Ex Parte Woolfe et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJul 30, 201311762155 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 30, 2013) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE __________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD __________ Ex parte GEOFFREY J. WOOLFE, ROBERT R. BUCKLEY, and JOHN C. HANDLEY __________ Appeal 2011-007781 Application 11/762,155 Technology Center 2600 __________ Before TONI R. SCHEINER, DEMETRA J. MILLS, and ULRIKE W. JENKS, Administrative Patent Judges. SCHEINER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is an appeal 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the final rejection of claims 1-21, directed to a computer-implemented method of color selection using natural language. The claims have been rejected as obvious. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). 1 Appellants identify the Real Party-In-Interest as XEROX Corporation (App. Br. 2). Appeal 2011-007781 Application 11/762,155 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Color sets or collections are in widespread use in a range of commercial and consumer industries. Color sets or collections may be the names of actual colored objects in the collection, as is the case for a box of crayons or a collection of house paints, or they may be simply a collection of names associated with defined color specifications . . . [that] can be implemented either in software or as books of colored sample swatches. The software implementation is essentially a file that relates . . . names to color specifications. In most cases the colors in the collection are assigned names that may be more or less descriptive of the appearance of the color. One commercially available color selection system, Pantone . . . names its colors using names like Pantone 172 CVC, which is a vivid orange color. Clearly finding the correct Pantone color name to match an intended color can be difficult. (Spec. ¶ 3.) The Specification discloses a computer-implemented method “that allows users to find colors from a collection or set of available colors by providing a natural language description of the color appearance desired” (id. at ¶ 5). Claims 1-21 are pending and on appeal. Claims 1 and 6 are representative: 1. A computer-implemented method comprising: receiving, by a computing device, initial user input comprising initial natural language commands identifying an initial color selection; displaying, by said computing device, a plurality of initial color samples corresponding to said initial color selection; after said displaying of said initial color samples, receiving, by said computing device, additional user input comprising additional natural language commands, wherein said additional natural language commands comprise a color change magnitude, a color change direction, and a color change property; Appeal 2011-007781 Application 11/762,155 3 revising, by said computing device, said initial color selection to a revised color selection based on said color change magnitude, said color change direction, and said color change property; and displaying, by said computing device, a plurality of revised color samples corresponding to said revised color selection. 6. A computer-implemented method comprising: receiving, by a computing device, initial user input comprising initial natural language commands identifying an initial color selection; displaying, by said computing device, a plurality of initial color samples corresponding to said initial color selection in a two-dimensional grid, wherein axes of said two-dimensional grid correspond to a predetermined standard axis; after said displaying of said initial color samples, receiving, by said computing device, at least one additional user input comprising at least one of additional natural language commands and a revised axis selection, wherein said additional natural language commands comprise a color change magnitude, a color change direction, and a color change property; revising, by said computing device, said initial color selection to a revised color selection based on said color change magnitude, said color change direction, and said color change property; and displaying, by said computing device, a plurality of revised color samples corresponding to said revised color selection in said two dimensional grid, wherein axes of said two-dimensional grid correspond to said revised axis selection. Claims 1-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Agehama (US 2005/0206925 A1, September 22, 2005) and Moroney (US 2007/0100786 A1, May 3, 2007). We affirm-in-part. Appeal 2011-007781 Application 11/762,155 4 FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Specification discloses a method which “displays a plurality of initial color samples or patches that correspond to the initial color selection . . . on a graphic user interface, such as a computer monitor” (Spec. ¶ 7). “After displaying the initial color regions, the method may (or may not) receive . . . natural language commands . . . compris[ing] a color change magnitude, a color change direction, and a color change property” (id. at ¶ 8). “For example, a natural language command of „slightly more blue‟ . . . provides the color change magnitude („slightly‟), color change direction („more‟), and color change property („blue‟) used . . . to revise the colors displayed to the user” (id.). 2. According to the Specification, the “method matches the revised color selection to . . . computer program colors to produce refined matching colors. These refined matching colors are displayed as refined color regions in [a] two-dimensional grid” (Spec. ¶ 15). That is, [R]ather than trying to match the natural language commands to arcane or irrelevant names given to the colors by the associated computer program, the embodiments herein match colorimetric or color appearance characteristic of the initial color selection and the revised color selection to the colorimetric or color appearance characteristics of the computer program colors (in a colorspace) to determine which of the computer program color patches to display to the user. (Id. at ¶ 16.) Appeal 2011-007781 Application 11/762,155 5 3. Further according to the Specification, the working color space can be any quantitative color space, such as the CIE L*a*b* color space (Spec. ¶ 80). 2 4. Figure 1 of the Specification is reproduced below: Figure 1 illustrates a two-dimensional grid in which “the colors are arranged horizontally according to colorfulness and vertically according to lightness” (Spec. ¶¶ 34, 38). 2 The . . . structure of the L*a*b* color space is based on the theory that a color cannot be both green and red at the same time, nor blue and yellow at the same time. As a result, single values can be used to describe the red/green and the yellow/blue attributes. When a color is expressed in CIE L*a*b*, L* defines lightness; a* denotes the red/green value; and b* the yellow/blue value. http://biology.duke.edu/johnsenlab/pdfs/tech/colorguide.pdf, pg. 16. Appeal 2011-007781 Application 11/762,155 6 5. Agehama discloses a method and device for specifying a spot color that does not rely on prior knowledge of a manufacture‟s color name or designation (Agehama ¶¶ 11-14). Rather, spot colors are selected “on the basis of a characteristic value which sets a reference point and of a tolerance range of this characteristic value, extract[s] corresponding spot colors from a database of spot colors . . . [and] display[s] a list of names of the extracted spot colors” (Agehama ¶ 16). 6. Figure 6A of Agehama is reproduced below: Figure 6A of Agehama is a schematic view of a selection dialog 60, an example of a user interface where spot color selection is carried out (Agehama ¶ 76). A color is selected from color palette 46, which contains information corresponding to L*a*b* values, using pointer 48 (Agehama ¶¶ 27, 28, 54, 55, 76, 77). Tolerance ranges of L*a*b* values with respect to the initially selected color are specified using slide bars 66 (id. at ¶ 97), and a list of spot colors “based on the default values of the assigned color and the tolerance ranges is displayed in the list display area 62” (id. at ¶ 78). Appeal 2011-007781 Application 11/762,155 7 Figure 6B of Agehama is reproduced below: Figure 6B shows the spot color selection dialog box 60 when the tolerance ranges of the L*a*b* values have been narrowed relative to Figure 6A. “It is also possible to broaden the tolerance ranges with the slide bars 66, and it is accordingly possible to increase the number of spot colors displayed in the list display area 62 and to broaden a selection range of the spot colors” (id. at ¶ 100). 7. Moroney teaches that “[u]nconstrained color naming often makes use of modifiers . . . to better specify a color” (Moroney ¶ 5), and discloses “a system for incorporating color naming modifiers which is flexible, and reflects actual patterns of natural language usage” (id. at ¶ 9). The method involves receiving a color modifier and a color name and determining a displacement value corresponding to the received color modifier . . . [which] involves reference to a color naming database including a set of color modifiers having corresponding color-attribute displacement values. The color modifier is applied to the color name by applying the displacement value to a color value corresponding to the color name. Appeal 2011-007781 Application 11/762,155 8 (Id. at ¶ 10.) 8. “[C]olor attribute[s] affected by . . . modifier[s] may include hue, lightness, chroma, saturation or intensity, or a combination of these” (Moroney ¶ 18). 9. According to Moroney, “[t]he computed . . . displacement can be used in color editing . . . [and] also be used [for] color selection, having applicability in selection of a color or color range, or when refining an estimate of the appearance of a given color” (Moroney ¶ 31). OBVIOUSNESS The Examiner finds that Agehama discloses a computer-implemented method of selecting spot colors for a simulated printing job that meets all the limitations of claim 1, except that Agehama‟s user interface does not receive natural language commands (Ans. 3-4). Specifically, the Examiner (citing e.g., Figures 3A, 4B, and 6B) finds that Agehama discloses a method in which a computing device receives an “initial user input . . . identifying an initial color selection” (id. at 3); displays “a plurality of initial color samples corresponding to said initial color selection” (id. at 4); receives “additional user input comprising additional commands” regarding a color change magnitude, direction, and property (id.); and displays “a plurality of revised color samples” corresponding to the changes in color magnitude, direction, and property (id.). The Examiner further finds that Moroney discloses a natural language lexical classification system to incorporate color modifiers into color names, e.g., “a color change magnitude (very pale, pale, grayish purple), a color Appeal 2011-007781 Application 11/762,155 9 change direction (light, dark purple) and a color change property (purple)” (id. at 5 (emphasis omitted)). The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art “to modify the invention of Agehama, and use natural language commands wherein said natural language commands comprise a color change magnitude, a color change direction, and a color change property to modify color” (id. at 5) because “using a natural language command will be better and easier to specify a color, as discussed by Moroney” (id.). Appellants contend that “[t]he definition of „revise‟ is to amend or alter something” (App. Br. 18), thus, “the claimed ‘revision’ deals with the altering of first color parameters to new color parameters based on the first color parameters” (id.). Appellants contend that Agehama “is directed toward extracting corresponding spot colors from a database of spot colors” (id. at 15), and therefore “fails to disclose the „revision‟ of the initial color selection to a „revised color selection‟” (id. at 17). That is, Agehama “discloses the selection of a completely new „color which is closest thereto‟ the originally selected assigned color” (id.). In other words, Agehama “merely discloses „substituting‟ a color and not amending or altering („revising‟) an existing color to a new color” (id. at 19). Appellants argue that the Examiner‟s rejection cannot be sustained given “the Examiner‟s erroneous interpretation of Appellant‟s claimed term, „revise/revising.‟” (Reply Br. 4.) Appellants‟ arguments are not persuasive. Essentially, Appellants are making a semantic distinction between Agehama‟s “substitution” or Appeal 2011-007781 Application 11/762,155 10 “extraction” of spot colors and the claimed “revision” of an initial color selection. However, Appellants‟ current interpretation of the term “revision” is not consistent with the way the term is used in the present Specification. 3 Consider an example given in the Specification: a user makes an initial color selection - in this case “blue” (Spec. ¶¶ 5, 6; Fig. 1), reviews the display of “initial color samples or patches that correspond to the initial color selection” (id. at ¶ 7), and enters the command “slightly more blue” (id. at ¶ 8), which “provides the color change magnitude („slightly‟), color change direction („more‟), and color change property („blue‟) . . . to revise the colors displayed to the user” (id.). The Specification clearly teaches that the claimed “method matches the revised color selection to . . . computer program colors to produce refined matching colors” and “[t]hese refined matching colors are displayed as refined color regions” (id. at ¶ 15). Thus, the claimed method does not, as Appellants contend, “amend[] or alter[] („revis[e]‟) an existing color to a new color” (App. Br. 19), it merely presents a revised selection of colors, already existing in the data base, to the user, in response to the user‟s commands (see also FFs 1, 2). This is precisely what Agehama discloses in the embodiment of its method illustrated in Figures 6A and 6B. In Figure 6A, the slide bars 66 3 It is well settled that the Specification must be reviewed to properly interpret the scope of the claim language. See Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa’ per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243, 1248 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (“[A] claim must be read in view of the specification of which it is a part.”). “[D]uring examination proceedings, claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification.” In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Appeal 2011-007781 Application 11/762,155 11 specify default tolerance ranges of L*a*b* values with respect to an initially selected (assigned) color, and a list of spot colors “based on the default values of the assigned color and the tolerances ranges is displayed in the list display area” (Agehama ¶ 78; FF6). Figure 6B displays a different (or revised) selection of spot colors based on the user‟s modification of the tolerance ranges for the L*a*b* values (i.e., lightness, red/green, yellow/blue) (Agehama ¶ 100; FF3, n. 2; FF6). To the extent Appellants argue that “the Examiner‟s motivation to combine the [Agehama and Moroney] references is erroneous in that the motivation provided by the Examiner to combine the references would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art” (App. Br. 19), we disagree. That is, we agree with the Examiner that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the advantages of using “color naming modifiers which [are] flexible, and reflect[] actual patterns of natural language usage” (Moroney ¶ 9; FF7) to select colors from a data base, as well as name them in the first place, given Moroney‟s teachings. In any case, we note that Moroney teaches that its method is applicable to color editing and color selection (FF9). Moreover, to the extent Appellants contend that Agehama‟s “displaying a list of names. . . would not be combinable with Moroney‟s system for incorporating color naming modifiers which . . . does NOT use conventional color naming” (App. Br. 21), we disagree. The actual names of Agehama‟s spot colors are irrelevant when making a selection. The objective of Agehama‟s invention is to allow a user to find an appropriate color for a custom print job, regardless of the manufacturer‟s color name or Appeal 2011-007781 Application 11/762,155 12 designation, by pointing to a starting color on a color palette, and using slide bars to modify L*a*b* tolerances to view a list (or selection) of colors that fall within those tolerances (FFs 5, 6). Essentially, Moroney‟s natural language modifiers provide an alternative to Agehama‟s slide bars. Accordingly, we will affirm the rejection of claim 1 as unpatentable over Agehama and Moroney, as well as the rejection of claims 2-5, 20, and 21, as Appellants rely on the same unpersuasive arguments made in connection with claim 1 (App. Br. 30-33). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). Independent Claims 6, 11, and 16 With respect to claim 6, Appellants contend, in relevant part, that “neither Agehama, nor Moroney . . . teaches or suggests, Appellant‟s claimed, „displaying, by said computing device, a plurality of initial color samples corresponding to said initial color selection in a two-dimensional grid, wherein axes of said two-dimensional grid correspond to a predetermined standard axis[]‟” (App. Br. 23), or “„displaying, by said computing device. a plurality of revised color samples corresponding to said revised color selection in said two-dimensional grid, wherein axes of said two-dimensional grid correspond to said revised axis selection[]‟” (id. at 25). Appellants make similar arguments with respect to claims 11 and 16 (id. at 25-28). Appellants‟ arguments are persuasive. While Agehama‟s color palette 46 is unquestionably a two-dimensional grid with axes corresponding to predetermined standard axes, it is only used in making the initial color selection. Thus, we agree with Appellants that the Examiner has not Appeal 2011-007781 Application 11/762,155 13 established that the color list resulting from the user‟s adjustments of the L*a*b* values is displayed in a two-dimensional grid with predetermined standard axes, or that the axes themselves can be revised. As the Examiner has not otherwise explained why these limitations would have been obvious, we are constrained to reverse the rejection with respect to independent claims 6, 11, and 16, and their dependent claims. SUMMARY The rejection of claims 1-21 as unpatentable over Agehama and Moroney is affirmed with respect to claims 1-5, 20, and 21, and reversed with respect to claims 6-19. TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). AFFIRMED-IN-PART cdc Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation