11405062 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 16, 2013)

Ex Parte Lamy

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardOct 16, 2013

11405062 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 16, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 11/405,062 04/17/2006 Francis Lamy 97634.00204 2162 72535 7590 10/16/2013 MCCARTER & ENGLISH, LLP STAMFORD CANTERBURY GREEN 201 BROAD STREET, 9TH FLOOR STAMFORD, CT 06901 EXAMINER VO, TRUONG V ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2156 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/16/2013 PAPER Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte FRANCIS LAMY ____________ Appeal 2011-002671 Application 11/405,062 Technology Center 2100 ____________ Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, DEBRA K. STEPHENS, and BARBARA A. PARVIS, Administrative Patent Judges. PARVIS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1-15. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. Appeal 2011-002671 Application 11/405,062 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant’s invention relates to selecting and presenting colors based on a semantic search, thus making the color selection process more human- compatible. Abstract. Claim 1 is illustrative: 1. A computer implemented method of selecting and presenting a color choice made by a user comprising the steps of: a) providing a computer including memory, an input interface (10), a processor (21) and a display unit (60), wherein each of (i) a color database (30) for a number of individual colors and (ii) a semantic lexicon database (40) containing semantic associations between words that are relevant to describing colors are stored in the memory, wherein each color of the color database is attributed a set of data and each set of data comprises at least numeric data and semantic data related to the respective color, b) using the input interface to provide search terms (23) related to a desired color, said provided search terms comprising at least semantic data, c) using the processor to query the semantic lexicon database to determine related search terms (24) for each said provided search term, said related search terms comprising at least semantic data associated with the semantic data of the provided search term, d) using the processor to search the color database for resulting colors (33) with attributed data sets matching at least one of said provided or related search terms and retrieving these resulting colors, and e) producing a visual presentation of the resulting colors on the display unit. Appeal 2011-002671 Application 11/405,062 3 EVIDENCE CONSIDERED The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Beretta U.S. 5,416,890 May 16, 1995 Syeda-Mahmood U.S. 2003/0012428 A1 Jan. 16, 2003 REJECTIONS Claims 1-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Syeda-Mahmood and Beretta. Ans. 3-12. ISSUES 1. Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Syeda- Mahmood and Beretta teaches “selecting and presenting a color choice” and “using the processor to search the color database for resulting colors,” as recited in independent claim 1, and commensurately recited in independent claim 8? 2. Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Syeda- Mahmood and Beretta teaches: (i) a color database (30) for a number of individual colors and (ii) a semantic lexicon database (40) containing semantic associations between words that are relevant to describing colors are stored in the memory, wherein each color of the color database is attributed a set of data and each set of data comprises at least numeric data and semantic data related to the respective color, as recited in independent claim 1, and commensurately recited in independent claim 8? 3. Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Syeda- Mahmood and Beretta teaches “provided search terms comprising at least Appeal 2011-002671 Application 11/405,062 4 semantic data” and “using the processor to query the semantic lexicon database to determine related search terms (24) . . . said related search terms comprising at least semantic data associated with the semantic data of the provided search term,” as recited in independent claim 1, and commensurately recited in independent claim 8? ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellant’s conclusions (App. Br. 15-16). 1) First Issue We are not persuaded by Appellant’s contention that Syeda- Mahmood’s teachings are limited to querying for an image, unlike the present invention which is related to querying for a color (App. Br. 7-8). Appellant further notes with respect to this contention that Syeda- Mahmood’s “large collection of images stored in a searchable database” is not the same as a color database. App. Br. 8. As the Examiner correctly finds, the combination of Syeda-Mahmood and Beretta teach querying for a color in a color database (Ans. 13-14, 3-7). Beretta describes a color database, “[a] color database of a predetermined number of colors, specified in RGB and tristimulus values . . .” Beretta col. 4, ll. 22-24; see also Ans. 5-6 (citing Beretta col. 4, ll. 18-37; col. 24, l. 59 – col. 25, l. 15; Table 4; Fig. 13)). Syeda-Mahmood describes using a processor to search for resulting colors with attribute sets matching at least one of said provided or related search terms, “[b]y well-known look-up Appeal 2011-002671 Application 11/405,062 5 methods, the database receiving 306 a semantic user query for images having sky, grass, skin, etc. will use the color region index to locate 308 and retrieve 310 relevant images and regions that possess the query surface.” Syeda-Mahmood ¶ 102; see also Ans. 14 (citing Syeda-Mahmood ¶ 102). Thus, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that the disputed limitations would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of the teachings of Syeda-Mahmood and Beretta (Ans. 4-6, 13-14). 2) Second Issue We are not persuaded by Appellant’s contention that the Examiner did not accord patentable weight to the recitation of a lexicon database including semantic associations between words (App. Br. 10-11). Appellant argues that Syeda-Mahmood and Beretta merely teach: (1) associations between images and (2) associations between image regions and semantic data (App. Br. 11). However, Appellant contends that the cited prior art does not teach or make obvious semantic associations between words, such as the word “sky” and the word “atmosphere” (App. Br. 11). Appellant’s argument pertains to an example from Appellant’s Specification of an association between the words “fire” and “hot,” which Appellant states are words relevant to describing color (App. Br. 10). We agree with the Examiner that Syeda-Mahmood teaches a “semantic lexicon database” as claimed (Ans. 17, 4-5). The USPTO gives claims their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Appellant’s argument that the cited prior art fails to describe the claimed association is based on an exemplary embodiment of Appellant’s Appeal 2011-002671 Application 11/405,062 6 Specification (App. Br. 11). However, Appellant’s arguments are not commensurate with the scope of the claims. Claim 1 recites “semantic associations between words that are relevant to describing colors” (emphasis added). Syeda-Mahmood describes that words relevant to colors, such as semantic labels, e.g., skin, grass, and sky, are assigned to each color surface. Ans. 17 (citing Syeda-Mahmood ¶ 072). Beretta also provides examples of words relevant to describing colors, including names of colors, for example, “BLUE,” “GREENISH BLUE,” “BLUE-GREEN.” Beretta Table 4; see also Ans. 6. We agree with the Examiner that the claimed association would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of the teachings of Syeda-Mahmood and Beretta (Ans. 4-6, 17). Syeda-Mahmood describes that, upon receipt of a semantic user query such as skin, grass or sky, the database will locate “relevant images” using Syeda-Mahmood’s color region index of color surface regions. Ans. 17 (citing Syeda-Mahmood ¶ 102). Additionally, Beretta describes association between semantic information and colors, “it is important to preserve the semantic information conveyed by the colors...” (Beretta col. 48, ll. 15-16; see also Ans. 17). Thus, we agree with the Examiner’s findings that the claimed semantic lexicon database would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of the teachings of Syeda-Mahmood and Beretta (Ans. 4-6, 17). As discussed supra with respect to the first issue, we also agree with the Examiner that Beretta teaches the claimed color database (Ans. 5-6 (citing Beretta col. 4, ll. 18-37; col. 24, l. 59 – col. 25, l. 15; Table 4; Fig. 13)). Appeal 2011-002671 Application 11/405,062 7 3) Third Issue We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner failed to consider the claimed “using the input interface to provide search terms” (App. Br. 13). We are also not persuaded by Appellant’s reiteration of the argument that the cited prior art does not involve semantic search terms (App. Br. 13). As the Examiner correctly finds, Syeda-Mahmood describes a graphical user interface (Ans. 18 (citing Syeda-Mahmood ¶ 105)). Additionally, as discussed supra with respect to the first and second issues, Syeda-Mahmood teaches semantic search terms, “the database receiving 306 a semantic user query. . .” (Syeda-Mahmood ¶ 102; see also Ans. 4, 14, 17, 18). Further, for the same reasons discussed supra, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments (App. Br. 14-15) that the cited prior art fails to teach the claimed query of the semantic lexicon database. Thus, Appellant has not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), and dependent claims 2-7 and 9-15, not separately argued (App. Br. 16). Accordingly, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 1-15. DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED Appeal 2011-002671 Application 11/405,062 8 ELD