Ex Parte Lee et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 24, 2004

09100487 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 24, 2004)

1
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was
not written for publication and is not binding precedent of the
Board.
Paper No. 18
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________
Ex parte HO CHONG LEE
and MIKEL J. STANICH
__________
Appeal No. 2003-1063
Application No. 09/100,487
___________
ON BRIEF
___________
Before THOMAS, HAIRSTON, and OWENS, Administrative Patent Judges.
OWENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This appeal is from the final rejection of claims 1, 2, 10,
11, 28, 29, 30, 35 and 41. Claims 3-9, 12-18, 31-34, 36-40
and 42-46 stand objected to as dependent from a rejected base
claim but allowable if rewritten in independent form. Claims 19-
27 have been canceled.
THE INVENTION
The appellants claim a method, apparatus and memory for
applying a transform to the grayscale commands of a first printer
so as to simulate the grayscale printing characteristics of a
Appeal No. 2003-1063
Application No. 09/100,487
2
second printer. Claim 1, directed toward the method, is
illustrative:
1. A method of configuring a first printer to emulate
grayscale printing characteristics of a second printer,
comprising the steps of:
characterizing the grayscale printing characteristics of the
first printer and the second printer; and
determining a transform between the grayscale printing
characteristics of the first printer and the grayscale printing
characteristics of the second printer using the characterized
grayscale printing characteristics of the first printer and the
second printer, the transform for modifying first printer
grayscale commands so as to emulate the grayscale printing
characteristics of the second printer.
THE REFERENCE
Ebner 5,805,734 Sep. 8, 1998
(filed Nov. 26, 1996)
THE REJECTION
Claims 1, 2, 10, 11, 28, 29, 35 and 41 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Ebner.
OPINION
We reverse the aforementioned rejection. We need to address
only the independent claims, i.e., claims 1, 10, 28, 29, 35
and 41.
The appellants’ independent claims require a transform for
modifying first printer grayscale commands so as to emulate
(claims 1, 29, 35 and 41) or effect (claims 10 and 28) the
grayscale printing characteristics of a second printer.
Appeal No. 2003-1063
Application No. 09/100,487
3
Ebner discloses merging first and second halftoning
techniques, such as cluster quad dot and white noise, such that
there is a smooth, contour-free transition region between them
having characteristics and advantages of both techniques
(col. 12, lines 10-15 and 29-60; col. 13, lines 4-29; col. 13,
line 45 - col. 14, line 10). Thereafter, a hybrid imaging
technique within the transition region is used to form an image
(col. 14, lines 11-12).
The examiner argues (answer, sixth page):
Ebner clearly teaches modifying the first printer
grayscale commands to emulate the grayscale printing
characteristics of a second printer (col. 4, lines 14-
22 and col. 13, lines 22-29, e.g. based on the
characteristics of the first printer and the second
printer the grayscale commands are transformed by
combining both characteristics to create the grayscale
commands that match between the two printers). Ebner
clearly describes in column 13, line 56 thru column 14,
line 19, how the instruction or commands to reproduce
the data from of [sic] a first printer (or first
halftone system) can be modify [sic] by combining the
characteristics of the first printer with the
characteristic of a second printer (or second
halftoning system) to create a significantly better
hybrid system. By creating a combination of
characteristics between the first halftoning method and
the second halftoning method, the instructions or
commands to represent the image or data created are
changed based on the hybrid system generated by the
combination of the two halftoning methods.
The examiner’s statement that “Ebner clearly teaches modifying
the first printer grayscale commands to emulate the grayscale
Appeal No. 2003-1063
Application No. 09/100,487
4
printing characteristics of a second printer” is incorrect. As
indicated by the examiner’s argument, Ebner obtains grayscale
printing characteristics that are between those of first and
second systems, rather than modifying the grayscale commands of
the first system to emulate or effect the grayscale printing
characteristics of the second system as required by the
appellants’ claims.
We therefore find that the examiner has not carried the
burden of establishing a prima facie case of anticipation of the
appellants’ claimed invention.
DECISION
The rejection of claims 1, 2, 10, 11, 28, 29, 35 and 41
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) over Ebner is reversed.
Appeal No. 2003-1063
Application No. 09/100,487
5
REVERSED
JAMES D. THOMAS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
)
) APPEALS AND
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON )
Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
)
)
TERRY J. OWENS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
TJO/kis
Appeal No. 2003-1063
Application No. 09/100,487
6
GATES & COOPER, LLP
HOWARD HUGHES CENTER
6701 CENTER DRIVE WEST
SUITE 1050
LOS ANGELES, CA 90045