Ex Parte Rice et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 24, 201714489308 (P.T.A.B. May. 24, 2017) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation