throbber
IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`___________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`___________________________
`
`EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY, AGFA CORPORATION,
`ESKO SOFTWARE BVBA, and HEIDELBERG, USA,
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`CTP INNOVATIONS, LLC
`Patent Owner
`___________________________
`
`Case IPR2014-00790
`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

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


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

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

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket