throbber
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 IPR2014-00789
`Patent 6,738,155
`___________________________
`
`REQUEST TO FILE CORRECTED EXHIBIT
`
`Patent Owner CTP Innovations, LLC respectfully requests leave to file the
`
`
`
`attached corrected Exhibit 2014. The parties have conferred, and the Petitioners
`
`do not oppose this request.
`
`
`
`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 10, 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 10, 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
`
`

`
`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 IPR2014-00789
`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 2014-00789
`Page 1
`
`
`

`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`QUALIFICATIONS ........................................................................................ 3
`
`II. MATERIALS CONSIDERED ........................................................................ 5
`
`III. SUMMARY OF OPINIONS ........................................................................... 6
`
`IV. OPINIONS AND BASES FOR THOSE OPINIONS ..................................... 9
`
`A. One of Ordinary Skill in the Art. .......................................................... 9
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Claims 1-9 Are Not Obvious from Jebens, Apogee and OPI
`White Paper ......................................................................................... 10
`
`Claims 1-2. 4-5 and 9 Are Not Obvious from Dorfman,
`Apogee, OPI White Paper and Andersson .......................................... 17
`
`Claims 3 and 6-8 Are Not Obvious from Dorfman, Apogee,
`OPI White Paper, Andersson and Adams II........................................ 26
`
`V.
`
`CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................................... 29
`
`CTP Exhibit 2014
`Eastman Kodak v. CTP Innovations
`IPR 2014-00789
`Page 2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`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 2014-00789
`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 2014-00789
`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
`
`Computer's OPI White Paper (“OPI White Paper”), the PDF Printing and
`
`CTP Exhibit 2014
`Eastman Kodak v. CTP Innovations
`IPR 2014-00789
`Page 5
`
`
`
`

`
`Publishing guide by Mattias Andersson and others (“Andersson”), and Computer-
`
`to-Plate: Automating the Printing Industry by Richard M. Adams II and Frank J.
`
`Romano (“Adams II”).
`
`
`
`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 1-9: obviousness based on Jebens, Apogee and OPI White Paper;
`
`b. Claims 1-2, 4-5, and 9: obviousness based on Dorfman, Apogee, OPI
`
`White Paper and Andersson;
`
`
`
`c. Claims 3 and 6-8: obviousness based on Dorfman, Apogee, OPI White
`
`Paper, Andersson and Adams II.
`
`CTP Exhibit 2014
`Eastman Kodak v. CTP Innovations
`IPR 2014-00789
`Page 6
`
`
`
`

`
`I understand that the trial is limited to the three 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 13-15 below summarize my opinion as to the patentability of claims 1-
`
`9 of the ’155 patent.
`
`
`
`13. Claims 1-9 of the ’155 patent are not obvious in light of the
`
`combination of Jebens, Apogee and OPI White Paper 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 that the end-user facility, the printing
`
`company facility, and the central service facility are all coupled to the same
`
`communication network.
`
`
`
`
`
`(b) Neither Apogee nor OPI White Paper disclose an end-user
`
`facility, printing company facility, and central service facility all coupled to the
`
`same communication network.
`
`CTP Exhibit 2014
`Eastman Kodak v. CTP Innovations
`IPR 2014-00789
`Page 7
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`14. Claims 1-2, 4-5 and 9 of the ’155 patent are not obvious in light of the
`
`combination of Dorfman, Apogee, OPI White Paper and Andersson 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 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.
`
`
`
`15. Claims 3 and 6-8 of the ’155 patent are not obvious in light of the
`
`combination of Dorfman, Apogee, OPI White Paper, Andersson and Adams II
`
`because, as discussed above with regard to claims 1-2, 4-5 and 9, 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 2014-00789
`Page 8
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`(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.
`
`
`
`IV. OPINIONS AND BASES FOR THOSE OPINIONS
`
`
`
`
`
`A. One of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`16. 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 therefor well qualified to testify regarding what
`
`one of skill in the art would have understood at the time of the invention.
`
`CTP Exhibit 2014
`Eastman Kodak v. CTP Innovations
`IPR 2014-00789
`Page 9
`
`
`
`

`
`B. Claims 1-9 Are Not Obvious from Jebens, Apogee and OPI White
`
`Paper
`
`17.
`
`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.
`
`
`
`18. A POSITA would recognize that claim 1 requires an end user facility,
`
`a central service facility, and a printing company facility coupled to the same
`
`communication network. A POSITA also would recognize that claim 1 also
`
`requires that the central service facility provide storage, file processing, remote
`
`access, and content management operations. A POSITA further would recognize
`
`that claim 1 requires that the printing company facility provide printing operations,
`
`including providing imposition operations and generating a plate-ready file from a
`
`PDF file. See ’155 Patent (Ex. 1001), claim 1, elements (a), (c) and (e).
`
`
`
`19. Claim 1 is careful to specify that the end user facility is coupled to a
`
`communication network, the printing company facility is coupled to said
`
`communication network, and the central service facility also is coupled to said
`
`
`
`CTP Exhibit 2014
`Eastman Kodak v. CTP Innovations
`IPR 2014-00789
`Page 10
`
`

`
`communication network. See id., claim 1, elements (a), (c) and (e). The
`
`specification supports this interpretation, and notes that the network can be a
`
`private network or a public network. Id. at 4:25-33. As the specification notes, the
`
`intent is to integrate various processes into "one real time system." Id. This
`
`addresses the problem with delays and the fragmented nature of convention
`
`printing production systems. Id. at 1:52-65. This integration is reflected in the
`
`preamble to claim 1, and is made a part of the claims through the requirement of a
`
`single communication network.
`
`
`
`20.
`
`Jebens does not disclose an end user facility, a central service facility,
`
`and a printing company facility all coupled to a single communication network.
`
`Jebens speaks about communications between an advertising agency and a host
`
`system, and between the host system and jobbers or suppliers (i.e., printers and the
`
`like). Jebens (Ex. 1005), at 4:52-65. Jebens, however, does not disclose or
`
`suggest that the first user (e.g., advertising agency) directly communicates with the
`
`second user (e.g., printing facility). Figure 1 of Jebens (reproduced below) depicts
`
`an embodiment of Jebens's data management and work-order delivery system:
`
`
`
`CTP Exhibit 2014
`Eastman Kodak v. CTP Innovations
`IPR 2014-00789
`Page 11
`
`

`
`
`
`Id. at 4:20–23. The system comprises a host system 10 in communication with a
`
`variety of users, such as browsers and client orderers 12, image providers 14, and
`
`suppliers 16. Id. at 6:52–65. The host system software includes, inter alia, an
`
`image database that archives low and high resolution copies of digital image files.
`
`Id. at 8:9–13. The system is “ideally suited for facilitating publication and the
`
`like.” Id. at 4:66–67. Image providers 14 may include a corporation that stores
`
`digital images of its products on host system 10 to more efficiently use its in-house
`
`
`
`CTP Exhibit 2014
`Eastman Kodak v. CTP Innovations
`IPR 2014-00789
`Page 12
`
`

`
`computer storage facilities. Id. at 4:67–5:5, 6:55–60. Browsers and client orderers
`
`12 may include an advertising agency that the corporation hires to create a
`
`brochure using the stored images, and suppliers 16 may include the printer that will
`
`print the finished brochure. Id. at 5:5–10, 6:54–65.
`
`
`
`21.
`
`Jebens discloses that communication between host system 10 and
`
`users 12 and 16 “can be effected by any known means of connectivity,” such as
`
`“through local area networks or wide area networks,” or “hardwired to one another
`
`as an intranet.” Id. at 6:66–7:4–20. Users 12 and 16 (corresponding to the
`
`advertising agency and several options for printing companies, respectively) do not
`
`disclose the use of a single network. Instead, as shown on Figure 1 of Jebens, user
`
`12 communicates with the hosting system via a network separate and apart from
`
`the communication network used by hosting system to communicate with one of
`
`the several printing companies that are separate users 16. Jebens shows no
`
`communication network established between user 12 and users 16. Once user 12
`
`sends the work order to the host site, the host system must establish a second
`
`communication network by dialing or sending a network request to the supplier,
`
`establishing a valid communication link, passing log in information before it can
`
`transmit the job order. Id. at 2:40-42, 60-63. Such separate and distinct networks
`
`
`
`CTP Exhibit 2014
`Eastman Kodak v. CTP Innovations
`IPR 2014-00789
`Page 13
`
`

`
`make sense in Jebens because the host system is logging into the communication
`
`network for a specific printing company as selected by user 12 or the host system.
`
`
`
`22. Jebens further discusses this in the context 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: 27-34; 14:45-50. The local documents contained in
`
`the work order, and the original high resolution data files, are compressed and
`
`forwarded to the receiving user (i.e., printing facility). Id. at 14:55-66. 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
`
`CTP Exhibit 2014
`Eastman Kodak v. CTP Innovations
`IPR 2014-00789
`Page 14
`
`
`
`

`
`files from a browser or client such as an advertising agency to a jobber or supplier
`
`such as a printer.”).
`
`
`
`23. Thus, the first user logs into the host site to browse and download
`
`images, and to upload a work order to the work site. Id. at 20:19-33; 21:29-36.
`
`Once the first user sends the work order to the host site, id. at 22:36-43, the host
`
`site prepares a job order for transmission to the second user, id. at 22:44-55. The
`
`host site must establish a second communication network to connect to the
`
`destination site by dialing or sending a network request, establishing a valid
`
`communication
`
`link, and then passing log in information before finally
`
`transmitting the job order. Id. at 22:59-63. It is the host system of Jebens that
`
`sends an email or fax to the second user to notify them that a job order is being
`
`sent, and it is the host system that sends an email to the first user notifying them
`
`that the order has been sent and received by the specified destination. Id. at 15:1-
`
`17; 23:3-8. There is no communication between the first user and the second
`
`users, and no communication network established between the first user and the
`
`second users.
`
`
`
`24.
`
`Jebens thus directs a particular job order to a particular supplier (e.g.,
`
`printer facility) by having the host site logging into each particular supplier's local
`
`network or system independently as needed. While the communications between
`
`CTP Exhibit 2014
`Eastman Kodak v. CTP Innovations
`IPR 2014-00789
`Page 15
`
`
`
`

`
`the host system and the suppliers may occur over the Internet, or private networks,
`
`this should not be confused with an end user facility, a central service facility, and
`
`a printing company facility all coupled to a single communication network. In
`
`fact, changing the system of Jebens to do so would change the principle of
`
`operation of Jebens, and render it unfit for its intended purpose 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. Id. at Abstract; see
`
`also id. at 4:59-62. Jebens makes readily apparent that its system is intended to
`
`enable the first user to cause the host system to transit documents created by the
`
`first user and copies of high resolution images stored by the host system to one of a
`
`number of potential suppliers, who each have their own, local communications
`
`networks for receiving submission of job orders. Id. at 22:26-31; 23:36-44.
`
`
`
`25.
`
`I note that Apogee is used to provide a teaching of normalizing
`
`incoming files into PDF digital master files and subsequently rendering those files
`
`through the PDF RIP process into PIF files. See Apogee (Ex. 1007), at 6-7. It
`
`does not disclose an end user facility, a central service facility, and a printing
`
`company facility all coupled to a single communication network, and thus does not
`
`cure the defect discussed above for Jebens.
`
`
`
`CTP Exhibit 2014
`Eastman Kodak v. CTP Innovations
`IPR 2014-00789
`Page 16
`
`

`
`
`
`26.
`
`I note that OPI White Paper is used to provide a teaching of
`
`performing imposition operations at a printing company facility. See OPI White
`
`Paper (Ex. 1008), at pp. 33, 40. It does not disclose an end user facility, a central
`
`service facility, and a printing company facility all coupled to a single
`
`communication network, and thus does not cure the defect discussed above for
`
`Jebens.
`
`
`
`27. A POSITA would recognize that claims 2-9 require the same elements
`
`as claim 1 as described above, and thus would not find it obvious to combine
`
`Jebens, Apogee and OPI White Paper in the suggested manner for these claims for
`
`the same reasons given above with regard to claim 1.
`
`C. Claims 1-2, 4-5 and 9 Are Not Obvious from Dorfman, Apogee,
`
`OPI White Paper and Andersson
`
`28. A POSITA would recognize that the Dorfman reference describes a
`
`
`
`
`
`
`“response on demand” digital printing system with variable data. A digital printing
`
`system is one where a digital-based file is printed directly to a variety of media
`
`without the use of printing plates. Digital printing systems are an alternative to
`
`traditional offset printing methods which require the creation and use of printing
`
`plates. Because it does not involve printing plates, it allows for on-demand
`
`printing, short turnaround times, and variable data or variable information printing.
`
`
`
`CTP Exhibit 2014
`Eastman Kodak v. CTP Innovations
`IPR 2014-00789
`Page 17
`
`

`
`Digital printing systems also are often used for customized printing or personalized
`
`printing.
`
`
`
`29. Chapter 8 (“Digital Printing”) in The Columbia Guide to Digital
`
`Publishing (Ex. 2015) (a true and correct copy of which is filed herewith) provides
`
`a comprehensive overview of digital printing, and
`
`the advantages and
`
`disadvantages of digital printing as opposed to traditional offset printing methods
`
`using printing plates. One such factor is cost:
`
`
`
`Offset has a higher cost for starting up a job, because plates
`
`must be prepared and some paper is wasted during the initial run-up to
`
`the first good sheet. The binding process that goes with offset (print
`
`in signatures, fold, gather, bind, and trim) can also be more expensive
`
`than the binding process for digital printing, where large signatures
`
`and gathering are not required. But, at present, the cost per page of
`
`the actual printing is lower for offset, and this is the dominant cost in
`
`long runs. So short runs are more economical with digital printing,
`
`and longer runs are more economical with offset.
`
`Id. at p. 53 (original page 378). More specifically, with regard to short-run
`
`printing:
`
`
`
`Some costs are incurred in offset printing before the first good
`
`sheet comes off the press. Two such cost areas, the cost associated
`
`with platemaking and the cost associated with the wasted sheets used
`
`in getting the press “up to color,” are avoided entirely in digital
`
`CTP Exhibit 2014
`Eastman Kodak v. CTP Innovations
`IPR 2014-00789
`Page 18
`
`
`
`

`
`printing. A digital device needs no plate and switches instantly from
`
`one job to the next. Normally, neither paper nor time is wasted during
`
`the switch. This means that if the print run is short, the overall cost
`
`for printing a job digitally can be less than offset even though the cost
`
`per page is higher with digital printing.
`
`Id. at p. 55 (original page 380).
`
`
`
`30. The Columbia Guide also notes that digital printing is used for “on
`
`demand” printing:
`
`Printing on demand is one of two types of printing (the other is
`
`variable-data printing)
`
`that digital printing can address but
`
`conventional printing, which is restricted to producing multiple copies
`
`of the same document, cannot.
`
`
`
`Most printing that is done in the office and the home could be
`
`classified as printing on demand. Items are printed as the need arises,
`
`and only the quantity that can be immediately used in produced--often
`
`just one copy.
`
`Id. at p. 53 (original page 378).
`
`
`
`31. Dorfman clearly describes a “response on demand” digital printing
`
`system with variable data capabilities. Dorfman addresses a problem for users
`
`building dynamic HTML pages in the context of a digital printing system for
`
`producing customized printed materials with variable data. Dorfman specifically
`
`refers to “[v]ariable printing capabilities …for response-on-demand applications,”
`
`
`
`CTP Exhibit 2014
`Eastman Kodak v. CTP Innovations
`IPR 2014-00789
`Page 19
`
`

`
`and to the user “providing some variable or selectable data that would be used to
`
`create a form based on the layout instructions.” Dorfman (Ex. 1006), at p. 2:21-28.
`
`The “user provided variable data” is fed into the system and inserted into a
`
`template for the final printing. Id. at p. 3:10-14. This allows the production of
`
`“customized printing materials”:
`
`
`
`In accordance with one aspect of the present invention, users
`
`are provided with a visual representation of a template for customized
`
`printed materials before user data is entered so the user can better
`
`understand and visualize how the data will ultimately be placed in the
`
`final document.
`
`Id. at p. 3:24-27.
`
`
`
`33. Dorfman describes this as a “response on demand” system:
`
`
`
`The present invention relates to a technique for creating
`
`customized documents or other printed materials. More particularly,
`
`the present invention relates to a technique for creating customized
`
`printed materials utilizing
`
`template
`
`formats, stored
`
`reference
`
`information and user input data.
`
`
`
`It is desirable in modern printing systems to allow a user to
`
`readily customize printed materials for a particular need. For
`
`example, a user may select stored images and combine them with user
`
`specified input data to produce a point of sale (POS) display or the
`
`
`
`CTP Exhibit 2014
`Eastman Kodak v. CTP Innovations
`IPR 2014-00789
`Page 20
`
`

`
`like. Such a “response on demand” system increases production
`
`flexibility and simplifies the design process. …
`
`Id. at p. 1:13-21.
`
`
`
`33. Dorfman also clearly describes examples of applications of such a
`
`system:
`
`
`
`The need for customized printed materials, of course, extends
`
`beyond point of sale displays. For example, direct mail marketers
`
`continually develop advertising flyers and coupons which are sent
`
`through the mail to prospective customers. Event planners and
`
`promoters may need printed materials for use in promoting concerts,
`
`sporting events, live theatrical performances, etcetera. Similarly,
`
`various organizations sometimes utilize custom printed materials to
`
`announce seminars, annual meetings, and the like. In other words, the
`
`possible applications for customized printed materials are virtually
`
`unlimited.
`
`Id. at p. 1:31-32; p. 2:1-6.
`
`
`
`34. The process for the generation of customized printed materials is
`
`shown in Figure 1A of Dorfman (reproduced below):
`
`
`
`CTP Exhibit 2014
`Eastman Kodak v. CTP Innovations
`IPR 2014-00789
`Page 21
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`35.
`
`I further note that Figure 1 of Dorfman (reproduced below) shows the
`
`printer at the production printing system (reference numeral 10) as a digital printer,
`
`not as a traditional offset printing press that would use printing plates. The use of
`
`
`
`CTP Exhibit 2014
`Eastman Kodak v. CTP Innovations
`IPR 2014-00789
`Page 22
`
`

`
`this image, in conjunction with the textual description of the system in Dorfman,
`
`establishes that Dorfman is describing a digital printing system.
`
`
`
`36. This ability to vary some of the elements in the printed document to
`
`
`
`achieve some level of customization and response-on-demand printing is
`
`fundamentally different from the computer-to-plate (“CTP”) system in the ’155
`
`patent. The production of a printing plate is relatively expensive and as a result is
`
`only used when producing a large volume of identical documents. The printing
`
`
`
`CTP Exhibit 2014
`Eastman Kodak v. CTP Innovations
`IPR 2014-00789
`Page 23
`
`

`
`plate approach to large volume printing is not applicable to situations involving on-
`
`demand or customized printing materials, as described in Dorfman. As Dorfman
`
`notes, it is common for a user to need the materials in a short time frame, or desire
`
`changes at the last minute. Further, custom promotional materials often change on
`
`a frequent basis. Id. at p. 2:1-12. So, while printing plates are inexpensive when
`
`producing many identical copies of a document, they would be extremely
`
`expensive if one were to attempt to produce multiple unique documents, or smaller
`
`runs of documents requiring frequent changes or variable data. As a result, a
`
`POSITA would not use a digital printing system as disclosed in Dorfman to
`
`produce printing plates or pl

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