10441739 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 5, 2012)

Ex Parte Ajito et al

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesSep 5, 2012

10441739 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 5, 2012)

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. 10/441,739 05/19/2003 Takeyuki Ajito 03285/LH 2347 1933 7590 09/05/2012 HOLTZ, HOLTZ, GOODMAN & CHICK PC 220 Fifth Avenue 16TH Floor NEW YORK, NY 10001-7708 EXAMINER NGUYEN, HAU H ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2628 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/05/2012 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________________ Ex parte TAKEYUKI AJITO and YASUHIRO KOMIYA ____________________ Appeal 2009-015411 Application 10/441,739 Technology Center 2600 ____________________ Before KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, and TREVOR M. JEFFERSON, and MICHAEL J. STRAUSS Administrative Patent Judges. DESHPANDE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2009-015411 Application 10/441,739 2 STATEMENT OF CASE1 The Appellants seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of a final rejection of claims 1-70, the only claims pending in the application on appeal. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. The Appellants invented color reproducing apparatus that reproduces color of an image of an object produced using an image output device. Specification 1. An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary claim 1, which is reproduced below [bracketed matter and some paragraphing added]: 1. A color reproducing apparatus for color converting an original image, which has been produced on an image output device which reproduces the image for viewing by a creator of the original image under a color reproduction environment of a production phase, into a view image, which is reproduced by one of the same image output device that produced the original image and another image output device, for viewing by a viewer under a color reproduction environment of a view phase, the color reproducing apparatus comprising: [1] profile storage means for storing: information relating to the color reproduction environment of the production phase, information relating to the color reproduction environment of the view phase, and information relating to the image output device of each of the production phase and the view phase; and [2] color correction means for color converting the original 1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,” filed January 21, 2009) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed June 29, 2009) and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed April 27, 2009), and Final Rejection (“Final Rej.,” mailed April 1, 2008). Appeal 2009-015411 Application 10/441,739 3 image into the view image using the information stored in the profile storage means. REFERENCES The Examiner relies on the following prior art: Ishii Ohta Shiraiwa Reele Uekusa US 5,982,416 US 6,268,930 US 6,453,066 US 6,567,190 US 6,791,711 Nov. 9, 1999 Jul. 31, 2001 Sep. 17, 2002 May 20, 2003 (filed Nov. 5, 1999) Sep. 14, 2004 (filed Jun. 21, 1999) REJECTIONS2 Claims 1, 29-32, 34-37, 39-44, 46, 48-51, 53, 55-57, 59, 61, 63, 65, 67, 69, and 70 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Shiraiwa and Reele . Claims 2, 33, 38, 54, 58, 60, 64, and 66 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Shiraiwa, Reele, and Ohta. Claims 3-7, 9-12, 14-18, 20-22, 25-27, 62, and 68 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Shiraiwa, Reele, and Ishii. Claims 45, 47, and 52 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Shiraiwa, Reele, and Uekusa. Claims 8, 13, and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Shiraiwa, Reele, Ishii, and Ohta. 2 In the event of further prosecution, we invite the Examiner to determine the appropriateness of any further rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first and second paragraphs for claims 1-53. The specific details of structure of the “profile storage means” and “color correction means” do not appear to be sufficiently described in the Specification. Appeal 2009-015411 Application 10/441,739 4 Claims 19, 23, and 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Shiraiwa, Reele, Ishii, and Uekusa. ISSUES The issue of whether the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-70 turns on whether Shiraiwa describes “information relating to the color reproduction environment of the production phase” and “information relating to the image output device of…the production phase and view phase,” as recited by claim 1 and as similarly recited by independent claims 3, 53, 69, and 70 and whether Shiraiwa describes information relating to the color preproduction environment of the production phase comprises information relating to illumination in the production phase, as per dependent claims 4, 21, 29, and 43. ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of the Appellants’ contentions that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with the Appellants’ conclusions. We adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to the Appellants’ Appeal Brief. We concur with the conclusion reached by the Examiner. We highlight the following arguments for emphasis. Appeal 2009-015411 Application 10/441,739 5 Independent claims 1, 3, 53, 69, and 70 The Appellants contend that Shiraiwa fails to teach or suggest a profile storage means for storing “information relating to the color reproduction environment of the production phase” and “information relating to the image output device of…the production phase and the view phase,” as recited by claim 1 and as similarly recited by independent claims 3, 53, 69, and 70. App. Br. 14-25 and Reply Br. 2-6. The Appellants specifically argue that Shiraiwa discloses color characteristics of a device or a scanner, which is not the same as the claimed “information relating to the color reproduction environment of the production phase.” App. Br. 17-25 and Reply Br. 3-5. We disagree with the Appellants. Shiraiwa describes an image processing apparatus and method for performing color correction. Shiraiwa 1:5-9. As found by the Examiner, Shiraiwa describes a device or scanner that reads an input image or original image and converts the image into image signals. Ans. 3-4 and 14 (citing Shiraiwa 4:28-56 and 5:41-47). The image signals are further converted to device-independent color signals based on the information of a scanner-profile storage section. Id. These signals are further processed based on the type of ambient light determined by a sensor. Shiraiwa 4:57-67. That is, Shiraiwa describes information relating to the reproduction environment and information related to the output device, where production environment information and output device information encompass the conversion of signals to device-independent signals based on the look up information in the scanner-profile storage section. Although the Appellants contend that this is only information about the scanner or device (App. Br. 17-25 and Reply Br. 3-5), this information Appeal 2009-015411 Application 10/441,739 6 about the scanner or devices directly controls the reproduction environment and therefore is also information related to the “information relating to the color reproduction environment of the production phase” and “information relating to the image output device of…the production phase and the view phase.” As such, we are not persuaded by the Appellants’ arguments. Dependent claims 4, 21, 29, and 43 The Appellants contend that Shiraiwa fails to disclose that information relating to the color preproduction environment of the production phase comprises information relating to illumination in the production phase. App. Br. 25-26 and 28-29. We disagree with the Appellants. As discussed supra, the Examiner found that Shiraiwa describes image signals that are converted to device-independent color signals based on the information of a scanner- profile storage section and these signals are further processed based on the type of ambient light determined by a sensor. Ans. 3-4 and 14 (citing Shiraiwa 4:28-67 and 5:41-47). The type of ambient light is a parameter that is related to the illumination of the production phase. As such, Shiraiwa describes information relating to the color preproduction environment of the production phase comprises information relating to illumination in the production phase. The Appellants have not provided any additional persuasive evidence or rationale to distinguish the claimed invention from the cited prior art. As such, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 4, 21, 29, and 43. CONCLUSIONS The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-70. Appeal 2009-015411 Application 10/441,739 7 DECISION To summarize, our decision is as follows:  The rejection of claims 1-70 is sustained. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2010). AFFIRMED tj