Ex Parte Lee et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 7, 2016

12452131 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 7, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/452, 131 04/12/2010
24498 7590 10/12/2016
Robert D, Shedd, Patent Operations
THOMSON Licensing LLC
4 Research Way
3rd Floor
Princeton, NJ 08543
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
BongsunLee
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.
PU070133 3309
EXAMINER
IMPERIAL, JED-JUSTIN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2612
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/12/2016 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):
uspto@technicolor.com
pat. verlangieri@technicolor.com
russell. smith@technicolor.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BONGSUN LEE and INGO TOBIAS DOSER
Appeal2015-006845
Application 12/452, 131
Technology Center 2600
Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, JOHN P. PINKERTON, and
GARTH D. BAER, Administrative Patent Judges.
MacDONALD, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2015-006845
Application 12/452, 131
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1, 2, 5-12, 14, 15, and 18-23. Claims 3, 4, 13, 16, and 17 have been
cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
Exemplary Claim
Exemplary claim 1 under appeal reads as follows (emphasis added):
1. A method for content display calibration,
compnsmg
determining an average power level (APL) of said
content; and
applying a transform to said content to determine
display values for said content based on the determined
APL of said content, said transform based on a display
characterization which includes a measurement of a
plurality of APLs on the display;
wherein said trans/ orm is a four dimensional
look-up table that maps content color values to
respective human visual system values, with a 4th
dimension representing APL values.
Rejections on Appeal
1. The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 5-12, 14, 15, and 18-21 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Yamada
(US 2005/0275911 Al; Dec. 15, 2005) and Bala (US 7,295,703 B2; Nov.
13, 2007). 1
1 The patentability of claims 2, 5-12, 14, 15, and 18-21 is not separately
argued from that of claim 1. See Appeal Br. 9. Except for our ultimate
decision, claims 2, 5-12, 14, 15, and 18-21 are not discussed further herein.
2
Appeal2015-006845
Application 12/452, 131
2. The Examiner rejected claims 22 and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over the combination of Yamada, Bala, and Fasciano
(US 2005/0021258 Al; Jan. 27, 2005).2
Appellants' Contentions
1. Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because:
Bala teaches a method for characterizing a scanner for color
measurement of printed media having four or more colorants. To
this end, Bala uses a family of input device characterization
targets, each varying in primary colorants but having a fixed
level of black (K) colorant" (see the Title and Abstract of Bala).
As discussed at Col. 7, lines 43-50 of Bala, the scanner
characterization varies as a function of four variables, i.e., (R),
green (G) and blue (B), and black (K) present in the print media.
Bala, therefore, clearly teaches that the black (K) level represents
just another colorant (see Abstract of Bala), i.e., a substance such
as a dye or pigment used for coloring a material (see Merriam-
\Vebster Online Dictionaf'J, http://\'l.f\'l.f\'l.;.merriam=
webster.com/dictionary/colorant). In other words, the 4th
dimension in Bala's 4D LUT constitutes an additional colorant,
(e.g., black), in addition to R, G, and B.
The additional (e.g., black) colorant in Bala constitutes
a different quantity compared to Appellants' APL defined as
"average power level" of a picture or content (see, e.g.,
Abstract of the present specification). In this regard,
Appellants' specification teaches measurement and
characterization of a display by measurement of spectral data or
colorimetric data at different APLs using different patch sizes
representing different APL values (see Appellants' specification,
2 The patentability of claims 22 and 23 is not separately argued from that of
claim 15, where the patentability of claim 15 is not separately argued from
that of claim 1, as previously described. See Appeal Br. 9-10. Except for
our ultimate decision, claims 22 and 23 are not discussed further herein.
3
Appeal2015-006845
Application 12/452, 131
Page 6, line 11 - Page 7, line 3). Consider the following example
at Page 7, lines 4-13 of Appellants' specification, which provides:
[a]s the patch size is increased (i.e., APL percentage
is larger), the overall luminance is decreased,
however the luminance for black is not much
different ... and the luminance for black at 10% APL
is 0.19 cd/m2 vs. 0.16 cd/m2 at 100% APL[.]
In the Final Rejection, the Examiner agrees with Appellants'
contention that the black level in Bala represents another colorant
and thus constitutes a quantity different from Appellants' APL
recited in in [sic] the present claimed invention. (See The
Examiner's Response to Arguments on page 2 of the Final
Rejection where the Examiner stated that: "The Examiner is not
saying that the black level of Bala is equivalent to that of
APL. .. "). Given that the examiner has conceded the black
level of Bala does not constitute equivalent of Appellants' APL,
then Bala would not teach or suggest at least using a trans/ orm
based on a display characterization which includes a
measurement of a plurality of AP Ls on the display. In
particular, Bala would not teach or suggest having a trans/ orm
J~'ith a 4th dimension representing ~4PL i'alues as recited in
claim 1 since Bala does not disclose anything related to a
plurality of APLs at all.
Accordingly, without conceding to Examiner's
interpretation of other cited portions of Yamada or Bala,
Appellants respectfully submit that the cited teaching of Yamada
and Bala do not yield each and every feature of Appellants'
claim 1.
Appeal Br. 8-9, emphasis added.
2. In the Reply Brief, further as to above contention 1, Appellants also
contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because:
Appellants respectfully disagree with Examiner's
characterization that Appellants are "attacking references
4
Appeal2015-006845
Application 12/452, 131
individually where the rejections are based on combinations of
references."
On the contrary, Appellants have focused mainly on
rebutting the secondary reference of Bala, since Examiner has
already conceded that the main reference, Yamada, does not
teach or suggest at least the above cited aspects of, e.g.,
independent claim 1. Therefore, by showing that Bala also
lacks those cited aspects (contrary to Examiner's holding of
Bala), the combination of Yamada and Bala also does not teach
or suggest each and every element of the claimed limitations.
There/ ore, it is respectfully submitted that Examiner has
incorrectly characterized Appellants' arguments and
Examiner's reliance on In re Keller and In re Merck & Co. are
misplaced.
In addition, it is undisputed that the "black (K)" in Bala
which Examiner has relied on as being the 4th dimension, is
merely another color (or "colorant" in the terminology of Bala),
same as the other 3 dimensions of colors of cyan, magenta, and
yellow in Bala.
Examiner does not dispute this fact regarding the black (K)
color in the Examiner's Answer. Given this undisputed fact
regarding Bala, Appellants respectfully submit that Examiner
has failed to provide any rational reasoning or factual findings
as to why one skilled in the art would arrive at the present
claimed invention when looking at Bala, in view of what were
admittedly missing from Yamada.
Examiner has not provided any rational underpinning to
support why one skilled in the art would arrive at each and
every element of the recited limitations of present invention by
combing Bala with Yamada, since Bala does not disclose any
other category of physical property besides color, or anything
5
Appeal2015-006845
Application 12/452, 131
relate to APL (Average Power Level), let alone different values
of APL as a 4th dimension as claimed.
Reply Br. 5-7, emphasis added.
Issue on Appeal
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claim 1 as being obvious?
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants'
conclusions. Except as noted herein, we adopt as our own: (1) the findings
and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which the appeal is
taken (Final Act. 2-16); and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the
Examiner's Answer (Ans. 2-5) in response to the Appellants' Appeal Brief.
We concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner. We highlight the
following.
As to Appellants' above contentions 1 and 2, we are not persuaded the
Examiner erred. Regarding Appellants' argument that Bala fails to teach an
average power level ("APL"), we agree with the Examiner that the argument
improperly attacks the cited references individually where the rejection is
based on a combination of cited references. See Ans. 2. In particular,
Appellants attack Bala for failing to teach claim limitations (i.e., "applying a
transform ... said transform based on a display characterization which
includes a measurement of a plurality of APLs on the display," and "wherein
said transform is a four dimensional look-up table that maps content color
values to respective human visual system values, with a 4th dimension
6
Appeal2015-006845
Application 12/452, 131
representing APL values") when the Examiner did not rely solely on Bala to
teach the aforementioned claim limitations. See Appeal Br. 8-9; Reply
Br. 5---6. Rather, the Examiner relied upon Yamada in combination with
Bala to show the aforementioned claim limitations were obvious, where the
Examiner relied on Yamada to teach APLs, and where the Examiner further
relied on Bala to teach a transform that is based on a display characterization
that includes a measurement of a plurality of values (i.e., black colorant
values), and that is also a four dimensional look-up table that maps content
color values to respective human visual system values, with a fourth
dimension representing the black colorant values. See Final Act. 3--4. It is
well established that one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking
references individually where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a
combination of references. See In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091,
1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986); see also In re Keller 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA
1981). As Appellants' argument does not address the actual reasoning of the
Examiner's rejection, we do not find it persuasive.
Regarding Appellants' argument that the Examiner has allegedly
failed to provide any rational reasoning or factual findings to support the
obviousness rejection (Reply Br. 6-7), we do not find this argument
persuasive either. "[W]hen a patent claims a structure already known in the
prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another
known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable
result." KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007), citing
United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 50-51 (1966). We agree with the
Examiner's finding that Bala teaches the claimed "four-dimensional look-up
table," and we conclude that Appellants have not established that the
7
Appeal2015-006845
Application 12/452, 131
Examiner's substitution of black colorant values, as taught by Bala, with
APL values, as taught by Yamada, would do more than yield predictable
results. See Final Act. 4--5; Ans. 3--4.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 1.
CONCLUSIONS
(1) The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 1, 2, 5-12, 14, 15,
and 18-23 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
(2) Claims 1, 2, 5-12, 14, 15, and 18-23 are not patentable.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejections of claims 1, 2, 5-12, 14, 15, and
18-23 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
8