Ex Parte Aoki et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 13, 2012

10356469 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 13, 2012)

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.
10/356,469 02/03/2003 Akira Aoki 10549/7 4710
7590 03/14/2012
Robert T. Tobin
KENYON & KENYON
One Broadway
New York, NY 10004
EXAMINER
HAIDER, FAWAAD
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3627
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/14/2012 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 AKIRA AOKI, HIROSHI SHIJYO,
and MITSUKO SHIJYO
____________

Appeal 2011-000305
Application 10/356,469
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before, MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, ANTON W. FETTING and
JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, Administrative Patent Judges.

FISCHETTI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-000305
Application 10/356,469

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s
final rejection of claims 15-17. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b)
(2002).
An oral hearing was held on February 22, 2012.

THE REJECTION
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of
unpatentability:
Engeldrum EP 1143705 A2 Mar. 22, 2001
Bernard WO 00/23944 April 27, 2000

The Examiner rejected claims 15-17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Engeldrum in view of Bernard.
ANALYSIS
Each of independent claims 15 and 17 requires:
providing a hard copy of a product catalog
including a first reference color image…
and
correcting the color of the displayed second
reference color image based on a comparison of
the first reference color image to the second
reference color image so that it matches the color
of the first reference color image in response to an
input, by the user….
The Examiner found that Engeldrum discloses providing a hard copy
of a product catalog including a first reference color image at [(0147]).
(Answer 4).
Engeldrum discloses at [(0147)] that:
Appeal 2011-000305
Application 10/356,469

3
Graphical output created by processor 712 may be transmitted to a
display device such as video monitor 724 for display to users;
equivalently, output may also be transmitted to a printing device 726
to generate hard copy output in the form of videotape, film, slides, or
the like.

Thus, Engeldrum only discloses a standard output type printer which
uses data which it receives from the connected processor 712 within the
same system.
We find that although Engeldrum discloses displaying a color
correction icon 66 as shown in Figure 9b [¶0080], this icon is again
generated only at the connected computer and is not provided as part of a
hard copy of a product catalog including a first reference color image.
Similarly, the use of atomic colors disclosed in ¶ [0144] of Engeldrum are
also not disclosed in the context of providing a hard copy of a product
catalog including a first reference color image, and the Examiner gives no
explanation of why a person with ordinary skill in the art would print these
colors into a catalog.
We thus find that to use the printer 726 attached to the user’s monitor
in Engeldrum to generate the hard copy of the first reference color as
proposed by the Examiner (Answer 4) would not be useful in correcting the
second color displayed in the network as proposed by Appellants’ claims
because the color of the printout would be no more accurate than the color
generated by the network computer.
Accordingly, we cannot sustain the rejection of independent claims 15
and 17.
Appeal 2011-000305
Application 10/356,469

4
Since claim 16 depends from claim 15, and since we cannot sustain
the rejection of claim 15, the rejection of claim 16 likewise cannot be
sustained.
REVERSED

MP