US 6654135

I'll search for this specific patent number across patent databases and court dockets.

Initial searches returned unrelated documents. Let me target the patent more precisely and check court dockets.

Now let me check for any litigation or Federal Circuit dockets involving this specific patent.

Summary: US Patent 6,654,135

Important upfront note on nature of this report: I was asked to search the USPTO database and CAFC 2026 dockets. My searches returned no litigation, PTAB proceeding, or Federal Circuit appeal involving US 6,654,135, including nothing on a 2026 CAFC docket. What I did retrieve was (a) the patent's own front page/abstract and (b) a large volume of unrelated Canon cases that are easy to confuse with this patent number — see the disambiguation section below. I have no authoritative negative confirmation (i.e., I cannot prove no case exists somewhere), only the absence of any hit across my searches.

---

Bibliographic data (from the patent front page and the Google Patents record)

Two literal-reading caveats, per your instruction not to auto-correct identifiers:

1. The Google Patents "Other versions" / family listing shows the identifier US 6491398 A alongside the 09/064,913 application number. US 6,491,398 is a different patent number from 6,654,135, and I could not resolve why it appears in that table from the material available. I am reporting it as an unresolved data anomaly rather than correcting it.
2. The front page carries an asterisk on the date ("*Nov. 25, 2003"), which in USPTO practice typically signals a term adjustment/extension notation under 35 U.S.C. 154(b). I state this with moderate confidence; I did not verify the term-adjustment value.

---

Abstract (verbatim)

"A printing control system utilizes the resources of the printer system effectively when the documentary image is printed including images. The format is used, in which image information is managed and controlled in a plurality of resolutions, as well as by a plurality of tile information. Such format is also effectively utilized. To this end, the printing control system includes the image server that supplies and/or controls image information, the print server that controls the output processes, the print controller that controls a plurality of print servers, and also controls the output processes, and the network that connects these constituents. It is made possible to determine the print server that executes the image output on the basis of the designated order of priorities. The image information is transmitted together with the print order, which are synthesized again on the designated print server."

---

Plain-language overview of the independent claims

Claim 1 — Printing control system. A system for printing image data having two core parts: (a) multiple print servers that perform "highly precise" output of image data using image data accumulated on an image server; and (b) a print controller that designates which print server will receive the image data transmission from the image server, before printing, based on information different from the information that designates the selection of each print server. In plain terms: the client/print order does not simply name a printer; the controller picks the output destination using other criteria (e.g., priority parameters such as distance, output-time, print quality).

Claim 21 — Print controller (online print service via the Internet). A print controller that: receives a print order from a client over the Internet; selects, from among multiple print servers, which server will execute the print job, so as to send the received print order along with image data held on an image server; and — when the received print order does not contain print-server-selection instruction information — controls selection so that a print server is chosen by checking that an execution condition of the print server is satisfied, that execution condition including multiple parameters different from the instruction information. In plain terms: this is the controller-side fallback logic — if the customer didn't name a server, the controller scores servers against multiple conditions and picks one.

Claim 31 — Method of controlling the print controller. The method counterpart of claim 21: receiving a print order over the Internet; selecting a print server among multiple servers to execute the process (with image data from the image server); and, when the print order lacks print-server-selection instruction information, a selection-controlling step that selects the server by checking that an execution condition including multiple parameters is satisfied.

System/architecture supporting claims. The independent claims are supported by dependent claims including: tile-based image data transmitted in small units (claims 22, 24, 32, 35); page-description-language transmission to the designated server (claims 25, 36); and print-server synthesizing means — "image synthesizing means for synthesizing the output images again on the basis of the page description language transmitted from said print controller, and of the image tiles divided into small units and transmitted from said image server; and image output means for outputting the images synthesized" (claim 18, and mirror language in claim 26's chain). Claim 9 adds that the print controller selects the output apparatus (printer) by adaptability to distance from the client, time to complete output given server load, needed resolution/"image quality," or the client's intention, and claims 20/28 recite automatic selection "with the provision of the priority order with respect to said various conditions."

Claim-count uncertainty: The retrieved claim text ran through claim 38 (claim 38 truncated in the source). The specification's summary section separately describes an image server, an information processing apparatus, and storage medium as independent aspects, so there may be further independent claims beyond 38 (e.g., image-server and storage-medium claims). I could not verify claims beyond 38 from the sources I retrieved, and I am flagging that as an open item rather than guessing.

---

Litigation / CAFC search result (direct answer to your request)

No. My searches for "6,654,135" / "6654135" in litigation and appellate contexts returned no case, no docket entry, and no 2026 CAFC appeal naming this patent. Contextual facts consistent with that: the patent's status is Expired – Fee Related, with anticipated expiration 2018-04-23, so any 2026 action would be unusual (though not impossible, since an expired patent can still be asserted for pre-expiration damages within the limitations period).

Critical disambiguation — do not conflate these:

• "the '654 patent" in Canon's toner-container campaigns (E.D.N.Y. and ITC 337-TA-1106 / 337-TA-1209 materials) is US 10,514,654, not US 6,654,135. Canon's complaints asserted claims of the '667, '060, '061, '957, '814, '032, '033, '654, '881, and '882 patents against toner supply containers (e.g., GPR-55, NCGPR55K).
• "the '649 patent" in the Canon default judgment is US 8,565,649 — not 6,491,398 nor 6,654,135.
• The Headwater Research v. Verizon / Cellco Federal Circuit activity surfaced (USCA Nos. 26-1884, docketed 2026-05-29) involves unrelated patents.

Bottom line: For US 6,654,135 specifically, the retrievable authoritative record is the patent document itself. I found no evidence of USPTO post-grant proceedings or CAFC 2026 dockets involving it, and I have no authoritative source confirming litigation history one way or the other — so treat "no litigation found" as a search-result absence, not a verified negative.

I'll research litigation involving US Patent 6654135.

Let me try more targeted searches on litigation databases.

Litigation Search Report — U.S. Patent No. 6,654,135

Patent identification (verified against the authoritative full text):

• U.S. Patent No. 6,654,135 B2
• Title: Printing control system, a print controller, an image server, an information processing apparatus and a method therefor, and a storage medium storing a program readable by a computer
• Inventor: Shigeyuki Mitani; Original/current assignee: Canon Inc. / Canon Kabushiki Kaisha
• Application No. US 09/064,913; Priority date 1997‑04‑23; Filed 1998‑04‑23; Granted 2003‑11‑25
• Legal status: Expired – Fee Related (anticipated expiration 2018‑04‑23)

Result: No litigation identified

I searched for district court complaints, CAFC appeals, and PTAB/post‑issuance proceedings involving the literal number 6,654,135 / 6654135. I found no litigation, no PTAB proceeding, and no Federal Circuit appeal involving this patent.

Per your instruction to interpret identifiers literally and not auto‑correct, I did not credit any near‑number hits as this patent. The searches returned only similarly numbered but legally distinct patents, which I expressly excluded:

Also, the USPTO "Litigation Search Report" document surfaced in the results relates to reexamination of U.S. 5,894,554 — not this patent.

Requested case table

Because no case was located, no case can be populated:

Confidence, caveats, and recommended verification

• Confidence: moderate‑to‑high that there is no district court assertion, but this is a negative finding based on open‑web searching only.
• The absence of litigation is consistent with the record: the patent was held by Canon (an operating company, not an NPE/PAE), and it went Expired – Fee Related in 2018. Operating‑company portfolio patents frequently see no assertion activity.
• Sources I could not fully query and which you should run before relying on this as a definitive clearance‑style answer:
  • Unified Patents litigation portal: https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/caselist (and its patent page, https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/patents/patent/6654135)
  • Docket Alarm / Docket Navigator (full docket text search, not just web indexes)
  • LexisNexis CourtLink and Westlaw KeyCite litigation history (the tools the USPTO CRU uses)
  • PACER Case Locator (all districts) and the CAFC docket
  • CourtListener/RECAP and Justia Dockets
• Also worth checking for completeness: USPTO Patent Center / Assignment records for any reassignment out of Canon (a transfer to a monetization entity would raise the likelihood of later assertions), and any ex parte reexamination filings (those would not appear as "litigation" but are validity challenges).

Bottom line: Based on the searches performed, no litigation involving U.S. Patent No. 6,654,135 is known. I cannot rule out a proceeding indexed only in a paywalled database, and I have flagged the specific sources to confirm.

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings on US 6,654,135: zero. The USPTO Open Data Portal (ODP) structured record supplied in this prompt returns no AIA trial proceedings on file — no IPR, no PGR, no CBM — and my independent web searches surfaced no petition, institution decision, Final Written Decision, or Federal Circuit appeal involving this patent. Breakdown by status is therefore: active 0 / claims invalidated by PTAB 0 / claims sustained by PTAB 0 / settled 0 / institution denied 0. The bottom line for a defendant is not the usual "hardened vs. dead claims" axis — it is that the patent has never been tested at the Board, and it is expired. Per the patent record, US 6,654,135 has an anticipated expiration of 2018-04-23 (20 years from the 1998-04-23 filing date of application 09/064,913) and carries the legal status "Expired – Fee Related." No IPR is needed to have a strong defense to a demand built on post-expiration conduct; a demand letter citing this patent today is, at best, a claim to a legacy pre-2018 damages window.

Because there are no proceedings, the requested per-proceeding template has no entries. I am not going to invent a proceeding number, a panel, or a claim-level disposition to fill the format. Instead, below is what I verified, what I could not verify, and what it means defensively.

(No proceedings) — no petitioner v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha action exists

• Type: N/A — no Inter Partes Review, Post-Grant Review, or Covered Business Method review was ever filed on this patent per the ODP record.
• Filed: N/A.
• Status: N/A. (Structured source: "The USPTO ODP API returns no AIA trial proceedings for this patent as of the most recent ingest," and I found no older or recently-filed proceeding that the ODP may not have indexed.)
• Judge panel: N/A — no panel assigned.
• Petition grounds: N/A.
• Institution decision: N/A.
• Final Written Decision: N/A. No claim of this patent has ever been canceled, confirmed, or construed by the PTAB in a FWD.
• Settlement / termination: N/A.
• Appeal: N/A — no PTAB decision to appeal; no Federal Circuit appeal of a PTAB decision on this patent surfaced in my searches.
• Defensive value: You do not inherit a single § 315(e)(2) estoppel finding, but you also do not face established adverse claim constructions from an instituted trial. Your defense will be built on the statute of limitations, the expiration date, and the maintenance-fee lapse — not on Board precedent.

Verification note (don't over-read the negative): my searches were general web searches plus the ODP block. They are good evidence that nothing notable happened — no litigation-driven IPR campaigns, no aggregator challenge, no reported Federal Circuit appeal. They are not a substitute for a direct PTAB docket query. Before relying on the "zero" for a filing or an opinion, pull the patent's trial history directly from the PTAB's systems:

• PTAB Center / PTAB E2E: https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptabweb/
• Patent Center prosecution/trial record: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov/
• Patent text (authoritative copy used here): https://patents.google.com/patent/[US6654135B2](/patent/US6654135B2)/en
• Federal Circuit decisions (searchable docket/opinion archive): https://www.courtlistener.com/?q=%226%2C654%2C135%22

Strategic summary

Which claims are CANCELED vs. SUSTAINED vs. UNTESTED. None are canceled, none are sustained, and every claim is untested at the PTAB. There is no PTAB narrowing of this patent to point to, because the Board has never touched it. I am deliberately not stating a claim count or listing surviving claims: the authoritative full-text record supplied for this patent is truncated before the claims section, so I cannot quote the claim set, and I will not guess at claim numbers. If you need the exact claim listing (e.g., to map a demand letter's asserted claims), pull it from the Google Patents copy or Patent Center — that is a five-minute check and it is the only defensible way to state which claims exist.

Estoppel landscape. There is no § 315(e)(2) estoppel against anyone, because estoppel attaches only after a Final Written Decision. That cuts both ways: no prior petitioner is barred, but no prior petitioner has handed you a roadmap of art the Board already credited. Correspondingly, all § 102/§ 103 prior-art grounds remain fully available to a defendant — there is no IPR record to work around and no "reasonably could have raised" shadow. The practical constraint on new art is not estoppel but the calendar: AIA IPR has been available since 2012-09-16, and this patent's term ran out 2018-04-23, so the window in which an IPR had commercial value closed years ago. An IPR of an expired patent is legally possible but economically pointless — it cannot buy you anything you don't already have from the expiration date and the lapsed fees.

Pattern signals. No repeated petitioner (there is no first petitioner), no Patent Owner appeal activity at the Federal Circuit, and no defensive aggregator (Unified Patents or similar) in the chain — my searches surfaced no Unified Patents challenge or membership-driven filing against this patent. That absence is itself informative: aggressively asserted patents reliably attract IPR filings, and the zero on this docket is consistent with a patent that was never a significant assertion vehicle. Note the doctrinal limits that would have applied anyway: this is a pre-AIA patent (filed 1998-04-23), so PGR was never available (PGR reaches only post-2013-03-16 filings), and CBM was a poor fit — this is a printing/image-processing network patent, not one claiming "data processing … used in the practice, administration, or management of a financial product or service," and the transitional CBM program sunset on 2020-09-16 in any event.

Recommended next steps

• If you received a demand citing US 6,654,135, check the date of the accused conduct first. Any theory targeting activity after 2018-04-23 fails on expiration: the patent's term ended, per the record's anticipated expiration date, and its status is Expired – Fee Related. Demands built on post-expiration products have no case. Say so plainly, in writing, and price your response accordingly.
• For a residual pre-expiration theory, the exposure is bounded by 35 U.S.C. § 286's six-year lookback from the date of complaint filing, applied against a patent that lapsed for non-payment of maintenance fees — verify the fee history in Patent Center, because a lapsed-fee period can itself foreclose recovery for infringement occurring during the lapse.
• Do not expect an IPR to be the answer, even if one were filed. With the patent expired and no live Board record, the cost of an IPR is not justifiable as a defense; invest in the expiration/laches/section 286 analysis and, if the asserted claims matter, a district-court invalidity case where the full § 102/§ 103/§ 112 arsenal (including prior uses and on-sale art unavailable at the PTAB) is on the table.
• If "the patent has claims invalidated" is the framing you were given, it is wrong here — there is no FWD to link, because none exists. The correct framing for today's defendant is: no PTAB proceedings on file, and the patent has expired. Before you put either statement in a brief, confirm the docket via PTAB E2E (https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptabweb/) and the expiration/fee status via Patent Center (https://patentcenter.uspto.gov/), so the negative is sourced rather than inferred.

Assignment & Ownership Chain Report — U.S. Patent No. 6,654,135

Scope note / data limitation (stated up front): I was able to confirm the existence and content of the ownership events from the Google Patents legal-events record embedded in the authoritative full text, but I was unable to pull the reel/frame numbers or the recorded correspondent from the USPTO Assignment Center (assignmentcenter.uspto.gov) within this session — the search index returned only unrelated same-numbered documents. I therefore state the reel/frame and correspondent fields as not retrieved, rather than guess them. This is flagged again in each affected field below.

---

Inventors

• No joint inventors are listed; this is a single-inventor filing.
• Unusual-pattern check: No evidence of inventor departure. There is no second assignment or inventor-side transfer recorded, and no data surfaces suggesting Mitani left Canon within 12 months of filing. A single-inventor, single-assignment, corporate-owned application filed 1998‑04‑23 is the ordinary pattern for a large Japanese operating-company filer — no fire-sale precursor behavior observed.

---

Original assignee

• Entity on the issued patent: Canon Kabushiki Kaisha (a/k/a Canon Inc.). Confirmed on the face of the patent ("Original Assignee: Canon Inc." / "Current Assignee: Canon Inc.") and by the recorded assignment entry "Assigned to CANON KABUSHIKI KAISHA … Assignors: MITANI, SHIGEYUKI."
• Line of business: Imaging and printing hardware and services — cameras, copiers, laser beam printers (the specification expressly describes a laser beam printer, FIG. 19, and an ink jet recording apparatus, FIG. 20), and networked print/photo services.
• Product embodiment: The patent is directed to a networked print control system in which a client edits a low-resolution image, an image server stores tiled multi-resolution image data (the specification names the FlashPix format), and a print controller routes a print order to one of several print servers at print shops. Canon's relevant commercial line at the time was its networked printer / photo-printing and print-service portfolio. The patent describes a service architecture rather than a single retail SKU, so "a product embodying the claims" is best characterized as Canon's printing/imaging product and service line rather than one identified device.
• Current status: Operating. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha remains an active, publicly traded operating company (listed in Tokyo; files annual reports / 有価証券報告書). No acquisition, dissolution, or bankruptcy. The patent itself is Expired – Fee Related, with anticipated expiration 2018‑04‑23 (20 years from the 1998‑04‑23 filing date), per the legal-status record in the full text.

---

Assignment timeline

One recorded assignment exists. Post-issuance assignment activity: none recorded.

• 1998‑07‑14 (recorded; execution date not retrieved) — Reel NNNNNN/NNNN: not retrieved
  • Conveyance: Assignment — specifically recorded as "ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNOR'S INTEREST (SEE DOCUMENT FOR DETAILS)."
  • Assignor: MITANI, SHIGEYUKI (sole inventor)
  • Assignee: CANON KABUSHIKI KAISHA
  • Correspondent: Not retrieved — the Assignment Center record could not be opened in this session, so the recording attorney/firm of record is unknown. No recurrence can be assessed.
  • Context: Standard original corporate assignment — the inventor assigned his rights in the then-pending application (filed 1998‑04‑23) to his employer. This is the baseline employment assignment, not an acquisition, fire-sale, securitization, or transfer-to-asserter.

If the Assignment Center in fact shows only this single record, that is itself the finding: it means the patent never left Canon and lapsed in place. I could not independently re-run the Assignment Center query to confirm the absence of further records (the tool returned no Assignment Center result set for the literal number), so I state the absence as consistent with, but not affirmatively verified by, a live Assignment Center query.

---

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 6654135
    1997 : Priority date 23 Apr 1997
    1998 : Application filed 23 Apr 1998
         : Assigned to Canon Kabushiki Kaisha
    2003 : Patent issued 25 Nov 2003
    2018 : Anticipated expiration 23 Apr 2018

---

NPE / troll-pattern signals

---

Verdict

Insufficient data (no records, or only the original assignment)

The record shows only the original employment assignment — Mitani → Canon Kabushiki Kaisha, recorded 1998‑07‑14 — with no post-issuance transfers and the patent lapsing in Canon's hands at the 2018‑04‑23 anticipated expiration. That single-link chain does not fit any NPE archetype: no shell transferee, no known asserter, no cascading LLC transfers, no pre-suit transfer, and no suit. The verdict is "insufficient data" rather than "defensive/non-asserting" only because Canon is an operating manufacturer, not a defensive aggregator, and because the reel/frame and correspondent fields could not be verified live. The consistently negative NPE pattern across all eight signals is, in substance, the strongest available finding: this is an ordinary operating-company-owned patent that was never monetized through an NPE chain.

Verify at: USPTO Assignment Center — https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search patent number 6654135; also indexed at https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html). Run a Docket Navigator / Unified Patents portal check to corroborate the no-litigation finding, and pull Patent Center / assignment records for any reassignment out of Canon that my search could not surface.

I'll research the prior art references cited for US Patent 6,654,135.

Let me dig deeper into the specific citation records for this patent.

Let me retrieve the front-page "References Cited" list in full.

Prior-Art / Cited-References Report — U.S. Patent No. 6,654,135 B2

Note on scope limiter: I hit the tool-call ceiling before I could pull the complete, official USPTO "References Cited" page. What follows is what I could positively retrieve and verify; I flag explicitly where the list is likely incomplete.

---

1. Patent identification (verified against the authoritative full text)

I searched the literal number 6654135 / 6,654,135 (via Google Patents, which mirrors the USPTO granted-patent record, plus the USPTO-published PDF on patentimages and FreePatentsOnline). I did not substitute any near-number patent.

---

2. Front-page "U.S. Patent Documents" cited for US 6,654,135

The following six U.S. patents appear in the "References Cited" (U.S. Patent Documents) portion of the granted patent's front page, as captured from the USPTO-published PDF (patentimages) and corroborated by the Google Patents record:

Critical timing caveat (this is the analytically important point): Five of the six references (Nos. 2–6) issued after this application's Apr. 23, 1998 U.S. filing date. As art dated after the filing date they cannot be §102(a)/(b) references. They could only have been cited as §102(e) art (i.e., their own earlier U.S. filing dates pre-date 1998-04-23), or as background/relevant-art citations. Reference No. 1 (US 5,625,757, Apr. 1997) is the only one that clearly pre-dates the filing and could be §102(a)/(b) art.

---

3. What the claim set looks like (for the §102 mapping)

From the granted claims (verified via FreePatentsOnline), the independent claims are:

• Claim 1 — printing control system (image server + print controller + print servers).
• Claim 21 — print controller for providing an online print service via an Internet (receive → select → selection-control by "a plurality of parameters different from the instruction information").
• Claim 31 — method of controlling the print controller (steps mirroring claim 21).
• Dependent claims (e.g., 9, 19, 20, 22, 24, 25, 28, 30, 32, 35, 36, 39) add: tiled/multi-resolution image data; page-description-language transmission; distance/time/quality-based automatic selection with a priority order.

The novelty hook that carried these claims is "information different from the information designating the selection of each print server" — i.e., the client does not name a particular print server, yet the print controller still selects one by checking execution conditions/parameters (distance, output time, print quality). That is the element a §102 reference would have to disclose to anticipate.

---

4. Analysis — do any cited references actually anticipate under §102?

Honest bottom line: on the evidence retrievable here, no single cited reference appears to disclose the full "information different from the information designating the selection of each print server" selection-control element that distinguishes independent claims 1, 21, and 31.

• These are front-page references cited during prosecution, i.e., art the applicant/examiner considered and over which the patent issued. By definition, prosecuted references that did not defeat patentability are more naturally §103 (obviousness combination) or §102 background material than §102 anticipation.
• Anticipation requires a single reference disclosing every element arranged as in the claim (Therasense-era §102 practice; MPEP 2131). None of the six, as described, is shown to disclose the specific "condition-based selection where the client has not named the server" logic plus the tiled multi-resolution image-server architecture in one document.
• US 5,625,757 (No. 1) is the only pre-filing reference and is the strongest pure §102(a)/(b) candidate; it would be the first reference to chart element-by-element against claim 1.
• US 5,995,723, US 6,018,769, US 6,091,507, US 6,145,031 are the strongest §102(e) candidates (networked print-distribution/queue-management lineage) and would more realistically be combined under §103.

I therefore report the potential claim mappings above as screening candidates, not as established anticipations. I cannot responsibly assert anticipation for any reference without the full text of each and an element-by-element comparison, which the step limit prevented me from completing.

---

5. Gaps in this list — flagged, not hidden

I could not confirm the complete official "References Cited" record. Specifically unverified/missing:

• Any U.S. Patent Application Publications on the front page.
• Any Foreign Patent Documents (the PDF front page may list JP/EP references; the OCR snippet I retrieved did not show a foreign-documents block).
• Any Other Publications / Non-Patent Literature citations.
• I saw a scispace record counting "94 Citations" — that figure is almost certainly forward citations ("Cited By"), not the backward "References Cited," and I did not use it as prior art.

Sources used:

• USPTO-published PDF: https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/ed/d0/19/c62711597824e6/US6654135.pdf
• Google Patents: https://patents.google.com/patent/[US6654135B2](/patent/US6654135B2)/en
• FreePatentsOnline (claim text): https://www.freepatentsonline.com/6654135.html

Recommended verification (before relying on this as definitive):

• USPTO Patent Public Search / Patent Center "References Cited" for 6,654,135 (full front page incl. foreign + NPL).
• The file wrapper (Patent Center) to see who cited each reference (applicant IDS vs. examiner) and the examiner's §102/§103 characterization.
• Espacenet / Global Dossier for the corresponding JP priority application's cited art, which is often broader.

Confidence: Moderate for the six U.S. references (they appear verbatim in the patent's own front-page OCR); low for completeness, and low for any §102-anticipation conclusion. I am explicitly not asserting that any listed reference invalidates any claim.

I'll research the prior art cited on this patent's Google Patents page to ground the obviousness analysis.

Let me try to pull the actual cited references list and related prior art in this technology space.

I'm finding highly relevant prior art. Let me verify the specific references cited on the patent's face and check the most probative ones.

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 6,654,135 B2

35 U.S.C. § 103 (pre‑AIA) | Priority date: 1997‑04‑23 (JP) / 1997‑04‑25 (JP); U.S. filing 1998‑04‑23; granted 2003‑11‑25

---

0. Scope, sourcing, and honesty note

The task asks me to use "the results from the Prior Art section of this page." I retrieved the following from the Google Patents / USPTO‑image prior‑art record and from open search, and I distinguish verified material from material I could not fully verify before my search budget expired:

Where I rely on unverified references, I say so and mark the argument as conditional. I do not fabricate paragraph or claim citations.

Claim set (from the verified FPO text): claims 1–20 = printing‑control system; claims 21–30 = print controller (Internet print service); claims 31–40 = method of controlling a print controller; with further apparatus (client/information‑processing) and storage‑medium claim groups. Representative independent claims: 1 (system), 21 (print controller), 31 (method); plus the client‑side independent claim reciting determination means / selection means / condition‑defining means / print‑requesting means.

---

1. Representative claims and the critical phrase

The recurring, claim‑defining limitation across all independent claims is:

"…the print server … on the basis of information different from the information designating the selection of each of the print servers prior to printing." (claim 1)

and, in claim‑21 form:

"…when the print order received by said reception means does not include instruction information on print server selection, controlling said selection means to select the print server … by checking that an execution condition of the print server is satisfied, the execution condition including a plurality of parameters different from the instruction information." (claim 21)

Literal construction: the selection is made on the basis of derived/parametric criteria — distance, output time (load), print quality/resolution (see Figs. 7, 8, 11, 12; claims 17–20) — as opposed to an identity/address/name of a chosen print server. In other words: the client supplies what it wants, not whom it wants. This is the crux.

POSITA

A person having ordinary skill in the art as of April 1997 would be a software/network engineer with a bachelor's degree (or equivalent experience) in computer science/electrical engineering plus ~2 years' experience in network printing architectures (print servers, spoolers, PDL/RIP pipelines), and familiarity with client–server distributed printing and image‑file formats (JPEG; multi‑resolution tiled formats). No specialized knowledge is required for the enumerated means‑plus‑function elements.

---

2. The primary references and what they teach

Reference A — US 6,452,692 B1, "Networked printer server" (Dec. 2, 1996)

Verified. This reference is squarely on point and predates the priority date.

Verified teachings:

• The user "merely select[s] the preferences of the print job, such as quality and speed, without also having to determine which printer on the network will best suit his needs."
• The print server "will have software/hardware/firmware capable of performing the computation necessary to determine which printer" to use.
• Automatic re‑routing on printer error while reusing "the same preferences that the user or client selected initially."
• Tracking "the physical location of printers when re‑routing them, such that the printer selected will be close in proximity to the user/client."
• Match/select criteria expressly include "time to print, cost, location, manual override."
• A "virtual printer" on the client workstation notifies the user of the location of the printed job.

Mapping: this discloses (i) a plurality of network printers/print nodes; (ii) a server that selects the destination based on parameters different from the printer's identity (quality, speed, cost, location/distance, availability/output time); (iii) a manual‑override path in parallel with automatic selection; and (iv) selection occurring prior to printing.

Reference B — US 6,476,927, "job token printer assignment system"

Verified.

Verified teachings:

• A job ticket 40 contains a printer selection override option 48; "the server 14 accepts the printer selection request, checks that the selected printer 20 is available and on‑line, and returns the selected print token 50 … that includes the address of the selected printer."
• The server "matches compatible printer devices from the printer pool 30"; "polls the available printer devices for their availability and current work load"; then "selects the destination printer based on matching criteria (time to print, cost, location, manual override)."
• "The print server stores job ticket information along with the selected printer in a job log for future accounting."

Mapping: this reference discloses the dual‑mode client behavior (either explicitly designate a printer via the override, or let the server select by criteria), and it discloses the server‑side "check that an execution condition is satisfied" using a plurality of parameters (time, cost, location, workload). Note also the accounting/charging log, which parallels the patent's charging information (#Payment, credit card) at element 402.

Reference C — JPH0772993A (Hitachi), published 1995‑03‑17

Verified.

Verified: a terminal that issues a print request by a document‑print‑specification command; a plurality of network‑shared printers; a management table storing the document print specifications for each printer; and print management means that selects, from the plurality of printers, a printer conforming to the specifications stored in the management table and causes the selected printer to print. Claim 3 also notifies the terminal of the selection information; claim 6 puts the print management means in a print management server on the network.

Mapping: this is a near‑verbatim teaching of the print‑server management table (Fig. 8) and of table‑driven, criteria‑based selection. It is § 102(b) art (published >2 years before the 1997 priority).

Reference D — DE 4,422,619 B4 ("printing system")

Verified (partial). Discloses a management server for distributed printing that, on a fatal error at the selected printer, "chooses a printer … suitable for the print job" and re‑routes the job, reporting the change to the client. Confirms that dynamic, server‑mediated printer re‑assignment across a pool was known in the art (1994–96).

Reference E (post‑priority — not § 102 art, but evidence of the state of the art)

• JPH10326164A (filed 1997‑09‑25; published 1998‑12‑08): a server that emits a device‑information inquiry, receives per‑printer device info, and selects the printer matching the image quality (resolution) of the image data, then the one with the shortest wait time. ⚠️ This post‑dates the 1997‑04‑23 priority date and therefore is not available as § 102 prior art; I cite it only as corroboration of what POSITAs were doing contemporaneously.
• The Sept. 5, 1997 "open systems printing" work (automatically routing print jobs to different printers "without the source computers selecting printers") — likewise post‑priority; not § 102 art.

---

3. Element‑by‑element analysis — independent claim 1

Every element of claim 1 is disclosed or rendered obvious by A in view of B, with C supplying the table implementation.

---

4. Element‑by‑element analysis — independent claim 21

Claim 21 maps almost on‑the‑nose onto B, with A supplying the multi‑parameter preference model (quality/speed) and the Internet/LAN/WAN + automatic re‑routing teaching.

---

5. Element‑by‑element — client/information‑processing independent claim

The dual‑mode GUI (Figs. 23–26) is a predictable implementation of the dual‑mode data model already present in B.

---

6. Proposed combinations and the required motivation

Under KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), and Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966), the motivation may come from the problem to be solved, from the teachings of the references, or from the predictable nature of the variation.

Combination 1 (primary): A + B

• Motivation: Both references are in the same field (networked print job routing/services) and address the same recognized problem: the user is burdened with having to know and choose a printer, and resources are wasted when a user‑chosen printer is busy/distant/low‑quality. A states the problem and solution almost verbatim ("the user must select the printer … the user is forced to choose … there is need to reduce the level of user interaction … such that, when a job is sent, a print server can … determine which printer"). B supplies the concrete dual‑path architecture (explicit override or criteria‑based selection). A POSITA would combine them because B's override option is simply the "direct designation" alternative to A's automatic criteria selection — the two references are complementary halves of the same design space.
• Reasonable expectation of success: High — both are software/config‑level selections over an existing printer pool; no new hardware or unpredictable physics.

Combination 2: A + B + C

• Motivation: Once one decides to select by criteria, one must store the criteria per printer. C teaches exactly that: a management table of per‑printer print specifications used by print management means to pick a conforming printer. Adopting a table (the patent's Fig. 8 "print server management table") is the most natural, predictable data‑structure choice for storing P(M,N) parameter values. KSR expressly approves of combining a known technique (table lookup/scoring) with a known system (criteria‑based selection) to yield predictable results.

Combination 3: A/B/C + FlashPix/multi‑resolution tiled image serving (for dependent tile/resolution claims)

• Motivation: Bandwidth/cost. The patent itself concedes the FlashPix multi‑resolution tiled format is known art, and it articulates the reason to use it: transmit low‑resolution tiles for client‑side editing (short dial‑up sessions, lower line fees) and let the print server fetch high‑resolution tiles at render time. If the format is conceded prior art and the benefit (reduced transmission volume) is inherent, then merely situating the known tile server behind the criteria‑based print‑selection front end is an obvious architectural arrangement.

Combination 4: A/B + B's accounting log (for the charge/payment‑related subject matter)

• Motivation: Both the print‑order format (ID/password/credit‑card data at 402) and the print server job log are standard in networked print services; B already "stores job ticket information along with the selected printer in a job log for future accounting." Combining billing with a routed print job is predictable commerce‑enabling engineering.

On the "priority order vs. comprehensive evaluation" dependent claims (e.g., claims 17–20, 28)

• A and B already rank/select by multiple criteria. Choosing between (i) a strict lexicographic priority order and (ii) a weighted sum ("comprehensive evaluation") — Fig. 12, the score sum of parameter‑priority × coefficient — is a predictable, routine design choice between two well‑known multi‑criteria selection techniques. KSR: "if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious." The patent's own spec admits the coefficient "may be made variable" — i.e., an optional, design‑choice toggle.

---

7. Dependent claims — cumulative obviousness

Because the independent claims fall, the dependent claims fall with them, for these reasons (each individually KSR‑obvious):

• Tile transmission of image data (claim‑group recitations): known FlashPix practice; conceded known in the specification.
• Plural resolutions stored in the image server: inherent to the known multi‑resolution tiled format; motivated by bandwidth reduction.
• Page‑description‑language transmission to the selected print server (claim 25/36): PDL scripting (e.g., PostScript/PDL text) was ubiquitous; B already transmits a job ticket + print commands.
• PDL containing image ID information (claims 29/34): standard practice of referencing, rather than embedding, external images.
• Synthesis/re‑composition at the print server from PDL + tiles: the ordinary RIP/render step; no more than the expected operation of a network print server.

---

8. Non‑obviousness arguments I would expect, and why they likely fail

1. "The prior art selects a printer; claim 1 selects a print server." (Distinction without a difference.) In the disclosed architecture every print server is a PC+printer node at a print shop; selecting the "print server" is selecting the output node. A/B expressly contemplate selecting among servers/controllers of the pool (and D selects the "print server" too).
2. "Selection occurs prior to printing on information different from printer‑selection information — a negative limitation." Negative/relative limitations do not confer patentability where the reference discloses the substance. B's override‑option branch makes the criteria path the default only when the order lacks printer instruction information — exactly claim 21's condition.
3. "A separate image server distinct from the print servers/controller was novel." Splitting image storage from print processing is a routine architectural decomposition; the motivation (offload/centralize image data so the print server need only RIP) is supplied by the bandwidth/cost discussion in the field and by the patent's own rationale.
4. Objective indicia (secondary considerations). I have no evidence of commercial success, long‑felt need, failure of others, licensing, or copying tied to the claims. The prior litigation analysis for this patent found no litigation and the patent went "Expired – Fee Related" in 2018 — i.e., no assertion/nexus evidence is available. Absent a nexus, secondary considerations do not rebut the prima facie case.

---

9. The most likely rejection

Claims 1, 17–20, and the client/information‑processing independent claim would be rejected under § 103 as obvious over US 6,452,692 in view of US 6,476,927 (and optionally JPH0772993A for the management‑table implementation).

Claims 21–30 and 31–40 would be rejected under § 103 over US 6,476,927 in view of US 6,452,692, with JPH0772993A relied on for the table‑based, specification‑conforming printer selection and for the "print management server on the network" architecture.

Dependent tile/resolution/PDL claims would additionally be rejected over the conceded FlashPix multi‑resolution tiled format, and over ordinary PDL rendering practice.

---

10. Confidence, caveats, and what must be verified before reliance

Confidence — high that the concept claimed (criteria/parameter‑based selection of a print node, with optional direct override, prior to printing) was well known before 1997‑04‑23: two independent, coherent, pre‑priority references (US 6,452,692, effective 1996‑12‑02, and JPH0772993A, published 1995‑03‑17) describe it, and US 6,476,927's override structure completes the client dual‑mode claim.

Confidence — moderate on the specific rejection formulations, because:

1. ⚠️ Critical date issue for the face‑cited U.S. references. US 5,815,722 (9/1998), US 5,995,723 (11/1999), US 6,018,769 (1/2000), US 6,091,507 (7/2000), and US 6,145,031 (11/2000) all issued after the 1997‑04‑23 priority date. They are prior art only under pre‑AIA § 102(e) and only if their U.S. filing dates predate 1997‑04‑23. I was unable to verify their filing dates; do not cite them as § 102(b)/§ 102(a) art without confirming the effective filing date of each. Similarly, US 5,625,757 (Kageyama, listed "4/1997") is borderline against a 1997‑04‑23 priority and must be date‑checked to the day.
2. ⚠️ US 6,476,927 filing date unverified. I verified its disclosure but not its application/filing date. Confirm it predates 1997‑04‑23 (or qualifies under § 102(e)) before building the leading rejection on it.
3. ⚠️ Post‑priority references excluded. JPH10326164A and the Sept. 1997 "open systems printing" work are after the priority date; I have deliberately not relied on them as § 102 art.
4. ⚠️ Unverified disclosures. I did not retrieve the actual disclosures of Kageyama 5,625,757, Kalwitz 5,815,722, Sperry 5,995,723, Tezuka 6,018,769, Valland 6,091,507, or Mastie 6,145,031, nor the non‑U.S. items on the face. Any use of them is conditional pending verification of (a) effective dates and (b) the precise passages relied upon.
5. Verify the complete claim set. The Google Patents full text supplied to me was truncated at the end of the description; I reconstructed claim numbers from the FreePatentsOnline rendering (system 1–20; print controller 21–30; method 31–40; further apparatus/medium groups). Confirm the exact wording and numbering of every claim — especially any claim reciting the "comprehensive evaluation" weighted sum — before finalizing charts.

Recommended verification steps: pull the full PDFs of US 6,452,692, US 6,476,927, US 5,625,757, US 5,815,722, US 5,995,723, US 6,018,769, US 6,091,507, US 6,145,031, JPH0772993A, and DE 4,422,619, and record their effective filing dates; then re‑confirm the § 102(e)/§ 102(b) status of each against the 1997‑04‑23 / 1996‑04‑23 critical dates.

---

11. Grounding sources used

• U.S. Patent 6,654,135 B2 (authoritative full text): https://patents.google.com/patent/[US6654135B2](/patent/US6654135B2)/en
• Granted‑patent PDF with face "References Cited": https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/ed/d0/19/c62711597824e6/[US6654135](/patent/US6654135).pdf
• Claim text (claims 1–40 excerpt): https://www.freepatentsonline.com/6654135.html
• US 6,452,692 B1, "Networked printer server" (Dec. 2, 1996 effective filing): https://patents.justia.com/patent/[6452692](/patent/6452692) and https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/e3/a5/1b/7b931682eb617e/US6452692.pdf
• US 6,476,927, "job token printer assignment system": https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/b1/f6/48/dc41672147fe7b/US6476927.pdf
• JPH0772993A, "printing system" (Hitachi), published 1995‑03‑17: https://patents.google.com/patent/JPH0772993A/en
• JPH10326164A, "network system" (post‑priority): https://patents.google.com/patent/JPH10326164A/en
• DE 4,422,619 B4, "printing system" (distributed‑printing management server): https://patents.google.com/patent/DE4422619B4/en

Legal framework: Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966); KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415–22 (2007) (predictable variations, design incentives, "obvious to try," and known‑technique combination are all indicia of obviousness).