`Over the next ten years, manufacturers came to market with ever-better
`
`technologies for making type photographically. Several generations of these
`
`machines allowed for improvements in quality – optical sharpness, specifically –
`
`and speed. Unfortunately, there was no method available for making photographic
`
`images with these machines. Photos continued to be handled the same way, by re-
`
`photographing them with the big process cameras, making separate film sheets for
`
`the photos, and assembling these with the type later on the light table.
`
`(32.) As computers became more commonplace in the field of graphic
`
`design, companies sought to create an electronic version of the graphic arts
`
` 
`
`15
`
`PETITIONERS Ex. 1021, p. 15
`
`

`

`industry. The first desktop computer software for page layout and typography was
`
`PageMaker, developed in 1984. The next essential piece in the electronic
`
`publishing puzzle was the creation of a page description language (“PDL”), which
`
`became PostScript developed by Adobe Systems. These software advancements
`
`resulted in the need for an output device capable of high-resolution output. This
`
`device, was an imagesetter. An imagesetter is capable of making typographic
`
`images and photos on photographic film or photographic paper from PostScript
`
`language files, something that had never been done before. The film generated by
`
`these imagesetters was almost always used to expose aluminum printing plates for
`
`offset lithographic printing.
`
`(33.) Imagesetters gave way to machines that bypassed the film, and made
`
`marks directly onto the aluminum printing plate. Called platesetters, these devices
`
`take the very high-resolution graphic information necessary for a printing job, and
`
`use the instructions to modulate various kinds of laser beams to expose (by a
`
`variety of means) the image areas of a printing plate directly. The result is higher
`
`resolution, tremendous precision, and impressive speed.
`
`(34.) The economics of conventional printing, e.g., offset, benefitted from
`
`the reduction of labor in making film negatives ready for plate exposure. All of the
`
`steps required to position, correct, and expose film flats to aluminum printing
`
`plates were reduced essentially to one step: expose the plate.
`
` 
`
`16
`
`PETITIONERS Ex. 1021, p. 16
`
`

`

`Figure 4 - This is a cut-away illustration of the Kodak Trendsetter platesetter. Illustration
`by Brian P. Lawler.
`
`(35.) Additionally, as a graphic designer worked, he or she would
`
`occasionally need to make a printed proof of a graphic file to show to the client or
`
`send for copy editing and proofreading. Various technologies worked for this
`
`process over the years. Color proofs were sometimes difficult and costly to make,
`
`due to the printers and consumable supplies used to make them. For example,
`
`similar to imagesetting, color-sensitive films and printing plates were used as color
`
`proofing systems. DuPont introduced its Cromalin film-to-plate product in 1972.
`
`As a result, most small graphic arts firms used black and white laser printers to
`
`make inexpensive proofs of their projects. Eventually, color printers came down
`
` 
`
`17
`
`PETITIONERS Ex. 1021, p. 17
`
`

`

`in price, and the quality rose to the point where today most graphic design firms
`
`have very capable color laser printers for proofing, and medium-format (up to 24-
`
`inch) ink-jet proof printers for making high quality color proofs to show their
`
`clients.
`
`(36.) In the 1990s, the most common color proof printers used a technology
`
`called dye-sublimation, where the image was imparted to a print by a thermal
`
`imaging head applied through a series of color ribbons in four successive stages.2
`
`The printers were Moderately expensive – about $20,000, and the materials were
`
`quite costly – about $10 in supplies for a two page proof. The end product was
`
`usually very nice, and it allowed a client to see a facsimile of their project while it
`
`was in-process.
`
`(37.) With few exceptions, the prepress house would generate the final
`
`color proof for the client. This proof, sometimes called a contract proof, would
`
`show both the photos and the text at high resolution, and with color as accurate as
`
`possible. When the client reviewed this proof, they were expected to sign it,
`
`creating a contract with the prepress firm, and the designer. An effort has also
`
`been made over the past decade to move proofing off of printed materials and onto
`
`                                                            
`2 Ex. 1010 at pp. 69 and 70.
`
` 
`
`18
`
`PETITIONERS Ex. 1021, p. 18
`
`

`

`the displays of computers. Called soft proofs, the final document is made in a PDF
`
`form that can be displayed on a computer display to get the client’s approval.3
`
`B.
`
`
`
`Electronic Publishing
`
`1.
`
`Page Building Operations
`
`(38.) As discussed above, as computers became more commonplace in the
`
`field of graphic design, companies sought to create an electronic version of the
`
`graphic arts industry. The first desktop computer software for page layout and
`
`typography was PageMaker, developed in 1984.
`
`(39.) PageMaker was a computer program from Aldus Corporation, first
`
`running on a Macintosh computer, which provided graphic artists the ability to
`
`position text and graphics (but not photos in the earliest editions) on a page created
`
`on the computer screen. It was the digital equivalent of a paste-up. Among its
`
`features was the ability to render an on-screen image of typography in the correct
`
`choice of font, size, and position. Several years later, with the invention of digital
`
`scanners to convert photographic film to digital images, PageMaker allowed a
`
`designer to place a photo into a page layout along with the text. This made it
`
`possible, for the first time in history, to create film for a printing plate in one piece
`
`– the text and images combined into one sheet of film from an imagesetter.
`
`                                                            
`3 Ex. 1009 at p. 83 (discussing how in 1997 Agfa designed a digital workflow that
`allowed for soft proofing); see also id. at pp. 167-168 (discussing the generation of
`PDF soft-proofs using PDFWriter or Distiller).
`19
`
` 
`
`PETITIONERS Ex. 1021, p. 19
`
`

`

`(40.) One of the issues with page-building is the sheer size of the finished
`
`product incorporating digital photos at an adequate resolution for offset printing.
`
`A one-square-inch digital photo of adequate resolution for printing on an offset
`
`press is 360,000 kilobytes (often referred to as KB) of data. When producing a
`
`simple brochure, for example, of 16 pages, it’s not uncommon to have several
`
`photos on each page. If every page of a brochure had three images on it, each
`
`approximately 3 x 4 in., the volume of photo data would be approximately 13
`
`megabytes (usually expressed as MB) of data per page. The volume of photo data
`
`alone would total about 210 MB for the 16 page brochure. Text and other graphics
`
`would add a small amount to each page, as these items occupy much less space in
`
`computer memory and storage. When photos are included in a digital document,
`
`the file size grows very quickly.
`
`2. PostScript
`
`(41.) Defined as a PDL, PostScript is both a programming language and a
`
`page description language, one which can control imaging on photo paper, film,
`
`paper, or aluminum printing plates. If you want to carry out a simple mathematical
`
`process, perhaps multiply 3 times 8, PostScript can do that. It has all of the
`
`trappings of a programming language: variables, mathematical operators, Boolean
`
`operators (logic functions), pointers, subroutines, storage routines, libraries, etc.
`
`PostScript can take the calculations of a page of printing and cause a specific
`
` 
`
`20
`
`PETITIONERS Ex. 1021, p. 20
`
`

`

`machine to put marks onto a substrate – photographic or otherwise. PostScript is
`
`also resolution-independent – a very important component of its design – so the
`
`same files that printed as a proof also printed as plate-ready negatives on an
`
`imagesetter (at graphic arts quality 2,540 ppi resolution).
`
`(42.) The PostScript language uses plain-English commands (or close-to-
`
`plain-English), it uses simple geometric instructions, Cartesian coordinates, and it
`
`can be learned at a very basic level in minutes. For example, the commands to
`
`draw a rectangle are:
`
`newpath
`144 144 moveto
`144 0 rlineto
`0 144 rlineto
`-144 0 rlineto
`closepath
`stroke
`showpage
`
`(43.) This will draw a two-inch square, two inches from the lower-left
`
`corner of a page, then print the page. (The unit of measure in PostScript is the
`
`Point, which is 1/72 in. or 0.0138 in. The “144” values above are two inches
`
`each). In the early days of PostScript there were various software tools for
`
`downloading this code to the PostScript device (a laser printer, an imagesetter, or a
`
`platesetter). The method for “printing” that page today, and at the time the ‘155
`
`patent was filed, is to distill the code into a PDF file using an Adobe application
`
` 
`
`21
`
`PETITIONERS Ex. 1021, p. 21
`
`

`

`called Acrobat Distiller. Once it’s distilled into PDF, it can be opened in Adobe
`
`Acrobat or Adobe Reader (or any other PDF-capable program).
`
`3. PDF
`
`(44.) Adobe upgraded the PostScript language twice in the 1990s to
`
`incorporate some of the problems with the language, and then realized that they
`
`had to make a fresh start to keep up with the demand for high-quality and high-
`
`resolution color graphic arts output. Adobe’s Portable Document Format (PDF)
`
`file encoding scheme, released in 1993, became the foundation of the language that
`
`has replaced PostScript. PDF has, since before the filing of the ‘155 patent and to
`
`this day, the ability to encode documents with PostScript language operators
`
`embedded, and various interpreters have been created that convert PDF documents
`
`into the control language that makes high-resolution output possible. When you
`
`look at the internal code of a PDF file, you will still find some PostScript language
`
`functions. Additionally, like PostScript files, PDF files are also PDL files.
`
`(45.) PDF supports all of PostScript’s functionality, and then adds support
`
`for embedded type fonts, object transparency, object-level and document-level
`
`color management, layers, non-printing objects, color trapping, and support for
`
`colors beyond the traditional four process colors to support “spot” colors and high
`
`definition color printing (printing with more than the traditional four colors). 4
`
`                                                            
`4 See generally Ex. 1013.
`
` 
`
`22
`
`PETITIONERS Ex. 1021, p. 22
`
`

`

`(46.) Rasterizers are the devices that interpret high-level commands in
`
`various programming environments, and convert the commands into pixel-based
`
`files by applying a matrix grid at the desired resolution over the virtual objects
`
`desired to determine which machine spots are to be drawn and which are not.5 A
`
`rasterizer is often called a RIP, which stands for Raster Image Processor.
`
`4.
`
`Storage and Networks
`
`(47.) The storage and processing capacity of computers as well as the
`
`ability to network computers together also played a large role in the development
`
`of electronic publishing. Files of many gigabytes are needed to expose a printing
`
`plate in one pass. The processors, memory chips, and hard drives necessary for the
`
`speedy transfer of information from high-level instructions to a spot-by-spot
`
`instruction set required maturity. As such, computing power of this magnitude
`
`took years to develop at prices that were acceptable to the graphic arts industry.
`
`(48.) One of the main issues was storing the images, text, and other data
`
`that would be used for graphic design. Graphic arts scanners were i

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket