Ex Parte Klassen

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 13, 2013

11863591 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 13, 2013)

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.
11/863,591 09/28/2007 R. Victor Klassen 20070373USNP-XER1640US01 1967
62095 7590 12/13/2013
FAY SHARPE / XEROX - ROCHESTER
1228 EUCLID AVENUE, 5TH FLOOR
THE HALLE BUILDING
CLEVELAND, OH 44115
EXAMINER
ZHU, RICHARD Z
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2675
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/13/2013 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 R. VICTOR KLASSEN
__________

Appeal 2012-000032
Application 11/863,591
Technology Center 2600
__________

Before TONI R. SCHEINER, JEFFREY N. FREDMAN, and
ULRIKE W. JENKS, Administrative Patent Judges.

FREDMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal1 under 35 U.S.C. § 134 involving claims to a method
of reducing metamerism in a scanned document. The Examiner rejected the
claims as obvious. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We
reverse.

1 Appellant identifies the Real Party in Interest as Xerox Corporation (see
App. Br. 1).
Appeal 2012-000032
Application 11/863,591

2 

Statement of the Case
Background
“The subject application relates to document scanning, and more
particularly to scanner and printer calibration, and more particularly to
mitigating metamerism in color printing and/or scanning” (Spec. 1 ¶ 0001).
The Claims
Claims 1, 5-15, and 17-20 are on appeal. Claim 1 is representative
and reads as follows:
1. A method of reducing metamerism in a scanned
document, comprising:
scanning a characterization page using a plurality of
filtered channels and an unfiltered channel to generate R, G,
B, and W values;
measuring the characterization page in colorimetric
space to generate measured colorimetric values, wherein the
measured colorimetric values are L*a*b* values;
generating best fitting parameters of a conversion
function from R, G, B and W values to colorimetric values,
wherein generating the best fitting parameters comprises
obtaining best-fitting parameters for a conversion to XYZ
space; and
employing the conversion function to convert scanned
values from RGBW to XYZ values; and
converting values from XYZ to predicted L*a*b*
values, refining the best-fitting parameters, and minimizing
a root-mean-square color distance (DE) between the
predicted L*a*b* values and the measured L*a*b* values..

The Issue
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 5-15, and 17-20 under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as obvious over Takemoto,2 Yamaguchi,3 and Wang4 (Ans. 4-16).

2 Takemoto, F., US 6,278,533 B1, issued Aug. 21, 2001.
Appeal 2012-000032
Application 11/863,591

3 

The Examiner finds that Takemoto teaches “method of reducing
metamerism in a scanned document, comprising: scanning a characterization
page to generate R, G, and B values . . . measuring the characterization page
in colorimetric space to generate measured colorimetric values . . . wherein
the measured colorimetric values are L*a*b* values” (Ans. 4). The
Examiner finds that Takemoto “does not disclose scanning a characterization
page using an unfiltered channel to generate W values” (id. at 5).
The Examiner finds that Yamaguchi teaches “a camera system for
performing color correction . . . that scans a characterization page using a
plurality of filtered channels . . . and an unfiltered channel to generate at
least three distinct color and a separate W values” (id.). The Examiner finds
that Wang teaches “a method for reducing metamerism by minimizing a
merit function that is a weighted root mean square spectral error between a
desired spectral output and an actual spectral output” (id. at 6).
The Examiner finds it obvious to “look to Yamaguchi for a camera
system comprising the above structure that captures at least three color
values (RGB) and a W value as it offers an inexpensive calibration camera
device with good operability with at least three optical filters (RGB) to be
used for conducting color correction” (Ans. 5-6).
The issue with respect to this rejection is: Does the evidence of record
support the Examiner’s conclusion that Takemoto, Yamaguchi, and Wang
render the claims obvious?

3 Yamaguchi, K., US 6,960,752 B1, issued Nov. 1, 2005.
4 Wang et al., US 6,647,140 B1, issued Nov. 11, 2003. 
Appeal 2012-000032
Application 11/863,591

4 

Findings of Fact
1. The Specification teaches that “a system that reduces
metamerism in a scanned image and facilitates printer or scanner calibration
using non-redundant information contained in a clear channel (W) of a four-
channel (e.g., RGBW) scanner” (Spec. 4 ¶ 0009).
2. Takemoto teaches “the image signal processing apparatus
10 has a colorimetric converter 16 which will be supplied with R, G, B
signals” (Takemoto, col. 3, ll. 1-3).
3. Takemoto teaches that:
The colorimetric converter 16 has a colorimetric
conversion matrix (hereinafter simply referred to as a
matrix) 20 for converting R, G, B signals 12 from a digital
camera into X, Y, Z or L*, a*, b* colorimetric signals
(hereinafter referred to as X, Y, Z signals) 18, and a
colorimetric conversion table (hereinafter referred to as a
colorimetric conversion lookup table, a lookup table, or a
table) 24 for converting R, G, B signals from the scanner
input unit into X, Y, Z signals or L*, a*, b* colorimetric
signals 22.

(Takemoto, col. 3, ll. 18-26.)
4. Takemoto teaches “using the colorimetric values C as criterion
variables (dependent variables) and the principal component scores V as
explanatory variables (independent variables), partial regression coefficients
A (A is also considered to be a vector) are determined according to a
multiple regression analysis” (Takemoto, col. 6, ll. 21-26).
5. Takemoto teaches that “it is possible to generate the matrix 20
for determining the criterion variables L*a*b* which will convert the R, G,
B signals . . . produced by the digital camera into the X, Y, Z colorimetric
signals 18” (Takemoto, col. 9, ll. 15-19).
Appeal 2012-000032
Application 11/863,591

5 

6. Yamaguchi teaches a “calibration camera device for
geometrical correction or color correction” (Yamaguchi, abstract).
7. Figure 2 of Yamaguchi is reproduced below:

“FIG. 2 is a functional block diagram of the calibration camera”
(Yamaguchi, col. 4, ll. 12-13).
8. Yamaguchi teaches that the camera “includes an optical lens
part 2 to which a lens 1 is attached, an optical filter part 4 which is located in
front of the optical lens part 2 on the optical path L and to which at least
three optical filters 3 are attached . . . and contains a monochrome imaging
element 8” (Yamaguchi, col. 4, l. 49 to col. 5, l. 5).
9. Yamaguchi teaches that
In the color correction, therefore, the correction data from
the sensitivity correction on the monochrome image by the
gain correction part is utilized as it is. In the geometrical
correction, the correction data from the sensitivity correction
on the monochrome image which is captured substantially
without filters (e.g., correction data from the sensitivity
correction on the monochrome image which is captured
Appeal 2012-000032
Application 11/863,591

6 

through a filter which is transparent over a visible light
range or correction data from the sensitivity correction on
the monochrome data which is captured without filters).

(Yamaguchi, col. 3, ll. 4-14.)
10. Yamaguchi teaches “a two-dimensional color measuring device
which can convert capturing characteristics into color matching function
characteristics of a three-dimensional (XYZ) displaying color system only
by selecting an appropriate combination from among gelatine filters”
(Yamaguchi, col. 6, ll. 7-12).
11. Wang teaches that:
In this particular exemplary embodiment, the merit function
is a weighted root-mean-square (RMS) spectral error,
defined as:

where:
the summation is over all 36 spectral samples and all
training samples;
i, i=1, 2, . . . , 36 are the sampling wavelengths;
Q is the merit function;
Rdesired(i) and Routput(i) are the spectral reflectance of the
desired output and the actual output; and
w(i) is a weight.

(Wang, col. 5, ll. 47-64.)
Principles of Law
When determining whether a claim is obvious, an examiner must
make “a searching comparison of the claimed invention—including all its
Appeal 2012-000032
Application 11/863,591

7 

limitations—with the teachings of the prior art.” In re Ochiai, 71 F.3d 1565,
1572 (Fed. Cir. 1995).
“[O]bviousness requires a suggestion of all limitations in a claim.”
CFMT, Inc. v. Yieldup Int’l Corp., 349 F.3d 1333, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
Analysis
The Examiner acknowledges that Takemoto “does not disclose
scanning a characterization page using an unfiltered channel to generate W
values” (Ans. 5) and does not rely upon Wang for this teaching (see id. at 6).
The Examiner finds that Yamaguchi teaches the use of “an unfiltered
channel to generate at least three distinct color and a separate W values . . .
to thereafter generate best fitting parameters of a conversion function from
said three color values and W values to colorimetric values” (id. at 5).
Appellant contends that “[n]othing in Yamaguchi relates to using
filtered channels and an unfiltered channel to generate RGB and W values
from a characterization page scan for conversion through XYZ space to
generate predicted L*a*b* values for comparison to measured L*a*b*
values for reducing metamerism” (id. at 19).
We find that Appellant has the better position. While Yamaguchi
teaches three filters for RGB and a monochromatic filter, Yamaguchi does
not rely upon unfiltered data for color correction, but rather relies upon the
unfiltered data for geometrical correction (FF 8). Therefore, Yamaguchi
does not teach or suggest a “W” value as required by each of the
independent claims for use in color correction. At best, Yamaguchi may
suggest the use of a monochromatically derived value from an unfiltered
lens in geometrical correction, but the Examiner does not explain where
Yamaguchi suggests the use of this value in color correction.
Appeal 2012-000032
Application 11/863,591

8 

In the absence of a teaching or suggestion to obtain a “W” type value
in the cited prior art, there is also no reason to incorporate this value in a
conversion function or in best-fit parameters as required by the independent
claims. We agree with Appellant that in “Yamaguchi, there is no use of
filtered channels and an unfiltered channel to generate RGB and W values
from a characterization page scan for conversion through XYZ space to
generate predicted L*a*b* values for comparison to measured L*a*b*
values for reducing metamerism” (App. Br. 21).
Conclusion of Law
The evidence of record does not support the Examiner’s conclusion
that Takemoto, Yamaguchi, and Wang render the claims obvious.
SUMMARY
In summary, we reverse the rejection of claims 1, 5-15, and 17-20
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Takemoto, Yamaguchi, and Wang.

REVERSED

cdc