13752463 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 14, 2016)

Ex Parte Huang et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardOct 14, 2016

13752463 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 14, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 131752,463 01129/2013 22879 7590 10/18/2016 HP Inc. 3390 E. Harmony Road Mail Stop 35 FORT COLLINS, CO 80528-9544 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Xiaoxi Huang 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 83140094 7451 EXAMINER WILLIAMS, KIMBERLY A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2673 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/18/2016 ELECTRONIC 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. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address( es): ipa.mail@hp.com barbl@hp.com yvonne.bailey@hp.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte XIAOXI HUANG, LIM CHENG WOON, and CHIN HUNG ANDY KOH 1 Appeal2015-006689 Application 13/752,463 Technology Center 2600 Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, DEBRA K. STEPHENS, and DAVID J. CUTITTA II, Administrative Patent Judges. CUTITTA, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-3, 7, 12, and 14. Claims 1, 7, and 14 are independent. We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 3 5 U.S. C. Â§ 6(b ). We REVERSE.2 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Hewlett-Packard Development Company, LP. See Appeal Br. 3. 2 Throughout this Opinion, we refer to: (1) Appellants' Specification filed Jan. 29, 2013 (Spec.); (2) the Final Office Action (Final Act.) mailed Sept. 12, 2014; (3) the Appeal Brief (Appeal Br.) filed Feb. 12, 2015; (4) the Examiner's Answer (Ans.) mailed May 7, 2015; and (5) the Reply Brief (Reply Br.) filed July 6, 2015. Appeal2015-006689 Application 13/752,463 BACKGROl.J1'-JD According to Appellants, the application relates to calibrating a scanning device while taking into account ambient light conditions. Spec. 3. Claim 1 is illustrative and is reproduced below with disputed limitations emphasized: 1. A method for calibrating a scanning device having an illuminant to illuminate an image to be scanned, the method compnsmg: analyzing a dark scan image of a calibration strip to obtain at least one data point from each of one or more regions of the dark scan image, wherein the dark scan image is an image that is obtained with the illuminant turned off; computing calibration values for each of the one or more regions based on the at least one data point for calibrating the scanning device, wherein the calibration values include mean and standard deviation of the data points for each of the one or more reg10ns; comparing the calibration values with reference calibration -valites corresponding to each of the one or more regions, wherein the calibration values are current calibration values; and determining if the current calibration values are erroneous based on the comparing. REFERENCE The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Ikeno et al. ("Ikeno") US 2006/0023267 Al Feb.2,2006 2 Appeal2015-006689 Application 13/752,463 REJECTION3 Claims 1-3, 7, 12, and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Ikeno. Final Act. 2. Our review in this appeal is limited only to the above rejection and issues raised by Appellants. We have not considered other possible issues that have not been raised by Appellants and which are, therefore, not before us. See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2013). ISSUE Did the Examiner err in finding that Ikeno discloses "comparing the calibration values with reference calibration values corresponding to each of the one or more regions, wherein the calibration values are current calibration values," as recited in claim 1? DISCUSSION In rejecting the disputed limitations, the Examiner relies upon Ikeno' s description of a RAM having a black reference buffer area that stores black reference data for correcting gradient properties among light receiving elements. Final Act. 3 (citing Ikeno i-f 62). Appellants contend that no comparison is performed on the data in Ikeno. Appeal Br. 11. Specifically, Appellants state: Initially, the Examiner's argument fails to establish that the current calibration values, which the Examiner construes as being equivalent to the current black reference data, are compared with reference calibration values, which the 3 Claims 4---6, 8-11, 13, and 15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim (Final Act. 1 ). This issue is not before us. (See MPEP Â§Â§ 706.01, 1201 (9th ed., Rev. 9, March 2014)). 3 Appeal2015-006689 Application 13/752,463 Examiner construes as being equivalent to the previously stored black reference data. Instead, the Examiner's argument just states that the current black reference data replaces the previously stored black reference data without any comparison being performed between the current black reference data and the previously stored black reference data. Reply Br. 6 (citing Ans. 5); see also App. Br. 10. We agree with Appellants' contention that the Examiner fails to demonstrate that Ikeno discloses comparing the current calibration values with reference calibration values. Rather, as the Examiner notes, Ikeno indicates that "the current calibration values replace the reference calibration values previous stored in the RAM 103 when the data is updated." Ans. 5 (citing Ikeno i-f 82). Therefore, the Examiner has not shown Ikeno' s current calibration values are compared with the reference calibration values. Because we agree with at least one of the dispositive arguments advanced by Appellants, we need not reach the merits of Appellants' other contentions. Accordingly, we are constrained to reverse the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) rejection of claim 14 . 4 In the event of further prosecution, the Examiner may wish to consider whether claims 1, 7, and 14 should be rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 112. We note that in the event the "at least one data point" is limited to a single data point, it is unclear whether the standard deviation could be calculated for the data point without resulting in an error. This is because Appellants' Specification fails to indicate whether a population standard deviation or sample standard deviation calculation is performed. In the event the claim requires a sample standard deviation calculation and only a single data point is used, the calculation would require division by 0 thus resulting in an error. 4 Appeal2015-006689 Application 13/752,463 We also are constrained to reverse the rejection of independent claims 7 and 14, which each recite commensurate limitations, and of dependent claims 2, 3, and 12, which stand with their respective independent claims. We note, in an ex parte appeal, the Board "is basically a board of review-we review ... rejections made by patent examiners." Ex parte Gambogi, 62 USPQ2d 1209, 1211(BPAI2001). Although the Board is authorized to reject claims under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 41.50(b), no inference should be drawn when the Board elects not to do so. See Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) Â§ 1213.02 (9th Ed., Mar. 2014). Here, we express no opinion as to whether the independent claims would be obvious over Ikeno if supported by additional explanation or references, or both. We leave any such further consideration to the Examiner. Furthermore, our decision is limited to the findings before us for review. The Board does not "allow" claims of an application and cannot direct an Examiner to pass an application to issuance. Rather, the Board's primary role is to review adverse decisions of examiners including the findings and conclusions made by the Examiner. See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 41. 50( a)( 1) ("The Board, in its decision, may affirm or reverse the decision of the examiner in whole or in part on the grounds and on the claims specified by the examiner"). DECISION We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-3, 7, 12, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 102(b). REVERSED 5