Ex Parte Rice et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 24, 2017

14489308 (P.T.A.B. May. 24, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
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.
14/489,308 09/17/2014 Mary Rose Rice 5037P-000001-US-COG 6761
142312 7590 05/26/2017
HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. (Masco)
P.O. BOX 828
BLOOMFIELD HILLS, MI 48303
EXAMINER
MA, TIZE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2613
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/26/2017 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
troymailroom @hdp. com
mdoerr @ hdp. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MARY ROSE RICE and DAMIEN REYNOLDS
Appeal 2017-003324
Application 14/489,3081
Technology Center 2600
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, ADAM J. PYONIN, and
KAMRAN JIVANI, Administrative Patent Judges.
JIVANI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s final rejections of claims 1—3, 6, 7, 10-12, 15, 16, 20-22, 26—28,
and 31—38. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The present patent application relates to a distributed system and
method for aiding consumers in selecting complementary paint colors.
Spec. 12.
1 Appellants identify Behr Process Corporation as the real party in interest.
App. Br. 3.
Appeal 2017-003324
Application 14/489,3080F
Claim 1 is reproduced below with formatting added, bracketed material
added, and disputed limitations emphasized:
1. A system comprising:
a computing device having a touch screen, a display
device, and a sensor device, the computing device having
access to a database including a plurality of paint colors;
wherein the computing device is configured
[LI] to receive a starting color for which
coordinating colors are sought via the sensor device,
[L2] to associate the starting color with a closest
matching paint color in the database to the starting color,
[L3] to determine a plurality of coordinating paint
colors for the closest matching paint color based on data
received from the database,
to display on the display device a color palette
including the closest matching paint color and the plurality
of coordinating paint colors, and
to store the color palette with user identification
information on a server communicatively coupled to the
computing device for subsequent retrieval using the user
identification information.
THE REJECTION
1. Claims 1-3, 6, 7, 10-12, 15, 16, 20-22, 26-28, and 31-
38 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Blanchard et al (U.S.
2002/0089513 Al; July 11, 2002), Bartholomew (U.S. 2001/0047309
Al; Nov. 29, 2001) and Masters (U.S. 2002/0006602 Al; Jan. 17,
2002).
2
Appeal 2017-003324
Application 14/489,3080F
ANALYSIS
The Examiner cites Blanchard as meeting the limitations LI—L3 of
independent claim 1. Final Act. 3^4; Ans. 3^4. Independent claims 10 and
31 recite commensurate limitations, and the Examiner similarly cites
Blanchard as meeting these limitations. Final Act. 6—7, 10—11; Ans. 3^4.
Appellants contend the Examiner errs because the cited Blanchard
teachings fail to meet limitations LI—L3 and because the Examiner fails to
articulate a sufficient rationale to combine the cited references. App. Br.
13—16; Reply Br. 4—5. We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments for
at least the following reasons.
The Examiner finds, and we agree, Blanchard teaches or suggests
limitations LI—L3. Final Act. 3—4, 6—7 (citing Blanchard H 73, 74, 79);
Ans. 3^4. Blanchard discloses a “color harmonization method is used in
conjunction with a paint-matching and/or paint-mixing system” that uses a
spectrophotometer to measure a color (i.e. the “starting color” of limitation
LI) “from a sample of wallpaper, fabric, or virtually any other material to be
matched.” Blanchard H 73, 79. The measured color “is defined in a
uniform color space such as the Lch color space, because all color
measurement and matching systems utilize these defined and approved color
spaces.” Id. 173. The system then matches the measured color to a
reference paint color (i.e. the “closest matching paint color” of limitation
L2). Id. 73, 79. Alternatively, the system “suggests colors from the color
library that most closely match the measured color” and the user selects one
of these suggested colors as the reference color (i.e. the “closest matching
paint color” of limitation L2). Id. After either alternative, “[t]he Lch hue of
the reference color is then converted” and the system then “calculates all of
3
Appeal 2017-003324
Application 14/489,3080F
the harmonizing colors” (i.e., the “plurality of coordinating paint colors” of
limitation L3). Id. 174.
Appellants contend that Blanchard’s “measured custom color itself is
used as the reference color for calculating harmonizing colors.” App. Br.
13; Reply Br. 4. We are not persuaded by this argument because it is not
responsive to the teachings of Blanchard cited by the Examiner and
discussed above.
Appellants further contend that Blanchard’s suggestion of colors that
most closely match the measured color fails to meet limitation L2 because
the claimed system does not require a user to select from suggested color
options. App. Br. 14; Reply Br. 4. We are not persuaded by this argument
because, as discussed above, Blanchard teaches the system may select the
reference color, and because the argument is not commensurate with the
scope of the claims. Each independent claim recites either a system or
method “comprising,” an open-ended term permitting the inclusion of
additional elements or steps. See, e.g., Genentech, Inc. v. Chiron Corp.,
112 F.3d 495, 501 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“Comprising is a term of art used in
claim language which means that the named elements are essential, but other
elements may be added and still form a construct within the scope of the
claim.”). Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that the closest matching
paint color selected by the user in Blanchard after receiving suggested colors
from the system meets limitation L2.
Finally, Appellants contend the Examiner fails to articulate a
sufficient rationale to combine the cited references. App. Br. 16; Reply Br.
5. We disagree with Appellants. The Examiner rejects these claims by
finding specific teachings or suggestions of each limitation in the cited
4
Appeal 2017-003324
Application 14/489,3080F
references and offering articulated reasoning with some rational
underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness. For instance,
in the context of claim 1, the Examiner finds Blanchard teaches the majority
of the claim limitations, relies on Bartholomew’s inclusion of a touch screen,
and relies on Masters’ inclusion of a user ID when storing a color palette.
Final Act. 5; Ans. 4. Thus we agree with the Examiner’s determination of
obviousness because one of ordinary skill in the art would have combined
the cited (and thus known) prior art elements according to known methods to
yield predictable results, namely because “they are well known or
conventional practices in the field” and “common features of the
computerized color selection systems.” Id.', see also KSR Int’l Co. v.
Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
independent claims 1, 10, and 31 as well as their dependent claims 2, 3, 6, 7,
11, 12, 15, 16, 20-22, 26-28, and 32-38.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decisions rejecting claims 1—3, 6, 7, 10—12,
15, 16, 20-22, 26-28, and 31-38.
AFFIRMED
5