Ex Parte Chandu et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 17, 2016

13346231 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 17, 2016)

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.
13/346,231 01/09/2012 Kartheek Chandu 8185P133 6803
76073 7590 10/17/2016
InfoPrint Solutions/ Blakely
1279 Oakmead Parkway
Sunnyvale, CA 94085-4040
EXAMINER
VO, QUANG N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2672
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/17/2016 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________
Ex parte KARTHEEK CHANDU, LARRY ERNST,
SREENATH RAO VANTARAM, MIKEL J. STANICH, and
CHAI WAH WU
____________________

Appeal 2015-006657
Application 13/346,231
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, JON M. JURGOVAN, and
NABEEL U. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants1 seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final
rejection of claims 1, 3–10, and 12–20.2 We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.3

1 Appellants identify InfoPrint Solutions Company LLC as the real party in
interest. (App. Br. 3.)
2 Claims 2 and 11 were canceled by an Amendment filed Aug. 12, 2014.
3 Our Decision refers to the Specification filed Jan. 9, 2012 (“Spec.”), the
Final Office Action mailed Oct. 14, 2014 (“Final Act.”), the Appeal Brief
filed Jan. 16, 2015 (“App. Br.”), the Examiner’s Answer mailed May 12,
2015 (“Ans.”), and the Reply Brief filed July 2, 2015 (“Reply Br.”).
Appeal 2015-006657
Application 13/346,231

2
CLAIMED INVENTION
The claims are directed to halftone calibration used to print ink on
paper in image reproduction for newspapers and the like. (Spec. Title, ¶ 1–
5.) Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A non-transitory machine-readable medium including data
that, when accessed by a machine, cause the machine to perform
operations comprising:
receiving one or more un-calibrated halftones;
generating one or more calibrated halftones from the one
or more un-calibrated halftones employing an ink model by:
computing ink coverage for the one or more un-calibrated
halftones;
computing ink coverage for a desired optical density; and
comparing the computed ink coverage for the one or more
un-calibrated halftones with the computed ink coverage for the
desired target optical density, wherein ink coverage is defined as
a total ink mass applied to a unit area;
analyzing a printed calibration screen of the one or more
calibrated halftones; and
performing a halftone calibration.
(App. Br. (i) – Claims App’x.)

REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 8–10, 16, 18, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) based on Yao (US 2012/0069357 A1, publ. Mar. 22, 2012) and
Burns (US 5,936,741, iss. Aug. 10, 1999). (Final Act. 4–7.)
Claims 3–5, 12, and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based
on Yao, Burns, and Zhang (US 2002/0171852 A1, Nov. 21, 2002). (Final
Act. 7–9.)
Appeal 2015-006657
Application 13/346,231

3
Claims 6 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on
Yao, Burns, Zhang, and Kitagawa (US 2007/0171247 A1, publ. July 26,
2007). (Final Act. 9–10.)
Claims 7, 15, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on
Yao, Burns, and Kitagawa. (Final Act. 10–13.)
Claim 19 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Yao,
Burns, and Cooper (US 2003/0128378 A1, publ. July 10, 2003). (Final Act.
13–14.)

ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 10, 20
Appellants argue Yao and Burns do not teach or suggest the claimed
limitation of “comparing the computed ink coverage for the one or more un-
calibrated halftones with the computed ink coverage for the desired target
optical density, wherein ink coverage is defined as a total ink mass applied
to a unit area.” (App. Br. 7–12.) We agree with Appellants’ argument.
The Examiner acknowledges Yao does not specifically disclose the
claimed “comparing” but relies on Burns for this feature. (Final Act. 5–6
citing Burns Fig. 1, 1:26–27; 6:64–7:11.) Specifically, the Examiner states
that Burns, Figure 1 shows an uncalibrated test pattern 10 for establishing
calibration sets. (Ans. 15–16 citing Burns Fig. 1, 6:64–67, 7:3–38.) The
Examiner also notes that the test pattern 10 has under each gray scale tint
box (2%–100%) an area 24 for recording gray scales. Based on these
observations, the Examiner finds there must be some comparison in Burns
between un-calibrated and calibrated halftones, and concludes Burns teaches
or suggests the claimed “comparing.” (Id.)
Appeal 2015-006657
Application 13/346,231

4
After review of the Examiner’s findings, we decline to sustain the
rejection. We find no mention in Burns’ cited passages of the claimed
comparison between computed ink coverage for the one or more un-
calibrated halftones with the computed ink coverage for the desired target
optical density. Burns appears to use a test pattern generated from un-
calibrated halftones to generate calibration sets used with a transfer function
in order to linearize the image setter’s halftone response. (8:46–60.) There
is no mention of any comparison of computed ink coverages.
Our decision on this basis renders it unnecessary to reach Appellants’
remaining argument concerning the claimed definition of ink coverage as
total ink mass applied to a unit area. (See App. Br. 12.)

Remaining Claims
No separate arguments are presented for the dependent claims and
therefore we sustain the rejection for the reasons previously stated. 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv); In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 1986);
In re Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 991 (Fed. Cir. 1983).

Conclusion
An obviousness rejection under § 103(a) requires that “there must be
some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the
legal conclusion of obviousness.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.
398, 418 (2007) (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)
(internal quotations omitted)). On this record, we find the Examiner’s
Appeal 2015-006657
Application 13/346,231

5
reasoning and underpinning inadequate to support the conclusion of
obviousness.

DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s rejections of rejection of claims 1, 3–10,
and 12–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

REVERSED