Trials@uspto.gov
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`Paper 9
`Entered: November 28, 2014
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`EASTMAN KODAK CO., AGFA CORP., ESKO SOFTWARE BVBA, and
`HEIDELBERG, USA,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`CTP INNOVATIONS, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2014-00789
`Patent 6,738,155 B1
`_______________
`
`
`Before HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP, BENJAMIN D. M. WOOD, and
`BRIAN J. MCNAMARA, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`WOOD, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`Paper 9
`Entered: November 28, 2014
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`EASTMAN KODAK CO., AGFA CORP., ESKO SOFTWARE BVBA, and
`HEIDELBERG, USA,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`CTP INNOVATIONS, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2014-00789
`Patent 6,738,155 B1
`_______________
`
`
`Before HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP, BENJAMIN D. M. WOOD, and
`BRIAN J. MCNAMARA, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`WOOD, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00789
`Patent 6,738,155 B1
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Background
`A.
`Eastman Kodak Co., Agfa Corp., Esko Software BVBA, and
`Heidelberg, USA (collectively, “Petitioner”) filed a Corrected Petition
`(Paper 4, “Pet.”) to institute an inter partes review of claims 1–9 (the
`“challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 6,738,155 B1 (Ex. 1001, “the ’155
`patent”). CTP Innovations, LLC (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary
`Response (Paper 8, “Prelim. Resp.”). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 314.
`Institution of an inter partes review is authorized by statute when “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.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). We determine that
`Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with
`respect to at least one of the claims of the ’155 patent. Accordingly, we
`grant the Petition for inter partes review of the ’155 patent.
`
`Related Proceedings
`B.
`Petitioner discloses that the ’155 patent has been asserted in 49
`infringement actions, most of which are still pending. Pet. 1; Ex. 1002.
`Petitioner also has filed three additional petitions for inter partes review:
`IPR2014-00788, for review of claims 10–20 of the ’155 patent; IPR2014-
`00790, for review of claims 1–3 of U.S. Patent No. 6,611,349 (“the ’349
`patent”), which shares the ’155 patent’s disclosure; and IPR2014-00791, for
`review of claims 4–14 of the ’349 patent. Id. at 2. The ’155 and ’349
`
` 2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00789
`Patent 6,738,155 B1
`
`patents were also the subject of two previous petitions for inter partes
`review, both of which were denied. See Printing Indus. of Am. v. CTP
`Innovations, LLC, Case IPR2013-00474 (PTAB Dec. 31, 2013) (Paper 16)
`(denying petition for inter partes review of the ’349 patent); Printing Indus.
`of Am. v. CTP Innovations, LLC, Case IPR2013-00489 (PTAB Dec. 30,
`2013) (Paper 15) (denying petition for inter partes review of the ’155
`patent).
`
`The ’155 Patent
`C.
`The ’155 patent issued on May 18, 2004 from an application filed July
`30, 1999. Ex. 1001, cover page. The ’155 patent relates to “a system and
`method of providing publishing and printing services via a communications
`network.” Id. at 1:9–10. According to the ’155 patent, “[k]ey steps for
`producing printed materials using a plate process include (1) preparing copy
`elements for reproduction, (2) prepress production, (3) platemaking,
`(4) printing, and (5) binding, finishing and distribution.” Id. at 1:12–15. In
`the first or “design” 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,
`“RIPing, trapping, proofing, imposition, filmsetting, and platesetting.” Id. at
`1:29–32.
`“RIPing” is based on the acronym “RIP,” which stands for raster
`image processor. Id. at 7:57–59. A RIP is a hardware or software
`
` 3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00789
`Patent 6,738,155 B1
`
`component that “rasterize[s]” an image file—i.e., converts it to a “bitmap”
`or raster image. Id. “RIPing” 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
`data 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. After alterations are made, new proofs are sent to the end user;
`once the end user approves the proof, a medium, such as a computer-to-plate
`(CTP) file, is produced and sent to the printer. Id. at 1:35–39. “Imposition”
`involves “the set of pages on a particular plate as well as their positioning
`and orientation.” 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
`“using the medium created during prepress,” e.g., if a CTP file is used, the
`printer converts the CTP file into a printing plate. Id. at 1:45–48. The
`printer uses the plate on a printing press to reproduce the product; the
`product is bound, finished, and distributed to create the product in its final
`form. Id. at 1:45–51.
`The ’155 patent describes and claims a publishing and printing system
`in which “[s]ystem 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:
`
` 4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00789
`Patent 6,738,155 B1
`
`
`
`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 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, 5. Central service facility 105 comprises server 110,
`“hierarchical storage management” (HSM) system 120, a “digital content
`management” system 130, local area network (LAN) 150 and
`communication routing device 200. Id. at 5:34–50. “Data may be
`exchanged between central service facility 105 and either private network
`160 or public network 190 in any suitable format, such as in accordance with
`the Internet Protocol (IP), the Transmission Control Protocol (TCP), or other
`known protocols.” Id. at 5:21–25. An end user can store files in HSM
`
` 5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00789
`Patent 6,738,155 B1
`
`system 120 to reduce storage needs at the end user facility. Id. at 7:19–23,
`38–40.
`Server 110 uses software capable of performing “open prepress
`interface” (OPI) operations. Id. at 5:62–64. OPI operations include “high
`resolution image swapping.” Id. at 10:31–33. That is, OPI permits a lower
`resolution image file to be used as a proxy for a higher resolution file during
`page-building operations, which is advantageous because the low resolution
`image can be transmitted and manipulated more quickly. Id. at 7:46–49,
`10:44–49. The low resolution images are replaced by the corresponding
`high resolution images before final proofing and printing. Id. at 7:49–51.
`
`Illustrative Claim
`D.
`Claim 1 is independent and recites a printing and publishing system
`comprising an end user facility, a central service facility, and a printing
`company facility. Ex. 1001, 21:7–33. Claims 2–9 depend directly or
`indirectly from claim 1. Claim 1 is 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;
`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
`
` 6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00789
`Patent 6,738,155 B1
`
`
`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.
`
`
`
`Prior Art Relied Upon
`E.
`Petitioner relies upon the following prior-art references:
`
`Ex. 1005
`Nov. 20, 2001
`US 6,321,231
`Jebens
`Ex. 1006
`Feb. 26, 1998
`WO 98/08176
`Dorfman
`Agfa Apogee, The PDF-based Production System (1998) (“Apogee”)
`(Ex. 1007);
`Apple OPI White Paper (1995) (“OPI White Paper”) (Ex. 1008);
`Mattias Andersson et al., PDF PRINTING AND PUBLISHING, THE NEXT
`REVOLUTION AFTER GUTENBERG (Micro Publishing Press 1997)
`(“Andersson”) (Ex. 1009);
`Richard M. Adams II et al., COMPUTER-TO-PLATE: AUTOMATING THE
`PRINTING INDUSTRY (Graphic Arts Technical Foundation 1996) (Ex. 1010)
`(“Adams II”).
`
` 7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00789
`Patent 6,738,155 B1
`
`
`§ 103
`
`1, 2, 4, 5, and 9
`
`Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`F.
`Petitioner contends that the challenged claims are unpatentable under
`35 U.S.C. § 103 based on the following specific grounds (Pet. 7):
`Reference[s]
`Basis
`Claims Challenged
`Jebens, Apogee, and OPI White
`§ 103
`1–9
`Paper
`Dorfman, Apogee, OPI White Paper,
`and Andersson
`Dorfman, Apogee, OPI White Paper,
`Andersson, and Adams II
`
`§ 103
`
`3 and 6–8
`
`
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A.
`
`Preliminary Issues
`1.
`The Prior Petition
`Patent Owner argues that we should not consider this Petition because
`we already considered, and denied, a petition for inter partes review of the
`’155 patent: Printing Indus. of Am. v. CTP Innovations, LLC, Case
`IPR2013-00489 (PTAB) (“the ’489 IPR”). Prelim. Resp. 15 (citing Ex.
`1004). Patent Owner contends that the present Petition represents a “second
`bite at the apple,” or a “do over,” of the ’489 IPR, because it relies on “the
`same or equivalent” prior art as the ’489 IPR. Id. First, Patent Owner notes
`that three of the prior-art references asserted here, Dorfman, Andersson, and
`Adams II, were also asserted in the ’489 IPR. Id. at 15–16. Second, Patent
`Owner alleges that Apogee is equivalent to “Lucivero,” a reference asserted
`in the ’489 IPR. Id. at 16. Finally, Patent Owner alleges that OPI White
`Paper is equivalent to “Sands,” another reference asserted in the ’489 IPR.
`Id. at 16–17.
`
` 8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00789
`Patent 6,738,155 B1
`
`
`Patent Owner overstates the overlap between this proceeding and the
`’489 IPR. First, Patent Owner does not adequately support its contention
`that Apogee and OPI White Paper are equivalent to Lucivero and Sands,
`respectively; nor is such equivalence self-evident. The fact that Apogee
`discusses products sold by the same entity that owns Lucivero falls far short
`of establishing that Apogee and Lucivero are equivalent. Patent Owner
`provides no support for the alleged equivalence between OPI White Paper
`and Sands.
`Second, the fact that Dorfman, Andersson, and Adams II are cited in
`both proceedings does not establish that we are duplicating our efforts in
`considering the Petition. In the ’489 IPR, neither Dorfman nor Adams II
`was relied upon in any of the alleged grounds of unpatentability pertaining
`to claims 1–9, the claims at issue in this Petition. Ex. 1004, 8. While
`Andersson does appear in some of the combinations of prior art in the ’489
`IPR that pertain to claims 1–9, it is combined with different references than
`those asserted in this Petition. Id.; Pet. 7. For these reasons, we do not
`consider the Petitioner to constitute a “do over” of the ’489 IPR.
`2.
`Real-Parties-In-Interest
`Patent Owner contends that Petitioner failed to comply with 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.8(b)(1) because it failed to identify all real-parties-in-interest. Prelim.
`Resp. 26–30. According to Patent Owner, all of Petitioner’s customers are
`real-parties-in-interest because Petitioner admitted that it filed the Petition
`on their behalf. Patent Owner relies on a press release in which Petitioner
`states that “[w]e feel it is important to take this action [file petitions for inter
`partes review of the ’155 patent] to support our customers from these
`frivolous claims [of infringement].” Ex. 2001, 1. Patent Owner argues that
`
` 9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00789
`Patent 6,738,155 B1
`
`“the Board should require Petitioner[] to amend the Petition to list all
`customers [as real-parties-in-interest] or, in the alternative, should dismiss
`the Petition in its entirety.” Prelim. Resp. 29.
`On this record, we are not persuaded that any of Petitioner’s
`customers is a real-party-in-interest in this proceeding. A determination
`whether a non-party to an inter partes review is a real-party-in-interest is a
`“highly fact-dependent question,” based on whether the non-party “exercised
`or could have exercised control over a party’s participation in a proceeding.”
`Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,759–60 (Aug.
`14, 2012). Petitioner’s filing of the present petition “to support [its]
`customers” does not, by itself, mean that its customers exercise control over
`Petitioner’s actions in this proceeding.
`Patent Owner also seems to argue that Petitioner filed the Petition on
`behalf of all of the over 10,000 members of the Printing Industries of
`America (“PIA”), the petitioner in the ’489 IPR. For example, Patent Owner
`notes that Thomas Topp, a senior vice president of Heidelberg, USA, one of
`the Petitioner entities, is a member of the board of directors of PIA. Prelim.
`Resp. 29. Patent Owner also notes that Petitioner entities Heidelberg, Agfa,
`and Eastman Kodak are substantial donors to PIA. Id. But, again,
`Petitioner’s financial and other support of PIA does not, by itself, mean that
`either PIA or its members controls Petitioner’s actions in this proceeding.
`Therefore, on the current record, we are not persuaded that Petitioner failed
`to identify any real-parties-in-interest.
`
`Claim Construction
`B.
`The Board gives claim terms in unexpired patents their broadest
`reasonable construction in light of the specification in which the terms
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00789
`Patent 6,738,155 B1
`
`appear. 37 C.F.R. § 100(b). Claim terms are given their ordinary and
`customary meaning as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the
`art in the context of the entire disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504
`F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Any special definition for a claim term
`must be set forth in the specification with reasonable clarity, deliberateness,
`and precision. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
`Petitioner proposes constructions for the following terms: “providing
`. . . in real time using a communication network,” “plate-ready file,” “end
`user facility,” “central service facility,” “printing company facility,” and
`“communication routing device.” Pet. 20–22. Patent Owner proposes
`alternative constructions for these terms, as well as a construction for
`“communication network.” Prelim. Resp. 7–14. For purposes of this
`Decision, we need only address “providing . . . in real time using a
`communication network,” and, in particular, whether this phrase limits the
`scope of the claims.
`The term “real time” appears in the preamble of independent claim 1:
`“A printing and publishing system providing prepress, content management,
`infrastructure, and workflow services to system subscribers in real time
`using a communication network.” Ex. 1001, 21:7–10. Petitioner contends
`that under the broadest reasonable interpretation, providing services “in real
`time using a communication network” should be interpreted “as
`encompassing the electronic transmission of data, images, files etc. over a
`communication network.” Pet. 20. According to Petitioner, this
`interpretation is consistent with Patent Owner’s position taken in a civil
`action asserting infringement of the ’155 patent, in which Patent Owner
`distinguished providing services “in real time using a communication
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00789
`Patent 6,738,155 B1
`
`network,” from using mail or express carrier to send disks containing pages
`to be printed or proofed. Id. (citing Ex. 1011 ¶¶ 11, 12).
`Patent Owner disagrees with Petitioner’s interpretation, arguing that it
`“ignores the term ‘real time,’ or equates it to simply mean any electronic
`transmission over a communication network.” Prelim. Resp. 7. According
`to Patent Owner, the Specification makes clear that providing services in
`“real time” requires more than transmission over a communication network,
`because it notes that a prior art system, “WAM!NET,” transmits data over a
`communication network, and yet, according to the Specification, “document
`delivery by WAM!NET is not done in real time.” Id. at 7–8 (citing Ex.
`1001, 6:55–65). Patent Owner proposes interpreting “real time” to mean
`“the immediate processing of input,” based on dictionary definitions. Id. at
`8–9 (citing Ex. 2010, 2011).
`As noted above, the term “real time” appears in the preamble of each
`of the claims at issue. Our reviewing court has stated that “[g]enerally . . .
`the preamble does not limit the claims.” Am. Med. Sys., Inc. v. Biolitec, Inc.,
`618 F.3d 1354, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (internal citation omitted). While “the
`preamble may be construed as limiting if it recites essential structure or
`steps, or if it is necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality to the claim,” it
`is not separately limiting “when the claim body describes a structurally
`complete invention such that deletion of the preamble phrase does not affect
`the structure or steps of the claimed invention.” Id. at 1358–59 (internal
`citations and quotations omitted). Here, the preamble does not recite any
`essential steps, affect the steps in the body of the claim, or provide a
`necessary antecedent for any terms in the steps. Thus, it would appear that
`“the claim drafters did not rely on the preamble language to define or refine
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00789
`Patent 6,738,155 B1
`
`the scope of the asserted claims.” Id. at 1359 (citation omitted).1 Thus, for
`purposes of this decision and on the present record, we determine that the
`preambles in the claims at issue, including the term “real time,” do not limit
`the scope of the claims.
`The discussion of WAM!NET in the Specification does not persuade
`us otherwise. That discussion does not provide sufficient information about
`WAM!NET for us to make any useful inferences regarding the meaning of
`“real time.” For example, the Specification does not explain the specific
`“documents” that WAM!NET is delivering, from whom and to whom these
`documents are being delivered, the specific method of “delivery,” and why
`that method of delivery is not done in “real time.”
`
`Claims 1–9 — Jebens, Apogee, and OPI White Paper
`C.
`Independent claim 1 is drawn to a printing and publishing system
`providing prepress, content management, infrastructure, and workflow
`services. Claims 2–9 depend from claim 1. Petitioner contends that claims
`1–9 would have been obvious over Jebens, Apogee, and OPI White Paper.
`Pet. 23–40.
`
`
`1 To the extent that the term “method of providing printing and publishing
`services to a remote client in real time using a communication network”
`does limit the scope of claim 10, it would only require that printing and
`publishing services be provided using a communication network. The
`phrase “providing printing and publishing services to a remote client in real
`time” is best read to refer to the end result of using a telecommunication
`network, rather than an additional limitation beyond using a
`telecommunication network. By analogy, in a preamble reading “a method
`of providing hot food using a microwave oven,” providing hot food is the
`end result of using a microwave oven, and does not, by itself, require more
`than using a microwave oven.
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00789
`Patent 6,738,155 B1
`
`
`Jebens
`1.
`Jebens describes “a digital image management and order delivery
`system.” Ex. 1005, 2:13–14. The system provides a centralized, searchable
`database of digital images that can be used and modified by authorized
`users. Id. at 4:54–56. The system also serves as a job order developer and
`conduit for routing files from a client, such as an advertising agency, to a
`printer. Id. at 4:60–62. Figure 1, reproduced below, illustrates Jebens’s
`invention.
`
`
`Figure 1 depicts an embodiment of Jebens’s data management and
`work-order delivery system. Id. at 4:20–23. The system comprises 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
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00789
`Patent 6,738,155 B1
`
`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
`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. To use
`the system, the corporation gives the agency information to access the host
`system; the agency then searches the host system and downloads low-
`resolution copies of desired images, creates the brochure using the low-
`resolution copies, and sends the brochure back to the host system. Id. at
`5:11–20. The host system replaces the low-resolution copies with high-
`resolution copies of the images, and electronically routes the brochure with
`the high-resolution images to a printer per the agency’s instructions. Id. at
`5:19–20. Communication between host system 10 and users 12, 14, 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.
`2.
`Apogee
`Apogee describes the Agfa Apogee print-production system. Ex.
`1007, 1. Content can be created in any format and output to Apogee in
`either PostScript or PDF format; Apogee normalizes incoming files to PDF
`“to guarantee complete predictability and compatibility.” Id. at 3–4. The
`PDF files are stored as individual PDF pages and become “Digital Masters”
`to create all production versions of the document and to provide a version
`that can be proofed and edited remotely. Id. at 4, 6. For a specific print job,
`Apogee collects the appropriate pages, automatically imposes the pages into
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00789
`Patent 6,738,155 B1
`
`a “digital flat,” and rasterizes it for the selected output device (e.g., an image
`setter or plate setter). Id. at 6. The result is a “Print Image File” (PIF) that
`“contains all the dots that will appear on the film or plate.” Id.
`3.
`OPI White Paper
`OPI White Paper describes the OPI “image swapping” process. Ex.
`1008, 10. According to OPI White Paper, “image swapping enables a page
`designer to work with a small screen-resolution picture file during page
`design and then rely on the intervention of the OPI server to swap it out for
`the high-resolution, color-separated file necessary to render the picture in
`print.” Id. at 10, 12, Fig. 2d. OPI White Paper also describes the typical
`manner in which the low-resolution image files, or “preview files,” are
`generated: a user saves a high-resolution file to a particular folder on the OPI
`server, which triggers a routine that creates a preview file and puts it in a
`different folder. Id. at 12. A particular implementation of the OPI process at
`a printing facility is also described. Id. at 31–32, Fig. 4c.
`4.
`Analysis
`We have reviewed Petitioner’s and Patent Owner’s contentions and
`arguments regarding the combination of Jebens, Apogee, and OPI White
`Paper, and are persuaded, on the current record, that there is a reasonable
`likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in showing that claims 1–9 are
`unpatentable over that combination. For example, with respect to
`independent claim 1, we understand Petitioner’s position to be that (1)
`Jebens’s browsers and client orderers 12 correspond to the claimed end user
`facility that performs page-building operations, including the design and
`construction of pages from images, text, and data available via the
`communication network; (2) Jebens’s host system 10 corresponds to the
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00789
`Patent 6,738,155 B1
`
`claimed central service facility that provides storage, file processing, remote
`access, and the claimed content management operations; and (3) Jebens’s
`suppliers 16 corresponds to the claimed printing company facility. Pet. 26,
`32–36.
`Petitioner relies on Apogee to teach generating a PDF file at the end-
`user facility, and generating a print-ready file from the PDF at the printing
`company facility. Pet. 25, 33. Petitioner contends that the known benefits
`of using PDF files would have motivated a person of ordinary skill “to
`incorporate the use of PDF files into the digitized workflow of Jebens.” Pet.
`25. Petitioner also contends that producing plate-ready files is necessary to
`make plates for offset printing, so “one of ordinary skill in the art would
`have been motivated to incorporate Apogee into the Jebens printing system
`to allow for a printing facility to produce a printing plate for offset printing.”
`Id. at 28 (citing Ex. 1021 ¶ 94). Petitioner relies on OPI White Paper for its
`disclosure of “a networked architecture in which imposition operations are
`performed by the printing company facility.” Id. at 33. Petitioner contends
`that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have known that imposition is
`a necessary part of the printing workflow if offset printing is used, and thus
`would have been motivated to combine OPI White Paper’s teaching
`regarding imposition with Jebens to use Jebens’s system with offset printing.
`Id. at 28–29.
`Patent Owner disputes that Jebens, Apogee, and OPI White Paper
`render claims 1–9 obvious. Prelim. Resp. 18–22. First, Patent Owner
`argues that Jebens “does not disclose a real time system as described in the
`’155 Patent, because the ’155 Patent specification discloses another prior art
`system with more network connectivity than Jebens, yet states that this
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00789
`Patent 6,738,155 B1
`
`more-connected system is not real time.” Id. at 18. The prior art system to
`which Patent Owner refers is the WAM!NET private communication
`network discussed above in the context of discussing the “real time” claim
`term. This argument is based on Patent Owner’s position that the term “real
`time” independently limits the scope of the claims. As discussed above, we
`disagree with that position. Accordingly we are not persuaded by this
`argument.
`Second, Patent Owner argues that Jebens does not disclose “an end
`user facility generating a PDF file,” or “a printing company facility
`generating a plate-ready file from said PDF file;” and that “Apogee does not
`address generating a printing plate-ready file from data provided remotely in
`real time using a communication network or generating a plate-ready file at
`a central service facility.” Prelim. Resp. 19, 21. As an initial matter, none
`of claims 1–9 recites “generating a printing plate-ready file from data
`provided remotely in real time using a communication network.” Nor do the
`claims require generating a plate-ready file at a central service facility. As
`for the remaining disputed elements, Petitioner does not rely on a single
`reference to teach them, but rather on the combination of Jebens with
`Apogee. See In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986)
`(nonobviousness cannot be established by attacking the references
`individually when the rejection is predicated upon a combination of prior art
`disclosures). For example, Petitioner does not rely merely on Jebens as
`teaching an end user facility generating a PDF file, but rather on Jebens’s
`teaching of an end user facility combined with Apogee’s teaching regarding
`generating the claimed PDF file. Pet. 32–33. Petitioner relies on a similar
`combination for a printing company facility generating a plate-ready file
`
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00789
`Patent 6,738,155 B1
`
`from the PDF file. Id. at 33–34. Therefore, on the current record, this
`argument is not persuasive.
`
`D. Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, and 9—Dorfman, Apogee, OPI White Paper,
`and Andersson
`Petitioner contends that claims 1, 2, 4, 5, and 9 would have been
`obvious over Dorfman, Apogee, OPI White Paper, and Andersson.
`Pet. 41–58.
`Dorfman
`1.
`Dorfman describes a “technique for easily creating and proofing
`customized printed material before printing on a production printing
`system.” Ex. 1006, 1 (abstract). A user can access a template in PDF format
`from the system’s website and modify the template by adding low-resolution
`copies of selected images and other variable data, thereby creating a
`dynamic PDF file representing the material to be printed. Id. at 4:3–8, 8:1–
`4.2 The PDF file may be viewed or printed to a local low-resolution printer
`for final proofing. Id. at 8:4–11. The user can make any necessary changes
`or corrections to the PDF file from the system website and send the file “for
`printing using conventional printing technology where the low resolution
`images would be replaced by the high resolution images by an OPI . . .
`process before printing.” Id. at 4:18–21, 8:23–26.
`Figure 1, reproduced below, depicts an embodiment of this system:
`
`
`2 We conform to Petitioner’s usage of Dorfman’s original page numbers
`rather that Petitioner’s supplemental page numbers.
`
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00789
`Patent 6,738,155 B1
`
`
`
`Figure 1 depicts Dorfman’s system comprising front end 2, memory 4,
`PDF builder 6, and production printing system 10. Id. at 5:25–6:7. Front
`end 2 may be the office of a graphic artist employed by an advertising
`agency, and typically includes a PC with internet connectivity and browser
`software. Id. at 5:29–6:10. Memory 4, PDF builder 6, and printing system
`10 are remotely located from front end 2, e.g., at the facilities of a
`commercial printing service. Id. at 6:4–7. Memory 4 may contain a
`reference library, low resolution and high resolution images, and other data.
`Id. at 5:27–29. Commercial printer 10 maintains a website that allows front
`end users access to templates and images stored in memory 4. Id.
`at 6:10–13.
`Andersson
`2.
`Andersson describes the PDF format. According to Andersson, a PDF
`document is a self-contained file format that includes multiple objects, e.g.,
`bitmap images, text, font informa
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
