Ex Parte DiCarlo

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 8, 2013

10818622 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 8, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
__________

Ex parte JEFFREY M. DICARLO
__________

Appeal 2011-003241
Application 10/818,622
Technology Center 2600
__________

Before JEFFREY N. FREDMAN, ERICA A. FRANKLIN, and
ULRIKE W. JENKS, Administrative Patent Judges.

FREDMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal
1
under 35 U.S.C. § 134 involving claims to an image
device calibration method and instrument. The Examiner rejected the claims
as anticipated and as obvious. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.

1
Appellant identifies the Real Party in Interest as Hewlett-Packard
Development Company, LP (see App. Br. 3).
Appeal 2011-003241
Application 10/818,622

2
Statement of the Case
Background
The Specification teaches that “optical characteristics such as a
responsivity function and/or a transduction function of an imaging device
may be measured to determine how the associated imaging device responds
to input light signals. The determined optical characteristics may be utilized
to calibrate the respective imaging device.” (Spec. 3 ¶ 0024.)
The Claims
Claims 1-25 and 27-47 are on appeal. Claim 1 is representative and
reads as follows:
1. An imaging device calibration method comprising:
emitting light for use in calibration of an imaging device:
providing an emission characteristic of the light;
sensing the light using an image sensor of the imaging device:
generating sensor data indicative of the sensing using the image
sensor: and
determining at least one optical characteristic of the imaging
device using the generated sensor data and the emission characteristic
for use in calibration of the imaging device, and wherein the at least
one optical characteristic corresponds to the image device used to
sense the light.

The issues
A. The Examiner rejected claims 1-7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15-20, and 22 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Bawolek
2
(Ans. 3-6).
B. The Examiner rejected claims 8, 11, 14, 23-25, and 27-47 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) over Bawolek and Vogel
3
(Ans. 7-15).

2
Bawolek et al., US 6,205,244 B1, issued Mar. 20, 2001.
3
Vogel et al., EP 1,349,432 A1 published Oct. 1, 2003.
Appeal 2011-003241
Application 10/818,622

3
A. 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over Bawolek
The Examiner finds that
Bawolek „244 shows an imaging device calibration
method comprising: emitting light for use in calibration of
an imaging device (i.e., calibrating method where LEDs for
emitting light. See Column 1, Lines 8-13, 26-59, Column 4,
Lines 19-60); providing an emission characteristic of the
light (i.e., the peak emission wavelengths are given. See
Column 5 Lines 1-41); sensing the light using an image
sensor of the imaging device (i.e., image sensor. See
Column 1, Lines 42-59, Column 3, Lines 21-51); generating
sensor data indicative of the sensing using the image sensor
(i.e., calibrating coefficients, magnitude of the coefficients.
See Column 2, Lines 58-67 and Column 3, Lines 10-50);
and determining at least one optical characteristic of the
imaging device using the generated sensor data and the
emission characteristic for use in calibration of the imaging
device, and wherein the at least one optical characteristic
corresponds to the image device used to sense the light (i.e.,
Using the calibrating data and wavelengths to calculate the
variable response approximation.

(Ans. 3-4.)
The issue with respect to this rejection is: Does the evidence of record
support the Examiner‟s conclusion that Bawolek anticipates the claims?
Findings of Fact
1. Bawolek teaches a “method and apparatus for color calibrating
an imager device is disclosed. The imager device is subjected to a plurality
of light sources. Color channel responses are obtained from the imager
device and the color calibrating coefficients are determined” (Bawolek, col.
3, ll. 54-58).
Appeal 2011-003241
Application 10/818,622

4
2. Bawolek teaches “a set of light emitting diodes (LEDs) or other
light sources to provide a stimuli for the imager device to produce a color
calibration matrix” (Bawolek, col. 4, ll. 19-21).
3. Figure 4 of Bawolek is reproduced below:

“FIG. 4 illustrates an exemplary embodiment of the present invention”
(Bawolek, col. 5, ll. 46-47).
4. Bawolek teaches that:
In using five LEDs, peak emission wavelengths at 430, 470,
545, 590 and 660 nm are used to provide the stimuli that
gives the result as would be obtained by means of
calibration with reflective color targets corresponding to the
Appeal 2011-003241
Application 10/818,622

5
Macbeth Colorchecker® targets. However, it should be
noted that other peak wavelengths may be used depending
on the particular desired results to be achieved. In this
instance, the particular peak wavelengths have been
chosen . . .

(Bawolek, col, 5, ll. 3-8.)
5. Bawolek teaches that the “function of the color calibration is to
find a color calibrating matrix (e.g., a 3x3 matrix) that brings the response of
the image sensor as close as possible (i.e., least squares error) to that of the
XYZ tristimulus values” (Bawolek, col. 1, ll. 44-47).
6. Bawolek teaches, regarding figure 4, that “[b]lock 42 illustrates
the imager device to be calibrated being illuminated by the five LEDs
sequentially and the RGB responses recorded” (Bawolek, col. 6, ll. 1-3).
7. Bawolek teaches, regarding figure 4, that “[b]lock 43 illustrates
the recorded RGB responses being loaded into a MEAS matrix:
”
(Bawolek, col. 6, ll. 11-20).
8. Bawolek teaches repeated stimulation of imager devices with
“blocks 51 to 53 being repeated until a desired number of imager devices
Appeal 2011-003241
Application 10/818,622

6
have been calibrated. From the combined accumulated data, a table . . . may
be constructed” (Bawolek, col. 7, ll. 30-33).
9. Bawolek teaches “using data obtained from multiple imager
devices, statistical regression is used to find the correlation between the
imager devices‟ responses 65 to LEDs and the coefficients 63 of the 3x3
matrix obtained from of the same imager device using color targets”
(Bawolek, col. 7, ll. 45-50).
10. Bawolek teaches “determining color calibrating coefficients for
the imager device from the set of color channel responses and the known
color values” (Bawolek, col. 12, ll. 1-3).
11. Bawolek teaches
Imager device responses 65 may be RGB responses. The
Macbeth Colorchecker® reflective color target chips are
defined by the color calibrating coefficients M11, . . . , M33 of
the 3x3 matrix coefficients 63. The 3x3 matrix coefficients
63 are plotted with the corresponding imager device
responses 65 to the five LEDs 14 of FIG. 3. Once a
sufficient quantity of imager devices 61 are calibrated, the
accumulated data (63 and 65) may then be used to determine
the statistical correlation between the imager device
responses 65 and the 3x3 matrix coefficients 63.

(Bawolek, col. 6, ll. 49-58.)
Principles of Law
“A single prior art reference that discloses, either expressly or
inherently, each limitation of a claim invalidates that claim by anticipation.”
Perricone v. Medicis Pharmaceutical Corp., 432 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir.
2005).

Appeal 2011-003241
Application 10/818,622

7
Analysis
Claims 1 and 16
Bawolek teaches a method “for color calibrating an imager device”
(Bawolek, col. 3, ll. 54-55; FF 1) comprising “a set of light emitting diodes
(LEDs) or other light sources to provide a stimuli for the imager device to
produce a color calibration matrix” (Bawolek, col. 4, ll. 19-21; FF 2).
Bawolek teaches providing “peak emission wavelengths at 430, 470, 545,
590 and 660 nm [which] are used to provide the stimuli that gives the result”
(Bawolek, col. 5, ll. 3-5; FF 4). Bawolek teaches sensing the light by
illuminating “the tested imager sensor with five LEDs sequentially”
(Bawolek, figure 4, block 42; FF 3). Bawolek teaches generating sensor
data, where “[b]lock 42 illustrates the imager device to be calibrated being
illuminated by the five LEDs sequentially and the RGB responses recorded”
(Bawolek, col. 6, ll. 1-3; FF 6).
Bawolek teaches “determining color calibrating coefficients for the
imager device from the set of color channel responses and the known color
values” (Bawolek, col. 12, ll. 1-3; FF 10). Specifically, Bawolek teaches the
“function of the color calibration is to find a color calibrating matrix (e.g., a
3x3 matrix) that brings the response of the image sensor as close as possible
(i.e., least squares error) to that of the XYZ tristimulus values” (Bawolek,
col. 1, ll. 44-47; FF 5).
Appellant contends that “Bawolek neither expressly nor inherently
discloses the „determining‟ element of claim 1” (App. Br. 5). Appellant
contends that the “color correction matrix, however, is not „at least one
optical characteristic of the imaging device‟ as recited in claim 1” (id. at 6).
Appeal 2011-003241
Application 10/818,622

8
Appellant contends that the “color correction matrix is not an optical
characteristic of the imager 18; indeed, it does not characterize an optical
properly or attribute of the imager 18; instead, it is a dimensionless
mathematical mapping that is applied to the output values of the imager 18
to transform those output color values into color values of a target color
space” (App. Br. 6).
We are not persuaded. Bawolek teaches the “function of the color
calibration is to find a color calibrating matrix (e.g., a 3x3 matrix) that
brings the response of the image sensor as close as possible (i.e., least
squares error) to that of the XYZ tristimulus values” (Bawolek, col. 1, ll. 44-
47; FF 5).
In using the generated sensor data to identify the difference between
the color response of the image sensor and the desired target color response
(FF 4), Bawolek is determining how closely the color detection of the image
sensor of the device being calibrated matches the desired color response.
This determination of relative color by the imaging device is reasonably
interpreted as an “optical characteristic” since each different color is
characteristic of a distinct wavelength of light (FF 4) and therefore the
determination of the color in Bawolek‟s sensor is used to calibrate the
imaging device using the generated sensor data (FF 8-11).
Indeed, the “color correction matrix” itself also reflects specific
“optical characteristics” of the imaging device, specifically the amount by
which the color detection by the sensors of the imaging device diverge from
the optimal color of the XYZ tristimulus values (FF 5). Bawolek is entirely
focused on identifying the “optical characteristic” of color (i.e. wavelength
Appeal 2011-003241
Application 10/818,622

9
of light) in order to generate data “that brings the response of the image
sensor as close as possible (i.e., least squares error) to that of the XYZ
tristimulus values” (Bawolek, col. 1, ll. 44-47; FF 5).
Claims 4 and 5
Appellant contends that “Bawolek does not disclose „determining the
at least one optical characteristic comprising responsivity‟” (App. Br. 7).
Appellant also contends that “Bawolek does not disclose „determining the at
least one optical characteristic comprising transduction‟” (id.).
The Examiner finds that “Bawolek shows the imager device being
illuminated by the plurality of LEDs for obtaining/determining the response
of the image device used to the inputted lights (LEDs) as defined by
applicant on the specification” (Ans. 17-18). The Examiner finds that
“Bawolek describes the light emitting devices (LEDS) to be controlled as
needed including sequentially depending on the desired calibration” (id. at
18).
We find that Appellant has the better position. While it may be true
that the device of Bawolek could be used to determine optical characteristics
such as responsivity or transduction, there is no teaching in Bawolek to
perform an analysis which determines either responsivity or transduction.
That is, Appellant‟s Specification provides specific means and equations to
calculate the responsivity or transduction functions (see, e.g., Spec. 17 ¶¶
0087, 0091) which would provide specific information regarding these
parameters. By contrast, the Examiner does not provide a specific teaching
in Bawolek for measuring either parameter.

Appeal 2011-003241
Application 10/818,622

10
Conclusion of Law
The evidence of record supports the Examiner‟s conclusion that
Bawolek anticipates claims 1 and 16.
The evidence of record does not support the Examiner‟s conclusion
that Bawolek anticipates claims 4 and 5.
B. U.S.C. § 103(a) over Bawolek and Vogel
The Examiner relies upon Bawolek as discussed above and finds that
Bawolek does not teach “a communications interface communicating data
externally of the imaging device calibration instrument regarding at least one
emission characteristic of the emitted light to permit calibration of the
imaging device” (Ans. 9). The Examiner finds that Vogel teaches “a
communications interface communicating data externally of the imaging
device calibration instrument regarding at least one emission characteristic
of the emitted light to permit calibration of the imaging device” (id.).
The Examiner finds it obvious “to modify the system as suggested by
the combination of Bawolek „244 with the teachings of Vogel „432, to
improve the systems variety of options to be preformed [sic performed] by
the system where accuracy can better be found for different needs of
calibration” (id.).
The issue with respect to this rejection is: Does the evidence of record
support the Examiner‟s conclusion that Bawolek and Vogel render the
claims obvious?
Findings of Fact
12. Vogel teaches a
photodiode feedback circuit, built in to the optical head, is
used in conjunction with calibration data to ensure an
Appeal 2011-003241
Application 10/818,622

11
accurate output level. . . . Each of the RS-5 systems has a
different LED wavelength, in conjunction with a 12-inch
integrating sphere for combining the optical outputs from
the four LED heads and a personal computer with control
software for mixing the primaries according to the user‟s
desire.

(Vogel 3 ¶ 0011.)
13. Vogel teaches a “controller 200 provides the means of
converting user-specified operating requirements into the necessary timing
sequences to control the illuminator 1. . . . The controller 200 receives user
commands . . . remotely via a digital interface 218 connected to a remote
controller 216 which could, for example, be a personal computer (PC)”
(Vogel 6 ¶ 0030).
Principles of Law
“The combination of familiar elements according to known methods
is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”
KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). “If a person of
ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, § 103 likely bars its
patentability.” Id. at 417.
Analysis
Claim 23
As discussed above, Bawolek teaches “determining color calibrating
coefficients for the imager device from the set of color channel responses
and the known color values” (Bawolek, col. 12, ll. 1-3; FF 10). Vogel
teaches communication of LED wavelength information to a personal
computer (FF 12) using a digital interface 218 (FF 13).
Appeal 2011-003241
Application 10/818,622

12
Applying the KSR standard of obviousness to the findings of fact, we
agree with the Examiner that the person of ordinary skill would have
reasonably incorporated the digital interface and computer of Vogel into the
calibration device of Bawolek to increase the variety of calibration options
available to the system through the personal computer (see Ans. 9). Such a
combination is merely a “predictable use of prior art elements according to
their established functions.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 417.
Appellant contends that “Vogel‟s personal computer only transmits
control signals to a controller 200, which converts the user-specified
operating requirements into the necessary timing sequences to control the
illuminator 1 . . . Such control signals do not constitute an emission
characteristic of emitted light” (App. Br. 12).
We are not persuaded. Functional recitations in an apparatus claim
are given weight in that the corresponding prior art structures must possess
the capability of performing the recited function. See Intel Corp. v. U.S. Int’l
Trade Comm’n, 946 F.2d 821, 832 (Fed. Cir. 1991). Also see In re
Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478 (Fed. Cir. 1997). In this case, the digital
interface 218 of Vogel has the capability of transmitting information from
the imager device to the personal computer (FF 13), and Appellant has
presented no evidence that the digital interface would have been incapable of
transmitting other information from the imager device if that information
was requested. Appellant does not identify any structural difference
between the digital interface 218 of Vogel and the claimed “communications
interface” in claim 23 other than the specific data being transmitted from the
imaging device to the remote computer.
Appeal 2011-003241
Application 10/818,622

13
Claims 41 and 44
Appellant reiterates the “determining at least one optical
characteristic” argument which we addressed above regarding claims 1 and
16. We remain unpersuaded for the reasons given above.
Conclusion of Law
The evidence of record supports the Examiner‟s conclusion that
Bawolek and Vogel render the claims obvious.
SUMMARY
In summary, we affirm the rejection of claims 1 and 16 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Bawolek. Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §
41.37(c)(1), we also affirm the rejection of claims 2, 3, 7, 10, 12, 13, 15, 17-
20, and 22, as these claims were not argued separately.
We reverse the rejection of claims 4-6 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as anticipated by Bawolek.
We affirm the rejection of claims 23, 41, and 44 under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) over Bawolek and Vogel. Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1), we
also affirm the rejection of claims 8, 11, 14, 24, 25, 27-40, 42, 43, and 45-
47, as these claims were not argued separately.

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