Trials@uspto.gov
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper 15
`Entered: December 30, 2013
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`PRINTING INDUSTRIES OF AMERICA
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`CTP INNOVATIONS, LLC
`Patent Owner
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2013-00489
`Patent 6,738,155
`_______________
`
`
`Before HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP, BENJAMIN D. M. WOOD, and
`BRIAN J. MCNAMARA, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`WOOD, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Denying Petition to Institute Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONERS Ex. 1004, p. 1
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00489
`Patent 6,738,155
`
`
`A.
`
`Background
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Printing Industries of America (“PIA” or “Petitioner”) filed a petition
`
`(Papers 4 and 5, “Pet.”)1 requesting an inter partes review of claims 1-20 of
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,738,155 (Ex. 1201, “the ’155 patent”). CTP Innovations, LLC
`
`(“CTP” or “Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response (Paper 11, “Prelim.
`
`Resp.”). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 314.
`
`The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 314(a), which provides as follows:
`
`THRESHOLD – The Director may not authorize an inter partes
`review to be instituted unless the Director determines that the
`information presented in the petition filed under section 311 and any
`response filed under section 313 shows that there is a reasonable
`likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of
`the claims challenged in the petition.
`
`
`
`Upon consideration of the Petition and the Preliminary Response, and the
`
`exhibits attached thereto, we determine that the Petitioner has not shown a
`
`reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one of the claims
`
`of the ’155 patent. Accordingly, we do not authorize an inter partes review to be
`
`instituted as to any of claims 1-20 of the ’155 patent.
`
`B.
`
`Related Proceedings
`
`PIA discloses that the ’155 patent is involved in 35 co-pending infringement
`
`actions listed in Appendix B of the Petition. Pet., App. B. PIA has also petitioned
`
`
`1 The Petition cover sheet and tables of contents, authorities and exhibits were
`filed separately from the body of the Petition, and have been collectively
`designated Paper 4. The Petition itself has been designated Paper 5.
`
` 2
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONERS Ex. 1004, p. 2
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00489
`Patent 6,738,155
`
`
`for inter partes review of another patent at issue in the co-pending litigation,
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,611,349. See IPR2013-00474, Papers 3, 4 (July 29, 2013).
`
`C.
`
`The Claimed Subject Matter
`
`The ’155 patent relates to “a system and method of providing publishing and
`
`printing services via a communication network.” Ex. 1201, 1:9-10. According to
`
`the ’155 patent, key steps for producing printed materials using a plate process
`
`include: (1) preparing copy elements for reproduction (the “design” stage); (2)
`
`prepress production; (3) platemaking; (4) printing; and (5) binding, finishing and
`
`distribution. Id. at 1:12-15. In the first stage, an end user – e.g., a publisher, direct
`
`marketer, advertising agency, or corporate communication department – uses a
`
`desktop publishing program such as “QuarkXpress” to design “pages” from image
`
`and data files. Id. at 1:16-25. In the prepress production stage, the user-created
`
`pages (also called “copy”) are “transformed into a medium that is reproducible for
`
`printing.” Id. at 1:26-28. This transformation typically involves typesetting, image
`
`capture and color correction, file conversion, “RIPping, proofing, imposition,
`
`filmsetting, and platesetting.” Id. at 1:29-32.
`
`“RIPping” is based on the acronym “RIP,” which stands for raster image
`
`processor. Id. at 7:57-59. A RIP is a hardware or software component that
`
`“rasterizes” an image file – i.e., converts it to a “bitmap” or raster image. Id.
`
`“RIPping” is therefore synonymous with rasterizing. A bitmap “is a digitized
`
`collection of binary pixel information that gives an output device, such [as a
`
`printer, proofer or platesetter,] the ability to image the file to paper, film or plate.”
`
`Id. at 7:59-62. “Proofing” involves creating a sample of the finished product that
`
`is sent to the end user for approval. Id. at 1:32-35. “Imposition” involves
`
`arranging multiple pages into a single flat that can be used to create a printing
`
` 3
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONERS Ex. 1004, p. 3
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00489
`Patent 6,738,155
`
`
`plate. Id. at 1:38-40. According to the ’155 patent, imposition “is particularly
`
`important in the creation of booklets or catalogs, where pages are positioned using
`
`register marks to assist in the stripping, collating, and folding of the printed
`
`product.” Id. at 1:41-44. A printer makes a plate based on the imposed flat, and
`
`uses the plate on a printing press to reproduce the product; the product is then
`
`bound, finished, and distributed in its final form. Id. at 1:45-51.
`
`The ’155 patent describes and claims a publishing and printing system in
`
`which “system components are installed at an end user facility, a printing company
`
`facility, and a central service facility,” each connected to the others via a
`
`communication network. Id. at 2:31-36, 51-56. Figure 1, reproduced below,
`
`depicts an embodiment of the claimed invention:
`
`Figure 1 depicts end user facility 300, printing company facility 400, and
`
`central service facility 105 connected together via either private network 160 or
`
`public network 190. Id. at Fig. 1. In this embodiment, end user facility 300
`
`
`
` 4
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONERS Ex. 1004, p. 4
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00489
`Patent 6,738,155
`
`
`comprises a router, desktop computer for page-building operations, and a color
`
`proofer and black and white printer for high-resolution proofing. Id. at 7:38-40;
`
`Figs. 1, 2, 5. Printing company facility 400 comprises a router, a server, a desktop
`
`computer, a laser printer, a color plotter, and a platesetter, and performs production
`
`management, digital plate-making, desktop imposition, and press services. Id. at
`
`8:31-33, 9:38-43, Figs. 1, 4. Central service facility 105 comprises a server,
`
`“hierarchical storage management” (“HSM”) system 120, “digital content
`
`management” (“DCM”) system 130, and local area network (“LAN”) 150. Id. at
`
`5:40-50, Fig 1. An end user can store files in HSM system 120 at central service
`
`facility 105 to reduce storage needs at the end user facility. Id. at 7:19-23, 38-40.
`
`D.
`
`Exemplary Claims
`
`Claims 1, 10, and 16 are independent. Claim 1 recites a printing and
`
`publishing system comprising an end user facility, a central service facility, and a
`
`printing company facility. Ex. 1201, 21:7-33. Claims 10 and 16 are drawn to
`
`methods of generating a plate-ready file configured for the creation of a printing
`
`plate. Id. at 22:4-14, 31-45. Claims 2-9 depend, directly or indirectly, from claim
`
`1. Id. at 21:34-22:3. Claims 11-15 depend from claim 10, and claims 17-20
`
`depend from claim 16. Id. at 22:15-30, 46-61.
`
`Claims 1, 10, and 16 are reproduced below:
`
`1. A printing and publishing system providing prepress, content
`management, infrastructure, and workflow services to system
`subscribers in real time using a communication network, the printing
`and publishing system comprising:
`
`an end user facility coupled to a communication network, the
`end user facility providing page building operations, the page building
`operations including the design and construction of pages from
`images, text, and data available via said communication network and
`the generation of a portable document format (PDF) file;
`
` 5
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONERS Ex. 1004, p. 5
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00489
`Patent 6,738,155
`
`
`a printing company facility coupled to said communication
`network, the printing company facility providing imposition
`operations and generating a plate-ready file from said PDF file, the
`imposition operations including the setting of pages on a particular
`plate as well as positioning and orientation of pages on said plate; and
`
`a central service facility coupled to said communication
`network, the central service facility providing storage, file processing,
`remote access, and content management operations; the content
`management operations including the capture, organization, archival,
`retrieval, and reuse of electronic files containing any one of text,
`graphics, photos, artwork, full pages, audio, video, and completed
`projects; content management operations further including the
`organization and cataloging of file content for browsing, searching,
`and retrieving of files and data.
`
`
`
`10. A method of providing printing and publishing services to a
`remote client in real time using a communication network, the method
`comprising:
`
`storing files on a computer server, the files containing
`information relating to images, text, art, and data;
`
`providing said files to a remote client for the designing of a
`page layout;
`
`generating a portable document format (PDF) file from the
`designed page layout;
`
`generating a plate-ready file from said PDF file; and
`
`providing said plate-ready file to a remote printer.
`
`
`
`16. A method of providing printing and publishing services to a
`remote client performing any one of page layout designing and plate
`press printing where said printing and publishing services are
`provided in real time using a wide area communication network, the
`method comprising:
`
`storing high resolution files on a computer server;
`
` 6
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONERS Ex. 1004, p. 6
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00489
`Patent 6,738,155
`
`
`generating low resolution files corresponding to said high
`resolution files;
`
`providing said low resolution files to a remote client for the
`designing of a page layout;
`
`generating a portable document format (PDF) file from the page
`layout designed by said remote client;
`
`providing said PDF file to said remote client; and
`
`providing a plate-ready file to a remote printer.
`
`
`
`E.
`
`Prior Art Relied Upon
`
`PIA relies upon the following prior-art references:
`
`Lucivero
`Benson
`Sands
`Holub
`Dorfman
`Benson ’818
`
`
`Ex. 1205
`July 10, 2007
`US 7,242,487
`Ex. 1206
`EP App. 0878303 Nov. 18, 1998
`Ex. 1207
`US 5,634,091
`May 27, 1997
`Ex. 1210
`US 6,043,909
`Feb. 26, 1996
`Ex. 1211
`EP App. 0920667
`June 9, 1999
`Ex. 1212
`U.S. 6,046,818
`June 3, 1997
`
`
`
`MATTIAS ANDERSSON ET AL., PDF PRINTING AND PUBLISHING, THE NEXT
`REVOLUTION AFTER GUTENBERG (Micro Publishing Press 1997) (Ex. 1204)
`(“Andersson”);
`
`Robert R. Buckley, A Framework for Digital Data Workflow in a Graphic
`Arts System, TAGA PROCEEDINGS 1997 (Ex. 1208) (“Buckley”);
`
`Stephen N. Zilles, Using PDF for Digital Data Exchange, TAGA
`PROCEEDINGS 1997 (Ex. 1209) (“Zilles”).
`
`ALDUS CORP., OPI OPEN PREPRESS INTERFACE SPECIFICATION 1.3 (1993)
`(Ex. 1213) (“Aldus”);
`
`RICHARD M. ADAMS II ET AL., COMPUTER TO PLATE AUTOMATING THE
`PRINTING INDUSTRY (Graphic Arts Technical Foundation 1996) (Ex. 1214)
`(“Adams II”).
`
` 7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONERS Ex. 1004, p. 7
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00489
`Patent 6,738,155
`
`
`F.
`
`Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`PIA contends that the challenged claims are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§§ 102 and/or 103 based on the following specific grounds (Pet. 18-60):
`
`Reference[s]
`
`Basis
`
`Claims Challenged
`
`Andersson
`
`§ 102
`
`1
`
`Lucivero, Andersson, Benson, and
`Sands
`
`§ 103
`
`1, 2, 4-6, 9
`
`Lucivero, Sands, and Buckley
`
`§ 103
`
`1
`
`§ 103
`
`3, 7, 8
`
`§ 102
`
`§ 103
`
`§ 103
`
`10
`
`10
`
`10
`
`§ 103
`
`16, 19, 20
`
`§ 103
`
`11
`
`§ 103
`
`12
`
`§ 103
`
`13
`
`§ 103
`
`14
`
`§ 103
`
`15
`
`§ 103
`
`17
`
`§ 103
`
`18
`
` 8
`
`
`
`Lucivero, Andersson, Benson,
`Sands, and Holub
`
`Zilles
`
`Lucivero and Andersson
`
`Benson ’818 and Buckley
`
`Lucivero, Andersson, Sands, and
`Zilles
`Zilles and Dorfman; or Lucivero,
`Andersson and Dorfman; or Benson
`’818, Buckley, and Dorfman
`Lucivero, Andersson, and Zilles; or
`Benson ’818, Buckley, and Zilles
`Zilles and Benson; or Lucivero,
`Andersson, and Benson; or Benson
`’818, Buckley and Benson
`Zilles and Anderson; or Lucivero
`And Andersson; or Benson ’818,
`Buckley, and Andersson
`Zilles and Dorfman; or Lucivero,
`Andersson, and Dorfman; or
`Benson ’818, Buckley, and
`Dorfman
`Lucivero, Andersson, Sands, Zilles,
`Dorfman, and Adams II
`Lucivero, Andersson, Sands, Zilles,
`and Aldus
`
`
`
`PETITIONERS Ex. 1004, p. 8
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00489
`Patent 6,738,155
`
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A.
`
`Claim Construction
`
`As a step in our analysis for determining whether to institute a trial, we
`
`determine the meaning of the claims. Consistent with the statute and the
`
`legislative history of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112-29,
`
`125 Stat. 284 (2011) (“AIA”), the Board will interpret claims using the broadest
`
`reasonable construction. 37 C.F.R. § 100(b). We presume that claim terms retain
`
`their ordinary and customary meaning as would be understood by one of ordinary
`
`skill in the art at the time of the invention. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303,
`
`1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). That presumption may be rebutted if the patent
`
`specification defines the term with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and
`
`precision. In re Paulson, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994); see also In re Bigio,
`
`381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“Absent claim language carrying a narrow
`
`meaning, the PTO should only limit the claim based on the specification or
`
`prosecution history when those sources expressly disclaim the broader
`
`definition.”). If the specification does not expressly or implicitly define a claim
`
`term, it is appropriate to consult a general dictionary definition of the word for
`
`guidance in determining the ordinary and customary meaning of the claim term as
`
`viewed by a person of ordinary skill in the art. Comaper Corp. v. Antec, Inc., 596
`
`F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
`
`PIA proposes specific constructions for six claim terms, which are
`
`summarized below:
`
`Claim Term
`
`Proposed Interpretation
`
`Claim(s)
`
`end-user facility
`
`facility that provides page building
`operations allowing the design and
`construction of pages from images, text,
`
`1-9
`
` 9
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONERS Ex. 1004, p. 9
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00489
`Patent 6,738,155
`
`
`Claim Term
`
`Proposed Interpretation
`
`Claim(s)
`
`and data available via a communication
`network. Pet. 6.
`providing storage, file processing, remote
`access, and content management
`operations. Pet. 7.
`providing printing operations for producing
`a printing plate from said plate-ready file.
`Pet. 7.
`both a private network 160 (ATM network)
`and a public network 190 (the Internet) of
`subscribers and non-subscribers to a
`printing and publishing system connected to
`central service facility 105. Pet. 6.
`routers and switches . . . included at central
`service facility 105, end user facility 300,
`and printing company facility 400. Pet. 7.
`a file containing pages designed from
`images, texts, and data converted to a
`digital file for producing a printing plate.
`Pet. 7-8.
`
`1-9
`
`1-9
`
`2-5, 12,
`13, 16-
`20
`
`2-5
`
`1-14
`
`central service facility
`
`printing company
`facility
`
`communication
`network
`
`communication routing
`device
`
`plate-ready file
`
`
`
`CTP does not dispute PIA’s proposed interpretations. See generally Prelim.
`
`Resp. We therefore adopt them for purposes of this decision, with the following
`
`additional discussion.
`
`1.
`
` “end user facility,” “central service facility,” and “printing
`company facility” (claim 1)
`
`PIA provides broad, functional definitions for the end-user, central-service,
`
`and printing-company facilities. Such broad, functional definitions leave open the
`
`possibility that the same “facility,” as that term would be understood by a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, could serve as more than one
`
`of the claimed facilities as long as it performs the functions corresponding to the
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`PETITIONERS Ex. 1004, p. 10
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00489
`Patent 6,738,155
`
`
`claimed facilities. We determine, however, that such an interpretation would be
`
`unreasonably broad. As the Federal Circuit has held, “[w]here a claim lists
`
`elements separately, the ‘clear implication of the claim language’ is that those
`
`elements are ‘distinct component[s]’ of the patented invention.” Becton,
`
`Dickenson and Co. v. Tyco Healthcare Group, LP, 616 F.3d 1249, 1254 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2010) (internal citations and quotations omitted); cf. Regents of Univ. of Minn. v.
`
`AGA Med. Corp., 717 F.3d 929, 935 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (holding that phrase “first
`
`and second occluding disks” means physically separate occluding disks). Thus, the
`
`patentee’s use of separate claim terms “clear[ly] impli[es]” that the claimed
`
`facilities must be distinct from each other in some manner as would have been
`
`understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
`
`Further, we find nothing in the Specification that is inconsistent with this
`
`conclusion. On the contrary, the three facilities are consistently discussed and
`
`depicted separately, with each facility connected to the same communication
`
`network to facilitate the transfer of data between them, and with each facility
`
`performing different functions. See, e.g., Ex. 1201, 2:54-64, 4:26-33, Figs. 1-5.
`
`2.
`
`“storing files . . . providing said files” (claim 10)
`
`Claim 10 is drawn to a method of providing printing and publishing services
`
`to a remote client comprising the steps of, e.g., “storing files on a computer server,
`
`the files containing information relating to images, text, art, and data; [and]
`
`providing said files to a remote client for the designing of a page layout.”
`
`Ex. 1201, 22:7-10. The reference to “said files” in the second clause indicates that
`
`the files stored “on a computer server” are the same files that are provided “to a
`
`remote client for the designing of a page layout.” See Fuji Photo Film Co. v. Int’l
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`PETITIONERS Ex. 1004, p. 11
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00489
`Patent 6,738,155
`
`
`Trade Comm’n, 386 F.3d 1095, 1099 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (holding that “said means”
`
`refers to only those structures expressly denominated as “means” in the claim).
`
`3.
`
`“providing said low resolution files to a remote client for the
`design of a page layout; generating a portable document format
`(PDF) file from the page layout designed by said remote client;
`providing said PDF file to said remote client” (claim 16)
`
`Claim 16 requires the steps of providing low resolution files to a remote
`
`client for the designing of a page layout, generating a PDF file from the page
`
`layout designed by said remote client, and providing said PDF file to said remote
`
`client. Ex. 1201, 22:37-43. This language requires that the same PDF file that is
`
`generated from the page layout designed by the remote client be sent “to” the
`
`remote client.2 See Fuji Photo, supra.
`
`B.
`
`Claim 1 – § 102 – Andersson
`
`PIA contends that Anderson, Ex. 1204, anticipates claim 1 under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 102. Pet. 25.
`
`1.
`
`Andersson
`
`Andersson, titled “PDF Printing and Publishing,” describes Adobe’s
`
`Portable Document Format (PDF). According to Andersson, a PDF document is a
`
`self-contained file format that contains multiple objects, i.e., bitmap images, text,
`
`font information, and line art. Ex. 1204, 22-24. Andersson teaches how to create,
`
`
`2 According to claim 16’s preamble, the claimed printing and publishing
`services are provided to a remote client “performing any one of page layout
`designing and plate press printing.” Ex. 1201, 22:31-31-33 (emphasis added). The
`preamble thus suggests that the remote client to whom the services are provided
`need not perform page layout designing. The body of the claim, however, requires
`that the remote client perform page layout services, because (1) low resolution files
`are provided to the client to do so, and (2) a PDF file is generated from the page
`layout designed by the remote client.
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`PETITIONERS Ex. 1004, p. 12
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00489
`Patent 6,738,155
`
`
`view, and edit PDF files, and how to use them to create and simplify digital
`
`prepress workflows as compared with “traditional” prepress workflows. Id. at
`
`66-67. Andersson also discusses digital environments, in particular, computer
`
`networks and servers, suitable for implementing these workflows. Id. at 51.
`
`2.
`
`Discussion
`
`“Anticipation requires the presence in a single prior art reference disclosure
`
`of each and every element of the claimed invention, arranged as in the claim.”
`
`Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GMBH v. Am. Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452,
`
`1458 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Based on the record before us, we are not persuaded that
`
`Andersson discloses each and every element of claim 1.
`
`We first consider the limitation that requires a “printer company facility”
`
`that provides, inter alia, “imposition services.” PIA relies on ten non-consecutive
`
`pages in Andersson, which is over 182 pages in length, for the disclosure of this
`
`limitation. Pet. 25 (claim chart) (citing Ex. 1204, 25-29, 31, 35, 43, 63, 77).
`
`However, PIA does not explain how these teachings disclose a printing company
`
`facility that provides imposition services. Moreover, although two of the cited
`
`pages in Andersson – 35 and 43 – discuss imposition in general terms, we are
`
`unable to find any teaching in the cited pages suggesting that imposition services
`
`are to be provided specifically by a printing company facility; nor has PIA pointed
`
`us to any such teaching.
`
`We next consider the limitation requiring a “central service facility” that
`
`performs certain content management operations, including “the capture,
`
`organization, archiv[ing], retrieval, and reuse of electronic files containing any one
`
`of text, graphics, photos, artwork, full pages, audio, video, and completed
`
`projects.” Ex. 1201, 21:27-30. PIA relies on nine non-consecutive pages in
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`PETITIONERS Ex. 1004, p. 13
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00489
`Patent 6,738,155
`
`
`Andersson for the disclosure of the central service facility, and seven additional
`
`pages for the disclosure of the claimed content management operations. Pet. 23
`
`(citing Ex. 1204, 51, 65); Pet. 25 (claim chart) (citing Ex. 1204, 29, 49, 52, 65, 76,
`
`158, 178, 181 for the-central-service-facility disclosure, and 30, 43, 61, 62, 161,
`
`176, 178, 181, and 182 for the content-management-operations disclosure). PIA
`
`asserts that Andersson discloses a server that stores files and software, links to
`
`various devices, and operates to shift the processing burden from individual
`
`workstations for more efficient printing and job handling. Pet. 23. However, PIA
`
`does not explain how this disclosure relates to the claimed central service facility
`
`that performs content management operations.
`
`Even if the portions of Andersson on which PIA relies could be deemed to
`
`disclose all of claim 1’s limitations,3 PIA would remain unable to show that
`
`Andersson anticipates claim 1 because PIA does not show, or even allege, that
`
`Andersson discloses the limitations arranged as part of the same “printing and
`
`publishing system” required by claim 1. See Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. Verisign, Inc.,
`
`545 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (holding that “unless a reference discloses
`
`within the four corners of the document not only all of the limitations claimed but
`
`also all of the limitations arranged or combined in the same way as recited in the
`
`claim, it cannot be said to prove prior invention of the thing claimed and, thus,
`
`cannot anticipate under 35 U.S.C. § 102”). For example, the twenty-four pages on
`
`which PIA relies to disclose the printing-company-facility and central-service-
`
`
`3 For the purposes of this decision we do not, and need not, take any position
`as to whether Andersson discloses the remaining limitations of claim 1. Nor do we
`take any position as to whether the other references on which PIA relies to argue
`claim 1’s unpatentability, individually or combined, disclose limitations that are
`not expressly discussed.
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`PETITIONERS Ex. 1004, p. 14
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00489
`Patent 6,738,155
`
`
`facility limitations span six chapters of Andersson and appear to address a variety
`
`of topics, such as the advantages of using the PDF file format rather than
`
`PostScript in digital workflows (e.g., Ex. 1204, 25-29, 161); the use of a local area
`
`network (LAN) to share resources (id. at 49); the various types of servers that may
`
`be used on a LAN (id. at 51-52, 61-62); and the future of the digital printing
`
`market (id. at 178, 181-82). PIA has not explained how these various topics
`
`combine to disclose a single printing and publishing system as recited in claim 1.
`
`Indeed, it is difficult to see how the disparate teachings of Andersson on which
`
`PIA relies relate to a single embodiment; Andersson appears to us to be a teaching
`
`reference that discusses numerous topics from which PIA cherry-picks to construct
`
`is anticipation case.
`
`Accordingly, we are not persuaded that PIA is reasonably likely to prevail
`
`on this ground of unpatentability.
`
`C.
`
`Claim 1 – § 103 – Lucivero, Andersson, Benson, and Sands
`
`PIA alleges that Claim 1 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over the
`
`combination of Lucivero, Andersson, Benson, and Sands. Pet. 26-31.
`
`1.
`
`Lucivero
`
`Lucivero discloses a system for creating, storing, and processing raster data
`
`files. Ex. 1205, Abs, 6:26-28. The system allows an end user to control the
`
`workflow of bitmap image files to a plurality of user-selectable output devices. Id.
`
`at 7:60-63, 8:30-35. Lucivero’s system comprises at least one terminal device on
`
`which an end user can create PostScript4 image files, at least one RIP for
`
`converting PostScript files into raster data, and a print drive for receiving the
`
`
`4 “PostscriptTM” or “PostScriptTM” refers to a page-description-language file
`format from Adobe Systems, Inc. Ex. 1205, 2:53-55.
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`PETITIONERS Ex. 1004, p. 15
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00489
`Patent 6,738,155
`
`
`bitmap file from the RIP and directing it to at least one output device, such as an
`
`imagesetter, platestetter, or large-format proofer. Id. at 5:61-67, 6:5-9, Fig. 2.
`
`Lucivero’s system also contains a remote graphical user interface that allows a
`
`front end user to control print jobs over a “standard network environment.” Id. at
`
`5:41-60. The end user can select an off-line output device (also referred to as a
`
`“print engine”), execute a “print” command, view the status of jobs, and
`
`“manipulate and control the timing and priorities of the output.” Id. at 5:11-17,
`
`50-54.
`
`2.
`
`Benson
`
`Benson relates to a “[d]istributed imaging and control architecture for digital
`
`printing presses and platesetters.” Ex. 1206, cover page. The architecture
`
`comprises a job-control computer for selecting print jobs, and a separate image-
`
`control computer or computers for operating the various imaging devices.5 Id.
`
`3.
`
`Sands
`
`Sands discloses a digital page imaging (DPI) system that automates the
`
`imposition process. A customer creates a digital document for printing, converts
`
`the document to a “page description language” format file (e.g., PostScriptTM or
`
`PDF), and sends it via a communication network to the printer. Ex. 1207, 3:21-27.
`
`At the printer, the system assigns each page of the customer product into its exact
`
`position and orientation in a film flat. Id. at 3:64-67. The flat is then output to a
`
`film image setter for creating a printing plate. Id. at 3:10-14.
`
`
`5 The only portions of Benson in the record are its cover page and a related
`search report. See Ex. 1206.
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`PETITIONERS Ex. 1004, p. 16
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00489
`Patent 6,738,155
`
`
`4.
`
`Discussion
`
`In its claim chart for this ground of unpatentability, PIA indicates that
`
`portions of Lucivero, Andersson, Benson, and Sands correspond to specific
`
`limitations in claim 1. Pet. 31. While PIA summarizes and provides broad
`
`citations to the above references (Pet. 30), PIA does not explain how the cited
`
`portions correspond to the limitations for which they are cited; nor is such
`
`correspondence self-evident. Indeed, in several cases, there is no apparent
`
`connection between PIA’s citations and the allegedly corresponding limitation.
`
`For example, for the limitation requiring the central service facility to perform
`
`content management operations, PIA cites the following portions of Lucivero:
`
`4:31-45; 7:58-67; 8:1-21; and 8:41-54. The first citation discusses the use of
`
`imagesetters with RIPs and Multiplexors (“MUX”), and explains that jobs using
`
`large-format imagesetters can bottleneck at the RIP stage. Ex. 1205, 4:31-45. The
`
`second and third citations discuss a prepress system that Lucivero identifies as
`
`prior art. Id. at 7:5-8:21. The final citation discusses Lucivero’s preferred
`
`embodiment, and various output devices that can be connected to it. Id. at 8:41-54.
`
`None of these excerpts addresses the claimed central-service facility.
`
`Likewise, PIA’s citations allegedly disclosing the content-management
`
`limitation fall short. Claim 1 requires that content management operations include
`
`“the capture, organization, archiv[ing], retrieval, and reuse of electronic files,” and
`
`the “organization and cataloging of file content for browsing, searching, and
`
`retrieving of files and data.” Ex. 1201, 21:26-33. But the portions of Lucivero
`
`cited as corresponding to this limitation discuss, instead: (1) a “Pilot GUI”
`
`(graphical user interface) that can be used to control print jobs (Ex. 1205,
`
`21:53-63); (2) the “front end” component of the prior art prepress system
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`PETITIONERS Ex. 1004, p. 17
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00489
`Patent 6,738,155
`
`
`mentioned above (id. at 7:58-63); and (3) specific output devices suitable for use
`
`with the preferred embodiment (id. at 8:43-49). Again, we discern no evident
`
`connection between these discussions and the content-management-operations
`
`limitation.
`
`We are not persuaded that PIA is reasonably likely to prevail on this ground
`
`of unpatentability.
`
`D. Claim 1 – § 103 – Lucivero, Sands, and Buckley
`
`PIA contends that claim 1 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over
`
`Lucivero, Sands, and Buckley.6 As with the previous ground, PIA provides a brief
`
`summary of the references, cites portions of the references that allegedly
`
`correspond to the limitations of claim 1, but does not explain how those portions
`
`correspond to their respective limitations. See Pet. 32-33. Moreover, based on our
`
`review, it appears that the references do not teach some of the limitations of claim
`
`1, either individually or in combination. PIA relies on the same portions of
`
`Lucivero for teaching the central-service-facility and content-management
`
`limitations (Pet. 34), which, as discussed above, do not appear to do so. PIA also
`
`relies on Buckley to teach these limitations, contending that (1) pages 342 and 343
`
`correspond to the central-service-facility limitation, and (2) pages 339 and 340
`
`
`6 Buckley discusses “A Framework for Digital Data Workflow in a Graphic
`Arts System.” Ex. 1208, 337. In particular, Buckley describes systems that
`accommodate multiple desktop publishing applications and multiple output devices
`by using a page description language (“PDL”) “usually PostScriptTM,” because it
`“is the common intermediate format that a variety of different applications can use
`to connect and communicate with a variety of different devices.” Id. at 338-339.
`Buckley also discusses the evolution of digital prepress systems in which various
`operations, such as imposition, can occur before, during, or after the RIP. Id. at
`340-343.
`
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`PETITIONERS Ex. 1004, p. 18
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00489
`Patent 6,738,155
`
`
`correspond to the content-management limitation. Pet. 34 (claim chart).7 Such
`
`correspondence is not evident to us, however. Regarding the first citation, pages
`
`342-43 discuss various prepress operations, such as trapping, imposition, OPI, and
`
`RIPping, but do not discuss these operations as performed at a central service
`
`facility (as opposed to, e.g., a printing company facility). Regarding t