`
`________________
`
`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
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,611,349
`
`______________
`
`
`
`PATENTS OWNER’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO
`PETITIONERS’ REQUEST FOR REHEARING
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .................................................................................... ii
`
`I.
`
`ARGUMENT ................................................................................................... 2
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Petitioners’ Argument Regarding Apogee Does Not Change the
`Board’s Conclusion ............................................................................... 2
`
`The Board Properly Considered the Architecture of Jebens and
`Dorfman As Primary References .......................................................... 4
`
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................ 5
`
`
`
`i
`
`II.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`CASES
`In re Gordon,
`733 F.2d 900 (Fed. Cir. 1984) .............................................................................. 3
`
`Page(s)
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398, 421-23 (2007) ................................................................................ 3
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d) .................................................................................................. 4
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`On November 25, 2015, the Board issued its Final Written Decision
`
`
`
`(“Decision”) finding that Petitioners failed to demonstrate that claims 1-3 of U.S.
`
`Patent Number 6,611,349 (“the ’349 Patent”) were obvious over the alleged prior
`
`art. Petitioners filed a Request for Rehearing (“Request for Rehearing”) on
`
`December 28, 2015, asserting that the Board erred on two grounds: (1) the Board
`
`overlooked evidence that Apogee discloses the provision of a plate-ready file to a
`
`remote printer; and (2) the Board mistakenly looked to the architecture of Apogee
`
`as the primary reference, instead of the architecture of Jebens or Dorfman,
`
`respectively.
`
`
`
`The Board has invited Patent Owner to file this response in opposition to the
`
`Request for Rehearing. Patent Owner submits that the Final Written Decision was
`
`correct and the Request for Rehearing should be denied because, as discussed
`
`below: (1) the Board properly and completely considered the arguments based on
`
`Jebens and Apogee, and Dorfman and Apogee, previously raised by the Petitioner;
`
`and (2) the Board properly considered the architectures of Jebens and Dorfman as
`
`primary references in view of Apogee as a secondary reference.
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`ARGUMENT
`A.
`
`Petitioners’ Argument Regarding Apogee Does Not Change the
`Board’s Conclusion
`
`
`
`Petitioners argue that Apogee discloses the provision of a plate-ready file to
`
`a remote printer. This is not a valid basis for granting rehearing because it would
`
`not have changed the Board's conclusion that the subject claims were not obvious
`
`based on Jebens in view of Apogee.
`
`
`
`Apogee’s alleged disclosure of the provision of a plate-ready file to a remote
`
`printer does not change the Board’s conclusion. As Patent Owner has previously
`
`pointed out, it would not be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to
`
`replace or modify the job order developer and conduit function of the central
`
`facility of Jebens with the Apogee PDF RIP process. The host system of Jebens
`
`does not generate a PDF file from the document created by the agency (and, in
`
`fact; does not process the document created by the agency at all, other than to
`
`include it in a job order sent to a printer); does not disclose sending any form of a
`
`processed document back to the agency; and does not disclose providing a plate-
`
`ready file to a remote printer. See Stevenson Decl. (Ex. 2014), at ¶¶ 25-33. To the
`
`extent that Apogee discloses the generation of a plate-ready file in the form of a
`
`PIF through the Apogee PDF RIP process, a POSITA would consider this process
`
`to be taking place at the jobber or supplier, i.e., at a printing company facility. See
`
`Stevenson Decl. (Ex. 2014), at ¶ 30; Lawler Depo. Tr. (Ex. 2017), at 31:12–32:4.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Thus, neither Jebens nor Apogee suggest that this process take place in the host
`
`system of Jebens. In fact, such a modification would substantially change the
`
`manner of operation of the central facility of the Jebens system. Stevenson Decl.
`
`(Ex. 2014), at ¶¶ 30, 33. The proposed modification cannot render the prior art
`
`unsatisfactory for its intended purposes. See MPEP 2143.01(V); In re Gordon,
`
`733 F.2d 900 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Similarly, the proposed modification or teaching
`
`cannot change the principle of operation of the prior art invention or reference.
`
`MPEP 2143.01(VI).
`
`
`
`The Board properly determined that the claims were not obvious in light of
`
`the proposed combination of Jebens and Apogee. As the Board concluded,
`
`“[e]vidence that a skilled artisan could have generated the plate-ready file at
`
`Jebens’ host facility, without any evidence of a reason why the skilled artisan
`
`would have done so, is insufficient to show obviousness.” Decision at 27 (citing
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421-23 (2007)). In fact, the Board
`
`considered Professor Lawler's deposition testimony in this regard, Decision at 26,
`
`and concluded that the Petitioners had not met their burden of proof, Decision at
`
`28.
`
`
`
`With regard to the combination of Dorfman and Apogee, the Board similarly
`
`concluded that “Petitioner has not shown that a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would have had reason to produce the plate-ready file anywhere other than at
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Dorfman's production printing system.” Decision at 32. As the Board observed,
`
`the proposed combination of Dorfman and Apogee suffers from the same
`
`deficiency discussed above with regard to Jebens/Apogee. Id.
`
`
`
`Accordingly, Petitioners have failed to meet their burden of showing that the
`
`Decision of the Board should be modified on this first ground, and the Request for
`
`Rehearing should be denied.
`
`B.
`
`The Board Properly Considered the Architecture of Jebens and
`Dorfman As Primary References
`
`
`
`Petitioners assert the Board mistakenly looked to the secondary reference
`
`(Apogee) for architectural features relied upon in the primary references (Jebens
`
`and Dorfman), and then suggested that Apogee would have to be modified to
`
`transmit a plate-ready file to a remote printer. Request at 13. Petitioners are
`
`incorrect. The Board properly considered modifying the primary references in
`
`view of the secondary reference.
`
`
`
` With regard to Jebens and Apogee, the Decision explicitly states that the
`
`Board considered modifying Jebens in view of Apogee:
`
`Petitioner asserts that “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,” Pet. 29, but Petitioner does not assert, much less point us to
`
`any evidence, that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`been motivated to combine Jebens and Apogee in such a way that a
`
`plate-ready file would have been produced at Jebens’ host facility
`
`(which is alleged to correspond to the claimed central service facility)
`
`rather than at its printing facility.
`
`Decision at 27-28. That the Board considered Jebens’ architecture is also apparent
`
`from its summary of the parties’ contentions. See, e.g., id. at 23 (finding that
`
`Petitioners rely on Jebens to teach “a ‘digital management system’ that ‘can be
`
`used to coordinate design, prepress, and printing activities, by connecting the front-
`
`end users … to service bureau and printing companies over a communication
`
`network.’” The Board similarly considered modifying Dorfman as the primary
`
`reference, in view of Apogee as the secondary reference. Id. at 29-33.
`
`
`
`Accordingly, the Board properly considered the proposed modification of
`
`the primary references (Jebens and Dorfman) in view of Apogee, the secondary
`
`reference. As Petitioners have failed to meet their burden of showing that the
`
`Decision of the Board should be modified on this second ground, the Request for
`
`Rehearing should be denied.
`
`II. CONCLUSION
`
`For the above reasons, Petitioners have failed to meet their burden of
`
`establishing that the Board's Final Written Decision should be modified on either
`
`ground. The Request for Rehearing should be denied in its entirety.
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`BAKER, DONELSON, BEARMAN,
`CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, P.C.
`
`
`
`/W. Edward Ramage/
`W. Edward Ramage, Reg. No. 50,810
`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: ermage@bakerdonelson.com
`
`Counsel for Patent Owner CTP
`Innovations, LLC
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: August 25, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that, on August 25, 2016, the foregoing
`Patent Owner’s Response in Opposition to Petitioners’ Request for Rehearing was
`served in its entirety via U.S. Express Mail, postage prepaid, and electronic mail
`upon the following:
`
`Scott 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
`
`
`
`7