IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT & TRADEMARK OFFICE
`______________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`______________________
`
`COMMAND WEB OFFSET COMPANY, INC.; WORZALLA PUBLISHING
`COMPANY; SANDY ALEXANDER, INC.; PUBLICATION PRINTERS CORP.;
`SPECIALTY PROMOTIONS, INC.;
`AND TREND OFFSET PRINTING SERVICES INC.,
`
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`CTP INNOVATIONS, LLC,
`
`Patent Owner.
`______________________
`
`Case IPR2016-_____ (U.S. Patent 6,611,349)
`
`______________________
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF MICHAEL JAHN
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioners' Exhibit 1026, pg. 1
`
`
`______________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`______________________
`
`COMMAND WEB OFFSET COMPANY, INC.; WORZALLA PUBLISHING
`COMPANY; SANDY ALEXANDER, INC.; PUBLICATION PRINTERS CORP.;
`SPECIALTY PROMOTIONS, INC.;
`AND TREND OFFSET PRINTING SERVICES INC.,
`
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`CTP INNOVATIONS, LLC,
`
`Patent Owner.
`______________________
`
`Case IPR2016-_____ (U.S. Patent 6,611,349)
`
`______________________
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF MICHAEL JAHN
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioners' Exhibit 1026, pg. 1
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................. 1
`
`A. Qualifications ....................................................................................... 1
`
`B. Basis of My Opinion and Materials Considered ................................. 5
`
`C. Understanding of Legal Standards ....................................................... 5
`
`1. Obviousness ...................................................................................... 5
`
`II. DESCRIPTION OF THE RELEVANT FIELD AND THE RELEVANT
`
`TIMEFRAME .................................................................................................... 7
`
`III. THE PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL ........................................................... 8
`
`IV. DIGITAL PRINTING WORKFLOWS ............................................................. 9
`
`A. Page Building ....................................................................................... 9
`
`1. Open Prepress Interface (“OPI”) .................................................... 11
`
`2. PostScript vs. PDF .......................................................................... 13
`
`B. Prepress .............................................................................................. 15
`
`C. Platemaking and Printing ................................................................... 18
`
`D. Exemplary Workflow ......................................................................... 19
`
`V. CLAIMS 4-9 OF THE ‘349 PATENT ............................................................. 20
`
`VI. CLAIM INTERPRETATION .......................................................................... 22
`
`VII. DISCUSSION OF RELEVANT PRIOR ART ................................................ 24
`
`A. Unpatentability in view of FullPress and WebNative ....................... 25
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioners' Exhibit 1026, pg. 2
`
`
`
`1. Claim 4 ............................................................................................ 27
`
`2. Claim 5 ............................................................................................ 41
`
`3. Claim 6 ............................................................................................ 43
`
`4. Claim 7 ............................................................................................ 44
`
`5. Claims 8 and 9 ................................................................................ 46
`
`B. Unpatentability in View of I-Media .................................................. 47
`
`1. Claim 4 ............................................................................................ 48
`
`2. Claim 5 ............................................................................................ 55
`
`3. Claim 6 ............................................................................................ 55
`
`4. Claim 7 ............................................................................................ 56
`
`5. Claims 8 and 9 ................................................................................ 57
`
`VIII. Secondary Considerations ................................................................................ 60
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioners' Exhibit 1026, pg. 3
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746 and 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 I, Michael Jahn, the
`
`undersigned, hereby declare as follows:
`
`(1.)
`
`My name is Michael Jahn. This declaration is submitted in support of
`
`the inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 6,611,349 (“the ‘349 patent”) filed in the
`
`names of Command Web Offset Company, Inc.; Worzalla Publishing Company;
`
`Sandy Alexander, Inc.; Publication Printers Corp.; Specialty Promotions, Inc.,
`
`d/b/a Specialty Print Communications; and Trend Offset Printing Services Inc.
`
`(collectively, “Petitioners”).
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`A. Qualifications
`
`(2.)
`
`My Professional career has spanned close to 30 years. During this
`
`time, I have continually gained extensive experience in design, consulting,
`
`purchasing, licensing, marketing and working with Independent Software
`
`Developers (“ISVs”), Original Equipment Manufacturers, (“OEMs”) and
`
`consumable vendors in the general fields of graphic arts, data processing,
`
`commercial printing and publishing of catalogs, books, magazines.
`
`(3.)
`
`I currently work for Datatech SmartSoft, Inc. (“SmartSoft”). I have
`
`worked here since November 1, 2011. My title is Manager of Implementation and
`
`Support. I am responsible for PressWise installation, product training and
`
`developing custom solutions for clients, as well as product road mapping and
`
`
`
`1
`
`Petitioners' Exhibit 1026, pg. 4
`
`
`
`future development projects for the PressWise Print MIS production workflow
`
`system. PressWise provides a single browser-based print management system that
`
`automates the digital workflow and incorporates imposition. I have been working
`
`with digital workflows since June 1985, which I will discuss in greater detail
`
`below.
`
`(4.)
`
`I started my career in 1985 as a prepress workflow specialist when I
`
`worked in Buffalo, NY for Digicon. Digicon offer prepress services for
`
`Advertising agencies and local companies like Fisher Price Toys. We prepared
`
`digital files of advertisements and sent them to magazine publishers digitally (we
`
`were “early adopters” of this digital process). A few magazines back then were
`
`experimenting with inserting advertisements digitally, and file formats like
`
`PostScript (introduced in 1982) were quite new. Few people understood how to
`
`create them reliably during this time, and exchanging them between two parties
`
`was quite difficult, as it was “platform dependent”—that is, if one party was using
`
`a Microsoft Windows PC, and another party was using a IBM AS400 (as was
`
`popular back then) it was nearly impossible to exchange PostScript files between
`
`the two parties. There would be encoding errors, and the files would become
`
`corrupt and unusable. Special attention and specialized software was required as
`
`well as a high level of skill to accomplish this “reliable exchange.” I spent a great
`
`
`
`2
`
`Petitioners' Exhibit 1026, pg. 5
`
`
`
`deal of my time assembling software solutions that would overcome these
`
`problems.
`
`(5.)
`
`We prepared 4 color separation film for magazines, catalogs,
`
`brochures, and packaging. This included both manual imposition by stripping film
`
`into position and digital imposition for work-n-turn signatures.
`
`(6.)
`
`In the late 1980s, I worked as the technical director of the Scitex
`
`Graphic Arts Users Association (“SGAUA”) where we deployed prepress software
`
`solutions to our members. Scitex equipment owners were all faced with the
`
`problem of file exchange. Many were in the business of receiving analog
`
`photography in the form of transparencies and color prints, then scanning them into
`
`digital form, retouching and performing color corrections and “swatch matching”
`
`where the worker had to view a product then use software to edit and manipulate
`
`the colors to match the color of the product. This then was assembled into a page
`
`design then needed to be transferred to a magazine publisher.
`
`(7.)
`
`Between 1989-1996, I was Director of Electronic Prepress Services
`
`for Shea communications, where I was involved with building our prepress
`
`workflow system for heat set offset printing and gravure. At that time, more and
`
`more the design firms and advertising agencies were beginning to build “ready to
`
`print” files, but as this was “before” the internet was widely available—digital
`
`transmission of large data was prohibitively expensive.
`
`
`
`3
`
`Petitioners' Exhibit 1026, pg. 6
`
`
`
`(8.)
`
`Prior to joining SmartSoft where I am currently employed, I had
`
`worked for Agfa Corporation (“Agfa”) from August 1997 to September 2001 as a
`
`contract consultant. Although I had other projects while working for Agfa, my
`
`work with Agfa consumed most of my time during this period. By then, OPI and
`
`content management system were very popular, as well as digital imposition
`
`systems. As AGFA was developing, marketing, and selling computer to plate
`
`systems (“CTP,” not to be confused with the Patent Owner in this case) and the
`
`consumables that were used by printing companies, they were keen on developing
`
`an “AGFA branded and supported” workflow to drive its imagesetters and
`
`platesetters and to help Agfa sell multi-year contracts for the film and plate
`
`consumables that were being imaged for printing.
`
`(9.)
`
`While working for Agfa, I was tasked to assist in the product
`
`management and development of AGFA Apogee. I helped define the initial
`
`feature set for AGFA Apogee that would enable PDF workflow; I created white
`
`papers and training materials, provided technical content to writers and designers
`
`of marketing materials, slides show and brochures; I helped develop a marketing
`
`strategy and was the presenter at print tradeshows and workflow conferences for
`
`the Agfa PDF product line. I spoke at industry events about Agfa technologies and
`
`PDF workflows internationally and in the U.S. AGFA Apogee was one of the first
`
`commercially available products to leverage the PDF workflow. AGFA Apogee
`
`
`
`4
`
`Petitioners' Exhibit 1026, pg. 7
`
`
`
`took incoming page designs, processed them through all required prepress
`
`procedures, and then output a plate-ready file that could be sent to a platesetter or
`
`imagesetter, for example.
`
`(10.) My remaining experience as a consultant and PDF, printing, prepress,
`
`and digital workflow specialist is summarized in my C.V., attached hereto as
`
`Attachment A and may also be accessed electronically at
`
`https://www.linkedin.com/in/michaelejahn.
`
`B. Basis of My Opinion and Materials Considered
`
`(11.)
`
`I have reviewed the ‘349 patent and its file history. I have reviewed
`
`the prior art and other documents and materials cited herein. My opinions are also
`
`based in part upon my education, training, knowledge, and experience. For ease of
`
`reference, the full list of information that I have considered is included in
`
`Attachment B.
`
`C. Understanding of Legal Standards
`
`1. Obviousness
`
`(12.)
`
`A patent claim is invalid if the differences between the patented
`
`subject matter 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 person of ordinary skill
`
`in the art. I am informed that this standard is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
`
`
`
`5
`
`Petitioners' Exhibit 1026, pg. 8
`
`
`
`(13.) When considering the issues of obviousness, I am to do the following:
`
`(i) determine the scope and content of the prior art; (ii) ascertain the differences
`
`between the prior art and the claims at issue; (iii) resolve the level of ordinary skill
`
`in the pertinent art; and (iv) consider objective evidence of non-obviousness. I
`
`appreciate that secondary considerations must be assessed as part of the overall
`
`obviousness analysis (i.e. as opposed to analyzing the prior art, reaching a tentative
`
`conclusion, and then assessing whether objective indicia alter that conclusion).
`
`(14.)
`
`Put another way, my understanding is that not all innovations are
`
`patentable. Even if a claimed product or method is not explicitly described in its
`
`entirety in a single prior art reference, the patent claim will still be denied if the
`
`claim would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
`
`the patent application filing.
`
`(15.)
`
`In determining whether the subject matter as a whole would have been
`
`considered obvious at the time that the patent application was filed, by a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art, I have been informed of several principles regarding the
`
`combination of elements of the prior art:
`
`a. First, a combination of familiar elements according to known methods
`
`is likely to be obvious when it yields predictable results.
`
`b. Second, if a person of ordinary skill in the art can implement a
`
`“predictable variation” in a prior art device, and would see the benefit
`
`
`
`6
`
`Petitioners' Exhibit 1026, pg. 9
`
`
`
`from doing so, such a variation would be obvious. In particular, when
`
`there is pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of
`
`identifiable, predictable solutions, it would be reasonable for a person
`
`of ordinary skill to pursue those options that fall within his or her
`
`technical grasp. If such a process leads to the claimed invention, then
`
`the latter is not an innovation, but more the result of ordinary skill and
`
`common sense.
`
`(16.)
`
`The “teaching, suggestion, or motivation” test is a useful guide in
`
`establishing a rationale for combining elements of the prior art. This test poses the
`
`question as to whether there is an explicit teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the
`
`prior art to combine prior art elements in a way that realizes the claimed invention.
`
`Though useful to the obviousness inquiry, I understand that this test should not be
`
`treated as a rigid rule. It is not necessary to seek out precise teachings; it is
`
`permissible to consider the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art (who is considered to have an ordinary level of creativity and is not
`
`an “automaton”) would employ.
`
`II. DESCRIPTION OF THE RELEVANT FIELD AND THE RELEVANT
`TIMEFRAME
`
`(17.)
`
`I have carefully reviewed the ‘349 patent. Based on my review of this
`
`material, I believe that the relevant field for the purposes of the ‘349 patent is
`
`
`
`7
`
`Petitioners' Exhibit 1026, pg. 10
`
`
`
`printing and publishing systems. I have been informed that the relevant timeframe
`
`is on or before July 30, 1999.
`
`(18.)
`
`As described in Section I above and as shown in my CV, I have
`
`extensive experience in the field of printing and publishing. Based on my
`
`experience, I have a good understanding of the relevant field in the relevant
`
`timeframe.
`
`III. THE PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL
`
`(19.)
`
`I have been informed that “a person of ordinary skill in the relevant
`
`field” is a hypothetical person to whom an expert in the relevant field could assign
`
`a routine task with reasonable confidence that the task would be successfully
`
`carried out. I have been informed that the level of skill in the art is evidenced by
`
`prior art references. The prior art discussed herein demonstrates 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. I understand that this definition was applied during the IPRs
`
`filed by Kodak (IPR2014-00788, -789, -790, and -791) and that it was not
`
`contested by the Patent Owner in those cases.
`
`(20.)
`
`Based on my experience, I have an understanding of the capabilities
`
`of a person of ordinary skill in the relevant filed. Not only did I have those
`
`
`
`8
`
`Petitioners' Exhibit 1026, pg. 11
`
`
`
`capabilities (and more) at the time the ‘349 patent was filed, but I have supervised
`
`and directed many such persons over the course of my career.
`
`IV. DIGITAL PRINTING WORKFLOWS
`
`(21.)
`
`The ‘349 patent relates to a system and method for providing printing
`
`and publishing services over a communication network, such as the internet. See,
`
`e.g., Ex. 1001 at 1:7-10. More particularly, the ‘349 patent claims the basic and
`
`widely published idea of using a communication network to connect the creative or
`
`front-end of the printing and publishing industry (e.g., graphic artists, publishers,
`
`and those creating page designs) with the services end (e.g., service bureaus and
`
`printing facilities that actually prepare for printing, and print, the designs created
`
`by the front-end users).
`
`(22.)
`
`As explained above, I have 30 years of experience in designing and
`
`implementing printing and prepress workflows. At its core, the concept of a
`
`prepress workflow is to build a process or procedure to convert a set images,
`
`graphics and type that make up a page, and then prepare that page for making a
`
`printing plate. There are three basis steps—page building, prepress, and plate
`
`making or printing—which I will discuss in turn.
`
`A. Page Building
`
`(23.)
`
`The first step in any printing workflow is to design the page that is to
`
`be printed. When any company decides to develop a print related marketing and
`
`
`
`9
`
`Petitioners' Exhibit 1026, pg. 12
`
`
`
`advertisement campaign for a new product, this involves logo and package design,
`
`copywriting a typesetting, as well as page layout for magazine and newspaper
`
`advertisements. Back in the mid-90s and even before, a designer would use
`
`software like Quark Xpress or Aldus PageMaker to pull together the assets and
`
`design the layout of a pages. Most of the assets that would be used were searched
`
`for and pulled (most commonly dragged and dropped) into the page layouts from a
`
`content management system that was shared among departments located around
`
`the world. See, e.g., Ex. 1023. While local servers would store these documents
`
`using Local Area Networks (LANs) they would be shared to remote locations
`
`using Wide Area Networks (WANs) connections. Digital Asset Management
`
`(“DAM”) systems grew very popular with large corporations that advertised and
`
`developed multi-page brochures, “remotely providing access to imaging files for
`
`searching and retrieving images used in the design of a page layout by a remote
`
`user.” This was practiced widely and was reported internationally in popular
`
`magazines like The Seybold Report on Publishing. See Ex. 1018.
`
`(24.)
`
`The first desktop computer software for page layout and typography
`
`was PageMaker, developed in 1984. PageMaker was a computer program from
`
`Aldus Corporation, first running on a Macintosh computer, which provided graphic
`
`artists the ability to position text and graphics (but not photos in the earliest
`
`editions) on a page created on the computer screen. Among its features was the
`
`
`
`10
`
`Petitioners' Exhibit 1026, pg. 13
`
`
`
`ability to render an on-screen image of typography in the correct choice of font,
`
`size, and position.
`
`1. Open Prepress Interface (“OPI”)
`
`(25.)
`
`To overcome the problem noted above that transmission of large data
`
`was prohibitively
`
`expensive in the
`
`early 1990s, Aldus
`
`invented OPI in
`
`1993: a system
`
`could be set up
`
`where one could
`
`upload a large file
`
`size high resolution ‘print quality’ digital image to an OPI server, which then
`
`copied and down-sampled the image making it small and easier to manage and
`
`transfer between computers. This “low resolution” file (or “THIN PostScript”)
`
`was used to designing pages only (e.g., For Placement Only (“FPO”), it was not
`
`used for printing. See, e.g., Ex. 1009 at 12; Ex. 1012 at 5-7.
`
`(26.) When printed, this was “replaced” by the high resolution file (or
`
`“FAT PostScript”). This was all managed by printing to an OPI server spooling
`
`system which would do the low res to high res image switching. The swapping
`
`
`
`11
`
`Petitioners' Exhibit 1026, pg. 14
`
`
`
`was done by using OPI comments. The OPI comments allow the server to locate
`
`the original high-resolution digital photo that corresponds to the comments and
`
`replace the low-resolution photo with the high-resolution photo prior to outputting
`
`the design to the desired printing device. See, e.g., Ex. 1009 at 12; Ex. 1012 at 5-7.
`
`This was very popular and highly sought after in the mid to late 1990s, as it really
`
`saved a lot of time when printing over busy networks. While working for Shea
`
`communications, I spent a great deal of time setting these up for our retail
`
`newspaper insert customers like Hills Department Stores, Walmart, K-Mart and
`
`Montgomery Wards. To decrease the time between design of the weekly
`
`newspaper insert and the printing and distribution of the same, high speed
`
`telecommunication networks were installed.
`
`(27.)
`
`It is important to note that many people at this time were building
`
`automatic workflows that coupled three technologies together. OPI was becoming
`
`a popular approach to overcoming network bottlenecks; automated imposition
`
`enable paginated, ready to plate file creation; while PDF (discussed below) enabled
`
`reliable exchange between parties. As high speed telecommunications services
`
`such as Frame Relay and SMDS became more affordable, service companies like
`
`WAM/NET (owned by the now defunct MCI / WorldCom) would enable two
`
`locations to set up the systems and technologies mentioned above and create
`
`workflows.
`
`
`
`12
`
`Petitioners' Exhibit 1026, pg. 15
`
`
`
`2. PostScript vs. PDF
`
`(28.)
`
`In this same time period (1985-1996), a programming language
`
`named PostScript became the defacto way to print out a complex page layout
`
`design from an application like Quark Xpress or Aldus Pagemaker. The ability to
`
`represent these designs digitally and image them was a boon to the industry, as
`
`prior to this, without PostScript, only text could be manipulated and printed.
`
`PostScript enabled the designer to incorporated images, graphical elements and
`
`logos. The problem was exchanging PostScript—it simply was not reliable.
`
`Exchanging these complex page layout design would require you to exchange the
`
`authoring application file—which had the same problem of being platform
`
`specific—for example, if a designer created a Quark Xpress document on the
`
`Microsoft windows platform version, they could not exchange that with someone
`
`using an Apple Macintosh platform of Quark Xpress. Like PostScript, it was
`
`platform dependent.
`
`(29.)
`
`Adobe attacked this problem and overcame it by developing the PDF
`
`file. One could create a PDF file on any computer platform and exchange it
`
`without any errors and change in the documents look and feel with any other user
`
`using any other platform. A free reliable exchange was then possible without
`
`regard to whether the users were on a Windows, Macintosh, or Unix computer.
`
`What was exchanged between designers of pages was single page PDF files, which
`
`
`
`13
`
`Petitioners' Exhibit 1026, pg. 16
`
`
`
`may (or may not) have contained “thin” data (this was dependent on if the two
`
`parties decided to incorporate OPI or not). But important to note, while the
`
`exchange of PDF single pages between designers and their prepress service
`
`provider was typically single pages, many prepress designers were then paginating
`
`and imposing these PDF file into signatures for “plate ready files.”
`
`(30.)
`
`There were many different types of business relationships that would
`
`make parties decide to perform the OPI switch from THIN to FAT PostScript
`
`before making a PDF, but this was mainly due to lack of support for “thin” PDF
`
`files (or better stated, PDF files that retained / preserved OPI comments) in the
`
`early stages of PDF. Prior to Adobe’s introduction of the Adobe Acrobat Distiller
`
`PDF 1.2 specification at the end of 1996, OPI comments were not preserved when
`
`a PostScript page was converted to PDF. See Ex. 1015 at 4. Similarly, Adobe
`
`Acrobat Distiller 3.0x could not read OPI 2.0 comments and, therefore, if
`
`PostScript files were converted to PDF using Distiller 3.0x, OPI image exchange
`
`with thin and fat PostScript files would have to occur pre-PDF conversion if using
`
`OPI 2.0 comments. Ex. 1014 at 5. Thus, in the late 1990s, much of the software
`
`infrastructure used by those of ordinary skill was not capable of operating in PDF
`
`(particularly OPI functions) and, therefore, the use of thin and fat PostScript files
`
`before converting to PDF was an expected design consideration.
`
`
`
`14
`
`Petitioners' Exhibit 1026, pg. 17
`
`
`
`B. Prepress
`
`(31.)
`
`Prepress is the term used to describe all of the processes that occur
`
`before printing and finishing. Because many publications nowadays (and
`
`beginning in the late 1990s) are published both in print and electronically, many
`
`refer to the shared processes as pre-media services instead. The prepress processes
`
`that are listed below may take place at one single location, such as a large
`
`publishing and printing company, or at a variety of places. Usually some tasks
`
`happen at a publisher while others take place at a printer or a dedicated prepress
`
`company (which are sometimes referred to as service bureaus or trade shops).
`
`(32.)
`
`Before finished pages go through the prepress processes, a validation
`
`is done to check if all the data meet the necessary production requirements, this is
`
`called preflighting.
`
`(33.)
`
`Proofing is next: During the design phase there are already page
`
`proofs being created. Proofs are usually also made by the company that is
`
`responsible for the printing/prepress work. This can be done for internal checks
`
`relating to impositioning (imposition proofs), as well as for the end-user customers
`
`who must sign off the proofs for approval. More and more, but even before the
`
`filing of the ‘349 patent, such proofs were soft proofs that are evaluated on a
`
`monitor, such as by looking at a PDF that is sent from the prepress company to the
`
`end-user over a communication network.
`
`
`
`15
`
`Petitioners' Exhibit 1026, pg. 18
`
`
`
`(34.)
`
`Imposition: Depending on the final output device a number of pages
`
`will be combined into signatures. To output
`
`data to a digital press, imagesetter, or
`
`platesetter, pages or complete flats have to be
`
`ripped or rendered. Two examples of imposition processes are manual imposition
`
`by stripping film into position and digital imposition for work-n-turn 16 page
`
`signatures.
`
`(35.)
`
`I share the graphic above (and below) to
`
`express that this sort “page arrangement” process (known
`
`in the printing industry as signatures created using
`
`pagination / imposition) where pages are re-ordered and
`
`rotated so they could be printed, folded, then slit and
`
`bound so the pages are in sequence—has been around for hundreds of years. And
`
`while digital imposition applications like Impostrip™ were not available until
`
`around 1989, digital imposition tools were available before then.
`
`(36.)
`
`Prepress service providers at this time could also offer simple
`
`conversion of color pages into color separations. They could also offer page
`
`assembly, pagination / imposition as well as OPI services and preparing the file for
`
`plate making, or actually making the printing plates. At a high level, the prepress
`
`service provider simply needs to understand what size sheet of paper will be used
`
`
`
`16
`
`Petitioners' Exhibit 1026, pg. 19
`
`
`
`to print on, then calculate position and rotations of
`
`the pages (as shown previously above) and generate
`
`a plate ready file that would be then passed to a
`
`platesetter or imagesetter for imaging.
`
`(37.)
`
`Technically speaking, a Plate Ready
`
`file—or a file that can be used to expose a printing
`
`plate—is a black or white image. Either a black
`
`pixel(s) is used and then it is imaged onto the plate, or there is no black pixel(s)
`
`and nothing is imaged. This would end up, after printing, as the white or the paper
`
`area where no printing occurred. Where there is a dot, ink is applied to the plate
`
`and then transferred to paper on the printing press. If a page is to be printed in
`
`black and white only, then only one single plate ready file is made. To create the
`
`illusion of full color, plates are made and 4 different color inks are used (Cyan,
`
`Magenta, Yellow, and Black).
`
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`Petitioners' Exhibit 1026, pg. 20
`
`
`
`(38.)
`
`Thus, the plate-ready file is indicative of a page layout that has gone
`
`through prepress and has been RIPed such that it contains the exact dots to be
`
`transferred onto a printing plate. The plate-ready file may be in a format that can
`
`be used with a platesetter as the output device, such that the digital file is directly
`
`used to create a printing plate; or in a format that can be used with an imagesetter,
`
`such that the digital file is indirectly used to create a printing plate. Many times a
`
`Plate Ready file is referred to as a 1 bit TIFF file.
`
`C. Platemaking and Printing
`
`(39.)
`
`Before digital imposition, film setters would expose black or white
`
`film and this film was placed (or ‘stripped’) into position (to create the pagination /
`
`imposition) and then, placed onto a photo-sensitive printing plate. After exposure,
`
`the plates were developed using chemicals much in the way as was done in
`
`darkrooms for photographic printing.
`
`(40.) More specifically, before the ability to make a digital device that
`
`exposed an aluminum printing plate directly—known as a CTP device1—a more
`
`commonly practiced method of exposing a plate was to use an intermediate step
`
`with an imagesetter, where film was exposed and then that film was developed and
`
`used to expose the aluminum printing plate in a device called a vacume frame
`
`(which is a flexible blanket and a glass plate). Following exposure with UV
`
`1 CTP is a Computer To Plate device, again, not to be confused with the patent
`owner in this case.
`
`
`
`18
`
`Petitioners' Exhibit 1026, pg. 21
`
`
`
`radiation, the photometrically reactive layer of the printing plate reacts to the
`
`actinic light of the radiation source. The printing plate is then passed through a
`
`device that develops the image, rises, preserves the image, and dries it.
`
`(41.) With the invention of the platesetter—or the ability to use lasers to
`
`directly expose photo-sensitive printing plates—the intermediate film step was
`
`removed. However, no matter if you are exposing paper, film, or plates (i.e., using
`
`a digital printer, imagesetter, or platesetter)—it is a binary type imaging system—
`
`there is either a dot, where ink adheres and is transferred to the paper, or no dot,
`
`where the paper is left blank.
`
`D. Exemplary Workflow
`
`(42.)
`
` In view of the foregoing, all of which would have been generally
`
`known and understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, an exemplary workflow
`
`before the filing of the ‘349 patent comprised the following. This is also evidenced
`
`by the prior art discussed herein and in the accompanying petition for IPR.
`
`(43.)
`
`First, an end-user (e.g., graphic artist, designer, etc.) sitting at her
`
`computer would connect to a prepress service provider, service bureau, or other
`
`facility, via the internet or private communication network, to gain access to low-
`
`resolution, for-position-only (“FPO”) images. Using a database/librarian
`
`application, the end-user would search for, retrieve, and then download the specific
`
`low-res FPO images of interest. These images would then be used by the end-user
`
`
`
`19
`
`Petitioners' Exhibit 1026, pg. 22
`
`
`
`to create a page layout in QuarkXPress or PageMaker, for example. The output of
`
`this process would be a thin PostScript file with OPI comments embedded therein.
`
`(44.)
`
`Once the page design process was complete, the end-user would
`
`upload its page design (with embedded OPI comments in lieu of the low-res FPO
`
`images to facilitate the image-swapping process) to the service bureau, prepress
`
`provider, or other central service facility. As relevant to claims 4-9 of the ‘349
`
`patent, before OPI comments were retained in PDFs, the thin PostScript file would
`
`have been converted to a Fat PostScript file before being distilled into PDF. The
`
`file would then be subject to the various prepress procedures described above, such
`
`as imposition, color separation, etc. Next, the page design would be RIPed into a
`
`plate-ready file format that could be sent to a proofer at the client facility (if
`
`desired) and, ultimately, output to an imagesetter or platesetter for offset printing.
`
`V. CLAIMS 4-9 OF THE ‘349 PATENT
`
`(45.)
`
`Claim 4 of the ‘349 patent is reproduced below.
`
`A method of generating a plate-ready file configured for the creation of a
`printing plate, said plate-ready file being asso
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
