Trials@uspto.gov
Tel: 571-272-7822

Paper 44
Entered: January 13, 2017

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_______________
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
_______________
EASTMAN KODAK CO., AGFA CORP., ESKO SOFTWARE BVBA, and
HEIDELBERG, USA,
Petitioner,
v.
CTP INNOVATIONS, LLC,
Patent Owner.
_______________
Case IPR2014-00788
Patent 6,738,155 B1
_______________
Before KEVIN F. TURNER, 1 BENJAMIN D. M. WOOD, and
BRIAN J. MCNAMARA, Administrative Patent Judges.
WOOD, Administrative Patent Judge.

FINAL WRITTEN DECISION ON REHEARING
35 U.S.C. § 318(a) 37 C.F.R. § 42.71

1

Judge Turner replaces Judge Blankenship on the panel.

 IPR2014-00788
Patent 6,738,155 B1
I.
A.

INTRODUCTION

Background

Eastman Kodak Co., Agfa Corp., Esko Software BVBA, and
Heidelberg, USA (collectively, “Petitioner”) filed a request for rehearing
(Paper 36, “Reh’g Req.”) of our Final Written Decision (Paper 35, “Final
Dec.”). We requested (Paper 37) a response from CTP Innovations, LLC
(“Patent Owner”), which was subsequently submitted (Paper 38, “Reh’g
Req. Resp.”). After considering the Petitioner’s Rehearing Request and
Patent Owner’s Response, we granted rehearing of the Final Decision with
respect to the following grounds of unpatentability:

2

Reference[s]

Basis

Claims Challenged

Dorfman 2 and Apogee3
Dorfman, Apogee, and
Andersson4
Dorfman, Apogee, and OPI
White Paper5

§ 103(a)

10–13

§ 103(a)

14 and 15

§ 103(a)

16, 17, 19, and 20 6

Dorfman, WO 98/08176 (iss. Feb. 26, 1998) (Ex. 1006).

3

Agfa-Gevaert N.V., AGFA APOGEE: THE PDF-BASED PRODUCTION SYSTEM
(1998) (Ex. 1007).

4

Mattias Andersson et al., PDF PRINTING AND PUBLISHING, THE NEXT
REVOLUTION AFTER GUTENBERG (Micro Publishing Press 1997)
(“Andersson”) (Ex. 1009).
5

Apple Computer, Inc., OPI WHITE PAPER (1995) (Ex. 1008).

6

Both Patent Owner and Petitioner discuss claim 18 in their supplemental
briefs. Paper 40, 8–9; Paper 41, 4–5. However, we did not institute inter
partes review of claim 18. See Paper 9, 24–25 (“Dec. on Institution”).

2

 IPR2014-00788
Patent 6,738,155 B1
Paper 39, 4, 14. We permitted supplemental briefing, which the parties duly
provided. Papers 40, 41.
Upon consideration of the original papers 7 and evidence, as well as
the parties’ supplemental briefing, and for the reasons set forth below, we
determine that claims 10–17, 19, and 20 are unpatentable.
II.
A.

ANALYSIS

The ’155 Patent

The ’155 patent describes a publishing and printing system that is
distributed among three “facilities”: an end user facility, where content is
created; a central service facility, where files are stored; and a printing
company facility (or printer), where documents are printed. Independent
claims 10 and 16 are at issue in this case. Claim 10 is drawn to a method
that requires: (1) storing files; (2) providing the files to a remote user for
designing a page layout; (3) generating a PDF from the designed page
layout; (4) generating a “plate-ready file” from the PDF; and (5) providing
the plate-ready file to a remote printer. Claim 10 is reproduced below:
10. A method of providing printing and publishing services
to a remote client in real time using a communication network,
the method comprising:
storing files on a computer server, the files containing
information relating to images, text, art, and data;
providing said files to a remote client for the designing of a
page layout;
generating a portable document format (PDF) file from the
designed page layout;
generating a plate-ready file from said PDF file; and
providing said plate-ready file to a remote printer.
7

Corrected Petition (Paper 4, “Pet.”); Patent Owner Response (Paper 19,
“PO Resp.”); Petitioner’s Reply (Paper 24, “Pet. Reply”).

3

 IPR2014-00788
Patent 6,738,155 B1

Claim 16 is similar and is reproduced below:
16. A method of providing printing and publishing services
to a remote client performing any one of page layout designing
and plate press printing where said printing and publishing
services are provided in real time using a wide area
communication network, the method comprising:
storing high resolution files on a computer server;
generating low resolution files corresponding to said high
resolution files;
providing said low resolution files to a remote client for the
designing of a page layout;
generating a portable document format (PDF) file from the
page layout designed by said remote client;
providing said PDF file to said remote client; and
providing a plate-ready file to a remote printer.
B.

Claim Construction

In our Final Decision, we construed “plate-ready file” to mean “a file
that represents a page layout that has gone through prepress processing,
including RIPing, and is ready to image to a plate using either a platesetter
or imagesetter.” Final Dec. 10. We construed “remote printer” to mean “an
offsite printing company facility accessible (by, e.g., an end user facility or
central services facility) via a private or public communication network.”
Id. at 12. Because RIPing is the final step in creating a plate-ready file, we
construed “providing said plate-ready file to a remote printer” to require
generation of the plate-ready file, including RIPing, at a facility other than
the printing company facility. See id. at 26 (“Simply put, a printer cannot be
‘remote’ with respect to itself. It follows that providing a plate-ready file to
a ‘remote printer’ cannot be accomplished by the remote printer that receives

4

 IPR2014-00788
Patent 6,738,155 B1
the plate-ready file.”). Neither party asks us to reconsider these
constructions, nor are we aware of any reason to do so.
C.

Claims 10–13—Dorfman and Apogee

Petitioner contends that claims 10–13 are unpatentable under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Dorfman and Apogee. Pet. 39–48.
Claims 11–13 depend from independent claim 10.
1.

Dorfman

Dorfman describes a “technique for easily creating and proofing
customized printed material before printing on a production printing
system.” Ex. 1006 (abstract). A user can access a template in PDF format
from the system’s website, modify the template by adding low-resolution
copies of selected images and other variable data, and thereby create a
dynamic PDF file. Id. at 4:3–8, 8:1–4.8 The PDF file may be viewed or
printed to a local low-resolution printer for final proofing. Id. at 8:4–11.
The user can make any necessary changes or corrections to the PDF file
from the system website and send the file “for printing using conventional
printing technology where the low resolution images would be replaced by
the high resolution images by an OPI . . . process before printing.” Id. at
4:18–21; see id. at 8:23–26.

8

We conform to Petitioner’s usage of Dorfman’s original page numbers
rather that Petitioner’s supplemental page numbers.

5

 IPR2014-00788
Patent 6,738,155 B1
Dorfman’s Figure 1, reproduced below, depicts an embodiment of this
system:

Figure 1 depicts Dorfman’s system comprising front end 2, memory 4,
PDF builder 6, and production printing system 10. Id. at 5:25–6:7. Front
end 2 may be the office of a graphic artist employed by an advertising
agency, and typically includes a PC with internet connectivity and browser
software. Id. at 5:29–6:10. Memory 4, PDF builder 6, and printing system
10 are remotely located from front end 2, e.g., at the facilities of a
commercial printing service. Id. at 6:4–7. Memory 4 may contain a
reference library, low resolution and high resolution images, and other data.
Id. at 5:27–29. Commercial printer 10 maintains a website that allows front
end users access to templates and images stored in memory 4.
Id. at 6:10–13.

6

 IPR2014-00788
Patent 6,738,155 B1
2.

Apogee9

Apogee describes the Agfa Apogee, a PDF-based print production
system. Ex. 1007, 1. Content can be created in any format and output to
Apogee in either PostScript or PDF; whichever format is received, Apogee
normalizes incoming files to PDF “to guarantee complete predictability and
compatibility.” Id. at 3–4. The PDF files are stored as individual PDF pages
and become “Digital Masters” to create all production versions of the
document and to provide a version that can be proofed and edited remotely.
Id. at 4, 6.
The Apogee system is composed of three components: (1) Apogee
“Pilot,” a PDF production manager; (2) one or more Apogee PDF RIPs; and
(3) the Apogee “PrintDrive,” an engine output manager. Id. at 2. As the
“operational center in the production process,” Apogee Pilot “normalizes the
incoming files into PDF, collects the pages, imposes, does OPI image
exchange and sends this imposed ‘digital flat’ to an Apogee PDF RIP.” Id.
at 6. The Apogee PDF RIP “takes the device and format independent PDF
digital master, and renders (rasterizes) it exactly for the selected output
device,” e.g., an imagesetter of platesetter. Id. The resulting rasterized file
is a “Print Image File” (PIF) that “contains all the dots that will appear on
the film or plate.” Id.
The Apogee PDF RIP sends the PIF to Apogee PrintDrive. Id. at 6–7.
“Apogee PrintDrive manages the [PIF] output by one or more RIPs, and
controls output flow to a variety of output devices including Agfa
9

In our Final Decision, we determined that Apogee is a prior-art reference
under 35 U.S.C. § 102. Final Dec. 14–21. That determination is not under
reconsideration.

7

 IPR2014-00788
Patent 6,738,155 B1
imagesetters, proofers, and platesetters.” Id. at 7. According to Apogee,
“Apogee PrintDrive can be fed by multiple PDF RIPs over a TCP/IP
network.” Id. Doing so allows a user to “physically separate the rendering
from the actual plate production, so [the] PDF RIP can be in the desktop
department and the PrintDrive can sit next to the output device, even in
another town.” Id. This arrangement “ensures that [the] platesetter is
running at full capacity.” Id.
3.

Analysis
a.

Independent Claim 10

Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the
combination of Dorfman and Apogee discloses all of the limitations of
independent claim 10. Specifically, a preponderance of the evidence
supports Petitioner’s contention that Dorfman teaches the steps of:
(1) “storing files on a computer server, the files containing information
relating to images, text, art, and data” (e.g., Ex. 1006, 5:27–29, Fig. 1);
(2) “providing said files to a remote client for the designing of a page
layout” (e.g., id. at 7:15–8:5, Fig. 1A)); and (3) “generating a [PDF] from
the designed page layout” (e.g., id. at 7:28–8:5, Fig. 3). Petitioner has also
established that Apogee teaches “generating a plate-ready file from said PDF
file.” Pet. 46–47 (citing Ex. 1007, 6–7).
For the step of “providing said plate-ready file to a remote printer,”
Petitioner relies on the following teaching from Dorfman:
[W]here the commercial printer uses conventional printing
technology, the dynamic PDF file generated for proofing is sent
to the printing system, and low resolution images used in creating
the dynamic PDF file are replaced by high resolution images by,
for example, an open pre-press interface (OPI) before printing.

8

 IPR2014-00788
Patent 6,738,155 B1
Id. at 46–47 (quoting Ex. 1006, 8:21–26). In addition, as discussed in the
Decision granting Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing (Paper 39, 12–13),
Petitioner also relies on the following excerpt from Apogee to teach this
“providing” limitation:
Agfa [sic, Apogee] discloses that the plate-ready file can be sent
to a remote printer via a communication network:
Ex. 1007 at pp. 6–7: For “direct-to” production, Agfa developed
an output manager that is almost a system by itself: the Apogee
PrintDrive.
Apogee PrintDrive manages the Print Image Files (PIF) output
by one or more RIPs, and controls output flow to a variety of
output devices including Agfa imagesetters, proofers, and
platesetters. . . .
For volume applications, Apogee PrintDrive can be fed by
multiple PDF RIPs over a TCP/IP network. This unique feature
allows you to physically separate the rendering from the actual
plate production, so your PDF RIP can be in the desktop
department and the PrintDrive can sit next to the output device,
even in another town.
Pet. 47–48 (quoting Ex. 1007, 6–7).
We find that the combination of Dorfman and Apogee teaches the step
of “providing a plate-ready file to a remote printer.” As noted above, the
Apogee PrintDrive “may be fed by multiple RIPs over a TCP/IP network.”
Ex. 1007, 7. At the time of the invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art
would have understood “TCP/IP” to refer to the Internet’s networking
protocol. NEWTON’S TELECOM DICTIONARY 816 (15th ed. 1999) (Ex. 3003).
Thus, the Internet is a “TCP/IP network.” The capability to feed the Apogee
PrintDrive by multiple RIPs connected to it over the Internet allows the
printer to “physically separate the rendering [i.e., RIPing] from the actual

9

 IPR2014-00788
Patent 6,738,155 B1
plate production,” so the “PDF RIP can be in the desktop department and the
PrintDrive can sit next to the output device [e.g., platesetter], even in another
town.” Ex. 1007, 7. The Apogee PDF RIP creates the PIF, which is a plateready file because it “contains all the dots that will appear on the film or
plate.” Id. at 6. When combined with Dorfman, the PDF file that is RIPed
to create the PIF would be the user-created dynamic PDF file (after OPI
image exchange, if required). Therefore, the Apogee PDF RIP creates a
plate-ready file from Dorfman’s dynamic PDF file and “fe[e]d[s]” it to the
Apogee PrintDrive—which may be in another town, i.e., “remote” with
respect to the RIP—which in turn sends it to a platesetter or imagesetter for
offset printing. Id. at 7. Thus, the Apogee PDF RIP “provid[es] said plateready file to a remote printer.”
We also agree with Petitioner that a person of ordinary skill in the art
would have had a reason to combine Dorfman and Apogee. In the combined
system, Dorfman’s production printing system 10 would use Apogee’s PDFbased print production system to produce the printed materials using offset
printing. Ex. 1021 ¶ 121; see Ex. 1006, 8:23–26. Dorfman teaches that it
can be used with conventional printing systems, and there is no dispute that
offset printing is a conventional printing system. Further, large print jobs
are done at less cost using offset printing rather than digital printing, Ex.
2014 ¶ 46, and Dorfman teaches that customized printed materials may be
“ordered in large quantities.” Ex. 1006, 2:13–14. Therefore, a person of
ordinary skill in the art using Dorfman’s system for a large print job would
have been motivated to use Apogee’s system to take advantage of the cost
savings for such jobs offered by offset printing.

10

 IPR2014-00788
Patent 6,738,155 B1
Further, we agree with Petitioner’s declarant that using Apogee with
Dorfman’s system would not require either system to be modified. Ex. 1021
¶ 121. For example, Dorfman’s system produces PDF files and sends them
for printing using conventional printing technology (e.g., offset printing)
(Ex. 1006, 4:18–21), and Apogee’s system accepts PDF files for offset
printing (Ex. 1006, 3, 6). Dorfman contemplates that the printer would
perform OPI image exchange before printing (Ex. 1006, 4:18–21), and
Apogee’s system is capable of performing OPI image exchange (Ex. 1007,
3). In sum, the combination of Dorfman and Apogee amounts to the
“combination of familiar elements according to known methods [that] does
no more than yield predictable results,” and therefore is “likely to be
obvious.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
Accordingly, because the combination of Dorfman and Apogee
teaches all of the limitations of claim 10, and a person of ordinary skill in the
art at the time of the invention would have had reason to combine Dorfman
and Apogee, we determine that claim 10 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as obvious over Dorfman and Apogee.
b.

Dependent Claims 11–13

We find that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence
that (1) Dorfman teaches the additional limitation of claim 11 (Ex. 1006,
7:28–8:5); (2) Apogee teaches the additional limitation of claim 12 (Ex.
1007, 6–7)); and (3) Dorfman teaches the additional limitation of claim 13
(Ex. 1006, 5:27–29, 6:20–27, 7:12–20; Ex. 1021 ¶ 133)). Accordingly, for
the reasons stated above, we determine that claims 11–13 are unpatentable
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Dorfman and Apogee.

11

 IPR2014-00788
Patent 6,738,155 B1
4.

Patent Owner’s Arguments Are Not Persuasive

Patent Owner disputes that the proposed combination renders
unpatentable claims 10–13. First, Patent Owner argues that Dorfman is a
“response on demand” digital printing system, which is “one where a digitalbased file is printed directly to a variety of media without using printing
plates.” PO Resp. 34 (citing Ex. 2014 ¶ 38). Patent Owner reasons that
“[b]ecause Dorfman is a ‘response on demand’ digital printing system using
variable data, a POSITA would understand that the system of Dorfman does
not and would not involve the generation of printing plates or plate-ready
files.” Id. at 38 (citing Ex. 2014 ¶ 46–47). Patent Owner acknowledges that
“printing plates are inexpensive when producing many identical copies of a
document,” but contends that “they would be extremely expensive if one
were to attempt to produce multiple unique documents, or smaller runs of
documents requiring frequent changes or variable data.” Id. at 38–39 (citing
Ex. 2014 ¶ 46). Thus, argues Patent Owner, a POSITA would not use a
digital printing system as disclosed in Dorfman to produce printing plates or
plate-ready files. Id. at 39.
We are not persuaded that Dorfman is limited to response-on-demand
systems or a system for which offset printing is not feasible. As an initial
matter, it is unclear whether Dorfman actually describes its invention as a
“response on demand” system, as Patent Owner contends. Dorfman uses the
term “response on demand” only in the “Background of the Invention”
section, primarily as an “example” of a printing system that allows a user to
“readily customize printed materials for a particular need.” Ex. 1006, 1. But
that term is not used in Dorfman’s summary of the invention or in its
description of the preferred embodiment. In any event, the premise on

12

 IPR2014-00788
Patent 6,738,155 B1
which Patent Owner’s argument is based—that Dorfman’s system is limited
to low volume print jobs that would not be economically feasible to produce
using offset printing—is not supported by the record. Dorfman expressly
teaches that customized printed materials may be printed “in large
quantities.” Ex. 1006, 2:13–16. As Patent Owner and its Declarant
acknowledge, it is generally less expensive to use offset printing for large
print jobs. See PO Resp. 39 (printing plates used for offset printing “are
inexpensive when producing many identical copies”) (citing Ex. 2014 ¶ 36).
Moreover, Dorfman teaches that its system may be used with “conventional
printing technology,” and Patent Owner does not dispute the testimony of
Petitioner’s expert, Professor Lawler, that offset lithography is a
“conventional printing technology.” Ex. 1021 ¶ 116.
We also disagree with Patent Owner’s contention that “modify[ing]
Dorfman to involve the generation of printing plates or plate-ready files
would change its principle of operation.” PO Resp. 39 (citing Ex. 2014
¶ 47). According to Patent Owner, such a modification would render
Dorfman “unfit for its intended purpose of providing on-demand or
customized printing materials.” Id. This contention, however, is not
supported by the record. Neither Patent Owner nor its declarant explains
why offset printing cannot be used to produce on-demand or customized
printing materials. On the contrary, as noted above, Dorfman teaches that it
can be used with “conventional” printing methods, which includes offset
printing.
Patent Owner next argues that claim 10 “requires a separate central
service facility and printing company facility,” but Dorfman “merges the
central service facility and the printing company facility, which are

13

 IPR2014-00788
Patent 6,738,155 B1
described as all being present at the same remote location, e.g., the facilities
of a commercial printing service.” PO Resp. 40 (citing Ex. 1006, 6:4–7);
Paper 40, 4–6. Petitioner disputes that the claims require a separate central
service facility. Pet. Reply 14.
We agree with Petitioner that claims 10–13 do not require a separate
central service facility. The method recited by independent claim 10 only
requires a “remote client” and a “remote printer,” and none of claims 11–13
additionally requires a central service facility. In addition, we do not read
the Specification as expressly disclaiming a system that does not contain a
separate central service facility. See In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325–26
(Fed. Cir. 2004) (“Absent claim language carrying a narrow meaning, the
PTO should only limit the claim based on the specification or prosecution
history when those sources expressly disclaim the broader definition.”). For
example, the Specification describes “one embodiment” that includes a
central service facility and describes the subject matter of claim 10 as
“another embodiment.” Ex. 1001, 2:51–3:13. This indicates that a central
service facility was considered a part of certain embodiments of the
invention, rather than a necessary part of the invention itself. See
SuperGuide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterps., Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir.
2004) (holding that “a particular embodiment appearing in the written
description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader
than the embodiment”) (citation omitted).
Patent Owner further argues that the claims require that the PDF be
created at a central service facility, whereas in Dorfman’s system, the enduser creates the dynamic PDF file. Paper 40, 6–8. But, again, the claims do
not require a separate central service facility, much less that the PDF file be

14

 IPR2014-00788
Patent 6,738,155 B1
created at a central service facility. In making this argument Patent Owner
seems to suggest that because the Dorfman’s dynamic PDF file may contain
low-resolution images, its creation cannot correspond to the step in claim 10
of “generating a [PDF] file from the designed page layout.” Id. at 7–8.
However, Patent Owner has provided no support for this contention, and we
are not aware of any such support. Accordingly, we find it unpersuasive.
D.

Claims 14 and 15—Dorfman, Apogee, and Andersson

Petitioner asserts that claims 14 and 15 would have been obvious over
Dorfman, Apogee, and Andersson. Pet. 49–51.
1.

Andersson

Andersson describes the PDF format. According to Andersson, a PDF
document is a self-contained file format that includes multiple objects, e.g.,
bitmap images, text, font information, and line art. Ex. 1009, 22–24.
Andersson teaches how to create, view, and edit PDF files, and how to use
them to create and simplify digital prepress workflows as compared with
“traditional” prepress workflows. Id. at 66–67. Andersson also discusses
digital environments, in particular, computer networks and servers, suitable
for implementing these workflows. Id. at 51.
2.

Claim 14

Claim 14 depends from claim 10 and additionally recites “wherein the
step of generating a plate-ready file from said PDF file comprises converting
said PDF file to a PostScript file.” Petitioner relies on Apogee’s teaching
that “Apogee PDF RIPs include an Adobe PostScript 3 interpreter to process
native PDF and PostScript files and to render them for specific devices.”
Pet. 50 (quoting Ex. 1007, 6). Petitioner also relies on Andersson to teach
“the basic and known requirement that certain devices, such as laser printers,

15

 IPR2014-00788
Patent 6,738,155 B1
require PostScript files as their input language.” Pet. 50–51 (citing Ex.
1009, 34). Patent Owner disputes that claim 14 would have been obvious
over Dorfman, Apogee, and Andersson; in doing so, Patent Owner raises the
same arguments there were raised in contending that claim 10 would not
have been obvious over Dorfman and Apogee. PO Resp. 45–46.
We have reviewed the evidence relied upon by Petitioner and
determine that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that
claim 14 would have been obvious over Dorfman, Apogee, and Andersson.
As Petitioner points out, a PDF would need to be converted to PostScript for
printing on specific devices, and Apogee PDF RIPs are able to render
PostScript files for printing on specific devices.
3.

Claim 15

Claim 15 depends from claim 10 and additionally recites “wherein the
step of storing files on a computer server comprises logging said files into a
content management database.” Petitioner asserts that “Dorfman discloses a
reference library . . . that would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the
art as providing content management operations and a content management
database.” Pet. 49 (citing Ex. 1006, 5:27–29). Petitioner also asserts that
“[t]o the extent that Dorfman’s reference library was not, in fact, already
intended to carry out logging files into a content management database, . . . a
person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to add the
content management functions described by Andersson to Dorfman to
provide the system user with full storage, organization, archival, and reuse
privileges through the reference library.” Id. at 50 (citing Ex. 1009, 51, 67–
69, 190; Ex. 1021 ¶ 133). Patent Owner disputes that any of the cited
references discloses logging files into a content management database.

16

 IPR2014-00788
Patent 6,738,155 B1
We have reviewed the evidence relied upon by Petitioner and
determine that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that
claim 14 would have been obvious over Dorfman, Apogee, and Andersson.
First, we agree that Dorfman would be understood by a person of ordinary
skill in the art to teach logging stored files into a content management
database. Specifically, Dorfman makes available to its users stored
templates that “may be predetermined for a particular customer and
presented to the user in accordance with the sign-on information by the user
in accessing the web page.” Ex. 1006, 7:12–20. That is, the templates
would need to be logged into Dorfman’s system and associated with a
particular user in order for the templates to be presented to the user when the
user signed on. We also agree with Petitioner that Andersson teaches
content management databases. Ex. 1009, 69.
E.

Claims 16, 17, 19, and 20—Dorfman, Apogee, Andersson, and
OPI White Paper

Petitioner contends that claims 16, 17, 19, and 20 would have been
obvious over Dorfman, Apogee, Andersson, and OPI White Paper (Ex.
1008). Pet. 51–58.
1.

OPI White Paper

OPI White Paper describes the OPI “image swapping” process. Ex.
1008, 10. “[I]image swapping enables a page designer to work with a small
screen-resolution picture file during page design and then rely on the
intervention of the OPI server to swap it out for the high-resolution, colorseparated file necessary to render the picture in print.” Id. at 10, 12, Fig. 2d.
OPI White Paper describes the typical manner in which the low-resolution
image files, or “preview files,” are generated: a user saves a high-resolution

17

 IPR2014-00788
Patent 6,738,155 B1
file to a particular folder on the OPI server, which triggers a routine that
creates a preview file and puts it in a different folder. Id. at 12. A particular
implementation of the OPI process at a printing facility is also described. Id.
at 31–32, Fig. 4c.
2.

Claim 16

We find that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence
that the combination of Dorfman, Apogee, and OPI White Paper teaches all
of the limitations of independent claim 16. First, Dorfman teaches “storing
high-resolution files on a computer server.” Ex. 1006, 5:27–29. Second,
OPI White Paper teaches “generating low resolution files corresponding to
said high-resolution files.” Ex. 1008, 12.
Third, the combination of Dorfman and OPI White Paper teaches
“providing said low resolution files to a remote client for the designing of a
page layout.” Dorfman teaches that a remote client designs customized
materials using, among other things, “low resolution images.” Ex. 1006,
3:24–4:6, 7:15–8:5. The low resolution images “would be replaced by the
high resolution images by an OPI . . . process before printing.” Id. at 4:18–
24. OPI White Paper confirms that in the course of this “OPI process,” the
OPI server generates low-resolution preview images from the client’s highresolution images, and the client may access the low-resolution preview
images remotely, e.g., “via modem.” Ex. 1008, 12, Fig. 2d.
Next, Dorfman teaches “generating a portable document format (PDF)
file from the page layout designed by said remote client (Ex. 1006, 7:28–
8:5)” and “providing said PDF file to said remote client” (id. at 8:4–5).
Finally, as discussed above with respect to claim 10, the combination of

18

 IPR2014-00788
Patent 6,738,155 B1
Dorfman and Apogee teaches “providing a plate-ready file to a remote
printer.”
We also find that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a
reason to combine OPI White Paper with Dorfman and Apogee. Both
Dorfman and Apogee expressly teach systems that utilize the OPI imageexchange process, and OPI White Paper describes the OPI image-exchange
process. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been
motivated to implement the process described in the OPI White Paper to
carry out the OPI image-exchange process required by Dorfman and
Apogee.
Accordingly, because the combination of Dorfman and Apogee
teaches all of the limitations of claim 16, and a person of ordinary skill in the
art at the time of the invention would have had reason to combine Dorfman,
Apogee, and OPI White Paper, we determine that claim 16 is unpatentable
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Dorfman, Apogee, and OPI White
Paper.
3.

Patent Owner’s Arguments are unpersuasive

Patent Owner raises the same arguments in support of the patentability
of claim 16 as it did for claim 10. That is, Patent Owner argues that
Dorfman is a “response on demand” system that does not involve generating
printing plates, and that claim 16 requires a separate central service facility,
which Dorfman does not disclose. PO Resp. 47–50. For the reasons
discussed above with respect to claim 10 (sec. II.C.3.a), we find these
arguments unpersuasive.

19

 IPR2014-00788
Patent 6,738,155 B1
4.

Claim 17

Claim 17 depends from claim 16 and additionally requires “wherein
the low resolution files are stored in a storage device at said remote client.”
We agree with Petitioner that OPI White Paper teaches this additional
limitation. Ex. 1008, 12, 32. For example, OPI White Paper teaches that
low-resolution preview files may be accessed by a remote client “via
modem.” Accordingly we determine that claim 17 would have been obvious
over Dorfman, Apogee, and OPI White Paper.
5.

Claim 19

Claim 19 depends from claim 16 and additionally recites “wherein the
step of providing a plate-ready file to a remote printer comprises converting
the format of the PDF file to a plate-ready file format and communicating
the plate-ready file to the remote printer via the communication link.”
Patent Owner disputes that the proposed combination of references teaches
this limitation. We agree with Petitioner, however, that the combination of
Dorfman and Apogee teaches this limitation, for the reasons discussed supra
with respect to claim 10. See sec. II.C.3.a, supra. Therefore, we determine
that claim 19 would have been obvious over Dorfman, Apogee, and OPI
White Paper.
6.

Claim 20

Claim 20 depends from claim 16 and additionally recites “wherein the
step of storing files on a computer server comprises logging said files into a
content management database according to user profiles and attributes.” We
agree with Petitioner that Dorfman teaches this step. Ex. 1006, 7:12–20.
Therefore, we determine that claim 20 would have been obvious over
Dorfman, Apogee, and OPI White Paper.

20

 IPR2014-00788
Patent 6,738,155 B1
III.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we determine that claims 10–13 are
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Dorfman and Apogee;
claims 14 and 15 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over
Dorfman, Apogee, and Andersson; and claims 16, 17, 19, and 20 are
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Dorfman, Apogee, and
OPI White Paper.
IV.

ORDER

For the reasons given, it is
ORDERED that claims 10–17, 19, and 20 of the ’155 patent are
held unpatentable.

This is a final written decision. Parties to the proceeding seeking
judicial review of this decision must comply with the notice and service
requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 90.2.
PETITIONER:
Scott McKeown
cpdocketmckeown@oblon.com
Michael L. Kiklis
cpdocketkiklis@oblon.com

PATENT OWNER:
W. Edward Ramage
eramage@bakerdonelson.com

21