`______________________
`
`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