Creo Products, Inc. v. Presstek, Inc., 01-1634.

Decision Date17 September 2002
Docket NumberNo. 01-1634.,No. 02-1023.,01-1634.,02-1023.
Citation305 F.3d 1337
PartiesCREO PRODUCTS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PRESSTEK, INC., Defendant-Cross Appellant.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Federal Circuit

Robert G. Krupka, Kirkland & Ellis, of Los Angeles, California, argued for plaintiff-appellant. With him on the brief were Boaz Brickman, Marc Cohen, Brian Arnold, and Nick Saros, of Los Angeles, California; and Jay I. Alexander and Gregory F. Corbett, of Washington, DC.

Daniel S. Ebenstein, Amster, Rothstein & Ebenstein, of New York, New York argued for defendant-cross appellant. With him on the brief were Ira E. Silfin and W. Scott McClave.

Before CLEVENGER, RADER, and BRYSON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion for the court filed by Circuit Judge BRYSON. Dissenting opinion filed by Circuit Judge CLEVENGER.

BRYSON, Circuit Judge.

Creo Products, Inc., appeals from the judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware holding that two patents belonging to Presstek, Inc., are not invalid. Presstek cross-appeals from the district court's judgment that Creo's on-press imaging system does not infringe either of Presstek's patents. We affirm.

I

Although technology has made printing faster, cheaper, and more accurate, the underlying concept of the printing press has remained the same since its inception. Basically, an image is created on a printing plate by altering different surface areas of the plate so that they are either ink receptive or ink repellant. Today, one way to create such images is to expose the printing plate to a discharge source, such as a spark discharge electrode or a laser, so as to alter the surface properties of different areas of the plate. After the image is created on the printing plate, the plate is mounted on a cylinder and inked. When ink is applied to the printing plate, it attaches to certain areas and is repelled from others. The inked printing plate is then brought into contact with paper, and the image is transferred to the paper.

One of the most common methods of printing is offset lithography, in which the inked area on the printing plate contacts a soft blanket cylinder onto which the image is transferred. The cylinder then transfers the image to paper. The use of a blanket cylinder between the printing plate and the paper is what characterizes "offset" printing.

Color offset lithography, the subject matter of this dispute, adds an additional layer of complexity. The color image that is to be copied must first be separated into four components, typically yellow, cyan, magenta, and black. After color separation, the four components of the image are transferred to four printing plates, one for each color. The printing plates are then loaded onto cylinders at four print stations. When paper passes through each station, the ink is transferred from each printing plate to the paper to form a full color image.

A major problem associated with color offset lithography is that if the separately printed colors are not precisely aligned on the paper, the resulting image will appear distorted or discolored in various ways. The misalignment of the different color elements is referred to as misregistration. The naked eye is extremely sensitive to misregistration of color images; misalignment of an image by as little as one one-hundredth of an inch results in a visibly distorted image.

Different types of errors contribute to misregistration of color images. Generally, errors can be either non-uniform (affecting only parts of the image) or uniform (affecting the entire image). A non-uniform error usually occurs when there are imperfections on the printing plate itself. Uniform errors may occur for any number of reasons. An "axial error" results when the image from one printing plate is shifted to the left or right relative to the image from another plate. An "angular offset error" results when the image from one printing plate is shifted up or down relative to the image from another plate. A "size error" results when the image from one printing plate is larger or smaller than the image from another plate. A "skew error" results when the image on one plate is twisted or skewed relative to an image on another plate.

Although misregistration can be corrected manually by a skilled press operator, manual correction is expensive and time consuming. Furthermore, it is extremely difficult to correct non-uniform errors manually. Electronic error correction is now a preferred method because, in addition to being faster and cheaper, it can correct non-uniform as well as uniform errors. The key to electronic registration is creating the image directly on the plate while the plate is still on the press, i.e., applying the image to the plate at the print station rather than creating it off-press and then loading it onto the print station. Using electronics, the image destined for each plate can be modified so as to correct for both uniform and non-uniform errors while the image is being created on the printing plate.

Creo and Presstek are competing manufacturers of electronic imaging systems designed to be installed in printing presses. Presstek owns U.S. Patent Nos. 5,163,368 ("the '368 patent") and 5,174,205 ("the '205 patent"). Upon Creo's petition, both the '368 and '205 patents were reexamined by the Patent Office. They emerged from reexamination after amendment in August 1999. The '368 patent, entitled "Printing Apparatus With Image Error Correction and Ink Regulation Control," discloses a printing press capable of electronically correcting for mechanical imperfections that might otherwise result in alignment and registration errors. The only independent claim of the '368 patent at issue on appeal is claim 1, which is reproduced below:

1. Printing apparatus comprising:

a. a plurality of print stations, each station including a plate cylinder for supporting a printing plate, at least one discharge source for applying to the plate an image having a size, and means for moving each discharge source relative to the plate cylinder so that when the plate cylinder is rotated, the at least one discharge source scans a raster on the surface of the plate;

b. means for rotating each cylinder; and

c. control means responsive to (1) electronic signals representing an original document for repeatedly actuating the discharge source momentarily during the scan thereof so that said discharge source forms on the plate surface an image comprised of dots corresponding to the original document, (2) angular offset parameters specifying angular inconsistencies among the plate cylinders, and (3) size difference parameters specifying inconsistencies among the image sizes, said control means including:

i. a dot position look-up table for storing the x and y coordinates corresponding to substantially all dot positions on each plate;

ii. means for actuating said discharge source to form image dots at selected ones of said dot positions when said electronic signals are present; and

iii. means for offsetting, with respect to said x and y coordinates, the action of the discharge-source actuation means in accordance with the angular offset parameters to correct the angular inconsistencies; and

iv. means for altering the length of the scan in accordance with the size difference parameters to correct the image-size inconsistencies.

The '205 patent, entitled "Controller For Spark Discharge Imaging," discloses an apparatus and method for controlling the discharges used to image printing plates. The only independent claims of the '205 patent at issue on appeal are apparatus claim 11 and the corresponding method claim 23, which are reproduced below:

11. An apparatus for imaging on a press including a plate cylinder and a lithographic plate having a printing surface, said apparatus comprising:

mounting means for mounting said plate on said cylinder; discharge means for effecting discharges between an imaging device communicated with said printing surface and selected points thereon;

means for providing relative motion between the cylinder and the discharge means to effect a scan of the printing surface by the discharge means; and

controlling means responsive to image information specifying the locations on the cylinder at which discharges are to occur, position information specifying the location of the discharge means relative to the cylinder, and correction data specifying offsets to the image information, the controlling means being operatively coupled to the discharge means such that the discharges occur in response to the image information at selected discrete positions on the printing surface as specified by the image information offset by the correction data, thereby directly producing on the lithographic plate an array of image spots suitable for reproduction in a series of axially sequential, circumferential imaging swaths, each swath comprising a series of circumferentially spaced-apart image sports formed during one revolution of said cylinder, the array of image spots corresponding to the image represented by the image information.

23. A method of imaging on a press including a plate cylinder and a lithographic plate having a printing surface, said method comprising the steps of:

mounting said plate on said cylinder; receiving position information indicating the angular position of said cylinder;

storing (i) image information specifying locations on the cylinder at which image spots are to be placed and (ii) correction information specifying offsets to the image information;

exposing the printing surface at selected points to discharges from an imaging device to produce image spots at these points;

moving the imaging device and the print cylinder relatively to effect a scan of the printing surface by the imaging device; and

controlling the discharges in accordance with said image, correction and position information so that the discharges occur at...

To continue reading

Request your trial
65 cases
  • Lucent Technologies, Inc. v. Gateway, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of California
    • June 19, 2008
    ...of one skilled in the art can be called upon to flesh out a particular structural reference ...." Creo Prods., Inc. v. Presstek, Inc., 305 F.3d 1337, 1347 (Fed.Cir.2002). Citing the title of an article may be sufficient to disclose structure, where it would provide sufficient indication of ......
  • Golden Voice Tech & Train. v. Rockwell Firstpoint
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Florida
    • May 20, 2003
    ...message." Doc. No. 142 at 18 (citing Doc. No. 140 at 23-24). In support of their argument, Defendants point to Creo Prods., Inc. v. Presstek, Inc., 305 F.3d 1337 (Fed.Cir.2002). In Creo, the means clause in the original patent read as means for offsetting, with respect to said x and y coord......
  • Lisle Corp. v. A.J. Mfg. Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois
    • October 31, 2003
    ...will occasionally assert a position on indefiniteness prior to a decision on claim construction. See Creo Products, Inc. v. Presstek, Inc., 305 F.3d 1337, 1346 (Fed.Cir.2002) (discussing preservation of indefiniteness issue for appeal through invalidity argument presented "[i]n its briefing......
  • DealerTrack, Inc. v. Huber
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Federal Circuit
    • January 20, 2012
    ...structure to at least one of the “distinct and alternative structures for performing the claimed function,” Creo Prods., Inc. v. Presstek, Inc., 305 F.3d 1337, 1345 (Fed.Cir.2002), disclosed in the specification. For example, Dealertrack argues that the accused may infringe if it sends cred......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Intellectual Property - Laurence P. Colton and Nigamnarayan Acharya
    • United States
    • Mercer University School of Law Mercer Law Reviews No. 54-4, June 2003
    • Invalid date
    ...(Fed. Cir. 2002). 71. Id. at 1324. 72. Id. at 1320-21. 73. Id. at 1325. 74. Id. at 1326. 75. See Creo Prods., Inc. v. Presstek, Inc., 305 F.3d 1337, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2002). 76. 305 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2002). 77. Id. at 1346. 78. Id. at 1350. 79. Id. at 1351. 80. See Frank's Casing Crew & Re......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT