`___________________________
`
`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 IPR2014-00790
`Patent 6,611,349
`___________________________
`
`REQUEST TO FILE CORRECTED EXHIBIT
`
`Patent Owner CTP Innovations, LLC respectfully requests leave to file the
`
`
`
`attached corrected Exhibit 2014. Exhibit 2014 is the Declaration of Robert L.
`
`Stevenson, and was filed on April 2, 2015. The declaration itself is complete, but
`
`it was filed without including his curriculum vitae with litigation experience,
`
`despite indicating that it was attached. The proposed corrected Exhibit 2014 is
`
`attached hereto. A copy of the exhibit with attachment has been provided to
`
`Petitioners on April 3, 2015, as soon as the error was discovered. It is obvious
`
`from the declaration that the curriculum vitae with litigation experience was
`
`intended to be submitted. See Safeway, Inc., et a. v. Kroy IP Holdings, LLC,
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00685 (Paper 9) (granting leave to file declaration originally filed
`
`without curriculum vitae). Accordingly, Patent Owner respectfully requests that
`
`the Board grant this request.
`
`
`
`Dated: April 3, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`BAKER, DONELSON, BEARMAN,
`CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, P.C.
`
`
`
`/W. Edward Ramage/
`W. Edward Ramage, Reg. No. 50,810
`Samuel F. Miller (pending pro hac
`vice admission)
`BAKER, DONELSON, BEARMAN,
`CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, P.C.
`Baker Donelson Center
`211 Commerce Street, Suite 800
`Nashville, Tennessee 37201
`Tel: (615) 726-5771
`Fax: (615) 744-5771
`Email: eramage@bakerdonelson.com
`smiller@bakerdonelson.com
`
`
`for Patent Owner CTP
`Counsel
`Innovations, LLC
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that, on April 3, 2015, the foregoing
`
`Request (including attachments) was served in its entirety via U.S. Express Mail,
`
`postage prepaid, and electronic mail upon the following:
`
`
`
`Scot A. McKeown
`OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND,
`MAIER & NEUSTADT, LLP
`1940 Duke Street
`Alexandria, VA 22314
`Tel: (703) 412-6297
`Fax: (703) 413-2220
`Email: cpdocketmckeown@oblon.com
` cpdocketkiklis@oblon.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/W. Edward Ramage/
`W. Edward Ramage, Reg. No. 50,810
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`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 IPR2014-00790
`Patent 6,611,349
`___________________________
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF ROBERT L. STEVENSON
`IN SUPPORT OF VALIDITY OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,611,349
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CTP Exhibit 2014
`Eastman Kodak v. CTP Innovations
`IPR 2014-00790
`Page 1
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`QUALIFICATIONS ........................................................................................ 3
`
`II. MATERIALS CONSIDERED ........................................................................ 5
`
`III. SUMMARY OF OPINIONS ........................................................................... 6
`
`IV. OPINIONS AND BASES FOR THOSE OPINIONS ................................... 10
`
`A. One of Ordinary Skill in the Art. ........................................................ 10
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Claims 1-3 Are Not Obvious from Jebens, Apogee and OPI
`White Paper ......................................................................................... 10
`
`Claims 1 and 2 Are Not Obvious from Dorfman, Apogee and
`Andersson ............................................................................................ 19
`
`Claim 3 Is Not Obvious from Dorfman, Apogee, Andersson and
`OPI White Paper .................................................................................. 30
`
`CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................................... 31
`
`
`
`CTP Exhibit 2014
`Eastman Kodak v. CTP Innovations
`IPR 2014-00790
`Page 2
`
`V.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I, Robert L. Stevenson, have been retained to testify as an expert on behalf
`
`of CTP Innovations, LLC in this matter. I declare as follows:
`
`
`
`I. QUALIFICATIONS
`
`
`
`1.
`
`I am a professor of electric of electrical engineering and computer
`
`science at the University of Notre Dame, where I have been employed for the last
`
`24 years. I was granted tenure in 1996 as an Associate Professor and promoted to
`
`the academic rank of full Professor in 2002. I serve concurrently on the faculties
`
`of the Department of Electrical Engineering and the Department of Computer
`
`Science and Engineering. I also presently serve as the Associate Chair and
`
`Director of Undergraduate Studies in the Department of Electrical Engineering.
`
`
`
`2.
`
`I received my bachelor's degree from the University of Delaware in
`
`1986 and my Ph.D. from Purdue University in 1990, both in electrical engineering.
`
`My Ph.D. research was in the area of communications and signal processing. I
`
`have been actively engaged in the field of electrical engineering for over 30 years
`
`and in the field of image processing since 1986.
`
`
`
`3.
`
`I am a member of the Institute of Electronics and Electrical Engineers
`
`(IEEE), the Society of Photographic Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE), and the
`
`
`
`CTP Exhibit 2014
`Eastman Kodak v. CTP Innovations
`IPR 2014-00790
`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 2014-00790
`Page 4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8.
`
`A copy of my curriculum vitae is attached to this declaration as an
`
`appendix. It includes additional detail regarding my academic and professional
`
`background, and listings of various honors and awards I have received,
`
`professional activities with which I have been involved, papers and other
`
`publications I have authored or co-authored, and matters in which I have testified
`
`during the previous four (4) years.
`
`
`
`9.
`
`I am being compensated for my time working on this case at my
`
`customary hourly rate for all work performed on the case. My compensation is not
`
`in any way related to the outcome of the case.
`
`
`
`II. MATERIALS CONSIDERED
`
`10.
`
`I base the opinions that I express in this declaration on my education
`
`and decades of experience in the fields of electrical engineering and image
`
`processing. I also base my opinions on a review of the materials provided by the
`
`parties in this trial, including a review of United States Patent Nos. 6,611,349 (“the
`
`’349 patent”), 6,738,155 (“the ’155 patent”), and 6,321,231 (“Jebens”), PCT
`
`International Application Publication No. WO 98/08176 (“Dorfman”), as well as
`
`the AGFA Apogee: The PDF-based Production System paper (“Apogee”), Apple
`
`
`
`CTP Exhibit 2014
`Eastman Kodak v. CTP Innovations
`IPR 2014-00790
`Page 5
`
`
`
`Computer's OPI White Paper (“OPI White Paper”), and the PDF Printing and
`
`Publishing guide by Mattias Andersson and others (“Andersson”).
`
`
`
`11. The list of materials I reviewed in formulating my opinions consists of
`
`Petitioners’ Corrected Petition (Paper 4) and associated Exhibits (Exhibits 1001-
`
`1023), 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. 1022), and respond to Professor Lawler's allegations that
`
`certain claims of the ’349 patent are invalid on the following grounds:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`a. Claims 1-3: obviousness based on Jebens, Apogee and OPI White Paper;
`
`b. Claims 1-2: obviousness based on Dorfman, Apogee and Andersson;
`
`c. Claim 3: obviousness based on Dorfman, Apogee, Andersson and OPI
`
`White Paper.
`
`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
`
`CTP Exhibit 2014
`Eastman Kodak v. CTP Innovations
`IPR 2014-00790
`Page 6
`
`
`
`
`
`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-
`
`3 of the ’349 patent.
`
`
`
`13. Claims 1-3 of the ’349 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 ’349 patent
`
`filing, i.e., July 30, 1999, (“POSITA”) to modify the system of Jebens to replace
`
`the job order developer and conduit function of the central service facility of
`
`Jebens with the Apogee PDF RIP process. More specifically:
`
`
`
`
`
`(a)
`
`Jebens does not disclose processing a created document from
`
`the end-user facility to generate a plate-ready file; instead, it simply passes the
`
`created document, along with copies of high-resolution images, on to a publishing
`
`entity. Jebens does not insert high-resolution images into the created document.
`
`
`
`
`
`(b) Apogee discloses the generation of a PIF file from a PDF RIP
`
`process carried out at a print facility, not at a central service facility.
`
`
`
`14. Claims 1-2 of the ’349 patent are not obvious in light of the
`
`combination of Dorfman, Apogee and Andersson because it would not have been
`
`CTP Exhibit 2014
`Eastman Kodak v. CTP Innovations
`IPR 2014-00790
`Page 7
`
`
`
`
`
`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.
`
`
`
`
`
`(c) Even if Dorfman disclosed a separate central service facility
`
`and printing company facility, it does not disclose generating a plate-ready file at
`
`the central service facility, In Dorfman, the dynamic PDF file constructed by the
`
`end-user, is sent directly to the printing system for processing, bypassing any
`
`separate central service facility.
`
`
`
`15. Claim 3 of the ’349 patent is not obvious in light of the combination
`
`of Dorfman, Apogee, Andersson and OPI White Paper because, as discussed above
`
`with regard to claims 1 and 2, it would not have been obvious to a POSITA to
`
`CTP Exhibit 2014
`Eastman Kodak v. CTP Innovations
`IPR 2014-00790
`Page 8
`
`
`
`
`
`modify the digital printing system of Dorfman, which does not involve printing
`
`plates or plate-ready files, to incorporate printing plates or plate-ready files. More
`
`specifically:
`
`
`
`
`
`(a) Dorfman discloses a digital printing system with variable data
`
`and short-run features. These systems do not use printing plates or plate-ready
`
`files. The suggested modification would require modifying the principle of
`
`operation of Dorfman, and render it unfit for its intended purposes.
`
`
`
`
`
`(b) Dorfman does not describe a separate central service facility
`
`and printing company facility. Dorfman describes these functions as all being
`
`present at the same remote location: i.e., the facilities of a commercial printing
`
`service.
`
`
`
`
`
`(c) Even if Dorfman disclosed a separate central service facility
`
`and printing company facility, it does not disclose generating a plate-ready file at
`
`the central service facility, In Dorfman, the dynamic PDF file constructed by the
`
`end-user, is sent directly to the printing system for processing, bypassing any
`
`separate central service facility.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CTP Exhibit 2014
`Eastman Kodak v. CTP Innovations
`IPR 2014-00790
`Page 9
`
`
`
` 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 ’349 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. 1022), at ¶ 21. 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.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`B. Claims 1-3 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.
`
`
`
`CTP Exhibit 2014
`Eastman Kodak v. CTP Innovations
`IPR 2014-00790
`Page 10
`
`
`
`
`
`18. A POSITA would recognize that claim 1 requires an end user facility,
`
`a central service facility, and a printing company facility coupled to a
`
`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, where the file processing operations
`
`include generating a plate-ready file from pages designed at the end user facility,
`
`the plate-ready file having a file format capable of high resolution and ready for
`
`creation of a printing plate. A POSITA further would recognize that claim 1
`
`requires that the printing company facility provide printing operations, including
`
`producing a printing plate from the plate-ready file generated by the central service
`
`facility. See ‘’349 Patent (Ex. 1001), claim 1, elements (a), (c), (d), and (e). The
`
`specification of the ’349 patent confirms these operations. See, e.g., id. at 4:25-33;
`
`11:35-49.
`
`
`
`19. Professor Lawler asserts the system of Jebens replaces the low-
`
`resolution copies of the digital assets with the original high-resolution copies
`
`before the document created by the graphic designer is routed to the printer.
`
`Lawler Decl. (Ex. 1022), at ¶ 87 (“Before the document is routed to the printer,
`
`Jebens includes a system that replaces the low-resolution copies of the digital
`
`assets with the original high-resolution copies.”). I understand that he maintains
`
`CTP Exhibit 2014
`Eastman Kodak v. CTP Innovations
`IPR 2014-00790
`Page 11
`
`
`
`
`
`this position in his deposition testimony. However, Professor Lawler has mis-read
`
`Jebens, and Jebens does not teach this. The system of Jebens does not actually
`
`replace low-resolution images with high-resolution images in a document; instead,
`
`it simply serves as an image warehouse and job order forwarding service. Jebens
`
`teaches a data management and order delivery system that includes an image
`
`database for archiving low and high resolution copies of digital image files. See
`
`Jebens (Ex. 1006), at Abstract. The graphic designer or advertising agency
`
`downloads low resolution copies of images to be used, and creates a document
`
`incorporating the downloaded images. Id. at 5:11-17. Upon completion of the
`
`document creation, the agency re-connects to the system, and requests that the
`
`system route the created document (i.e., the document created by the graphic
`
`designer) along with high resolution copies of the selected digital images to a
`
`publishing entity, such as a printer:
`
`The agency would then disconnect or logoff from the system and
`
`begin its efforts to create a document incorporating the downloaded
`
`images. Upon completion of that process, the agency would re-
`
`connect to the system to request that the system electronically route
`
`the created document with high resolution copies of the selected
`
`digital images to a publishing entity such as a printer, where the
`
`finalized brochure would be published.
`
`
`
`CTP Exhibit 2014
`Eastman Kodak v. CTP Innovations
`IPR 2014-00790
`Page 12
`
`
`
`Id. at 5:15-22. The Petitioners in this case gloss over the fact that the system of
`
`Jebens is not creating a plate-ready file and sending it to a printing facility, but
`
`merely passing along the document created by the advertising agency along with
`
`high-resolution copies of images in the document.
`
`
`
`20. This is supported by Jebens' detailed discussion of “work orders” and
`
`“job orders.” A “work order" is the set of data transmitted from the first user to the
`
`host system requesting routing to a second user (e.g., printing facility). Id. at
`
`14:11-19. The work order includes a set of instructions identifying the second
`
`user, and identifying any files to be sent from the database. Id. at 14:15-18. The
`
`work order also includes local files created outside of the system (such as the PDL
`
`file or other document created by the first user). Id. at 14:11-25; 14:36-54; 22:51-
`
`55. A “job order” is a collection of data assembled or other developed by the host
`
`system for routing to the second user. Id. at 14:27-29. The job order includes the
`
`created document received from the first user, other local files received from the
`
`first user, and any original data files (such as high resolution image files identified
`
`in the work order). Id. at 14:26-35; 14:45-50.
`
`Preferably, the job order includes any local files forwarded by the user
`
`in the work order, and copies of any data files in the database that
`
`were identified in the work order by the first user.
`
`
`
`CTP Exhibit 2014
`Eastman Kodak v. CTP Innovations
`IPR 2014-00790
`Page 13
`
`
`
`Id. at 14:26-35. The local documents contained in the work order, and the original
`
`data files, are compressed and forwarded to the receiving user (i.e., printing
`
`facility):
`
`
`
`Upon receiving the work order, the host site 10 develops a job
`
`order in accordance with the instructions contained in the work order.
`
`The development of a job order is preferably initiated by the internet
`
`server 24 which parses the destination and instruction form for the
`
`address of the receiving user (block 516). Next, the internet server
`
`locates any original data file(s) (such as high resolution image file(s))
`
`identified in the work order (block 518). The original data files(s) and
`
`any local documents contained in the work order are then compressed
`
`(preferably, pursuant to a user defined algorithm as discussed above in
`
`connection with FIGS. 4A-4C) (block 520) and forwarded to the
`
`receiving user specified in the destination and instruction form (block
`
`522).
`
`Id. at 14:55-66.
`
`
`
`21. The above description of the preparation of a job order corresponds to
`
`Figures 8A and 8B of Jebens, as shown below:
`
`
`
`
`
`CTP Exhibit 2014
`Eastman Kodak v. CTP Innovations
`IPR 2014-00790
`Page 14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CTP Exhibit 2014
`Eastman Kodak v. CTP Innovations
`IPR 2014-00790
`Page 15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CTP Exhibit 2014
`Eastman Kodak v. CTP Innovations
`IPR 2014-00790
`Page 16
`
`
`
`
`
`The Abstract of Jebens refers to this process as routing a job order compiled by the
`
`job order developer. Id. at Abstract; see also id. at 4:59-62 (“As explained below,
`
`the system is also adapted to serve as a job order developer and conduit for routing
`
`files from a browser or client such as an advertising agency to a jobber or supplier
`
`such as a printer.”).
`
`
`
`22. The fact that the host facility of Jebens does not replace the low
`
`resolution images in the user-created document (which can be a PDL file, see id. at
`
`13:62-67) with high resolution images is further supported by Jebens' later
`
`discussion of the transmission of a job order through its “hot-foldering” process:
`
`
`
`As shown in FIG. 10G, upon receipt of the work order (block
`
`850), the host site 10 will parse the work order for the identifications
`
`of images to be included in the job order and the name of the supplier
`
`16 (block 852) to receive the job. The address of the jobber 16 will be
`
`located in the configuration database 731 (block 854) and high
`
`resolution copies of the identified files will be downloaded from the
`
`file system 729 (block 856). The assembled job order including the
`
`high resolution copies of the images selected by any user and the user
`
`created attachments such as PDF files, will then be automatically
`
`transferred to a sending hot-folder associated with the selected
`
`destination (block 858). The hot folder transport system will then take
`
`
`
`CTP Exhibit 2014
`Eastman Kodak v. CTP Innovations
`IPR 2014-00790
`Page 17
`
`
`
`over, compressing the job order and transferring the job order to the
`
`selected destination as described above in connection with FIG. 10A.
`
`Id. at 22:43-57.
`
`
`
`23. Thus, a POSITA would recognize that there is no substantive
`
`processing of the created document file received from the advertising agency (or
`
`other first user) in the system of Jebens; it is simply bundled with other files and
`
`compressed for transmission to a jobber or supplier. The processing of the created
`
`document file must take place at the jobber or supplier, although Jebens provides
`
`no details of that processing since it is focused on the interaction between the
`
`advertising agency and the central image storage facility, and with the creation and
`
`transmission of the job order to a jobber or supplier at the direction of the
`
`advertising agency.
`
`
`
`24. To the extent that Apogee discloses the generation of a plate-ready
`
`file in the form of a Print Image File (“PIF”) through the Apogee PDF RIP process,
`
`see Apogee (Ex. 1008), at pp. 6-7, a POSITA would consider this process to be
`
`taking place at the jobber or supplier, i.e., at a printing company facility. It would
`
`not be obvious to a POSITA to replace the job order developer and conduit
`
`function of the central facility of Jebens with the Apogee PDF RIP process. In
`
`
`
`CTP Exhibit 2014
`Eastman Kodak v. CTP Innovations
`IPR 2014-00790
`Page 18
`
`
`
`fact, such a modification would substantially change the manner of operation of the
`
`central facility of the Jebens system.
`
`
`
`25.
`
`I further note that 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
`
`communication network. See ’349 Patent (Ex. 1001)., claim 1. 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.
`
`
`
`26.
`
`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. 1006), at 4:52-65. Jebens, however, does not disclose or
`
`suggest that the first user (e.g., advertising agency) directly communicates with the
`
`CTP Exhibit 2014
`Eastman Kodak v. CTP Innovations
`IPR 2014-00790
`Page 19
`
`
`
`
`
`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:
`
`
`
`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
`
`CTP Exhibit 2014
`Eastman Kodak v. CTP Innovations
`IPR 2014-00790
`Page 20
`
`
`
`
`
`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.
`
`
`
`27.
`
`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 2014-00790
`Page 21
`
`
`
`
`
`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.
`
`
`
`28. 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.
`
`
`
`29.
`
`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 2014-00790
`Page 22
`
`
`
`
`
`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.
`
`
`
`30.
`
`I note that OPI White Paper is used to provide a teaching of a proof
`
`printer at the end user facility for providing samples of printed pages at an end user
`
`facility, and the performance of imposition operations at a printing company
`
`facility. See OPI White Paper (Ex. 1009), pp. 22, 33. It does not cure the defects
`
`listed above for the suggested combination of Jebens and Apogee.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CTP Exhibit 2014
`Eastman Kodak v. CTP Innovations
`IPR 2014-00790
`Page 23
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`31. A POSITA would recognize that claims 2 and 3 require the same
`
`elements as claim 1 as described above, and thus would not find it obvious to
`
`combine Jebens and Apogee in the suggested manner for these claims for the same
`
`reasons given above with regard to claim 1.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`C. Claims 1-2 Are Not Obvious from Dorfman, Apogee and
`
`Andersson
`
`
`
`32. 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.
`
`Digital printing systems also are often used for customized printing or personalized
`
`printing.
`
`
`
`33. 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
`
`
`
`CTP Exhibit 2014
`Eastman Kodak v. CTP Innovations