Ex Parte LI et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 16, 2018

14628787 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 16, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/628,787 02/23/2015 Hong Li
76073 7590 03/16/2018
lnfoPrint Solutions/ Blakely
1279 Oakmead Parkway
Sunnyvale, CA 94085-4040
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.
9503P036 3746
EXAMINER
VO,QUANGN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2672
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
03/16/2018 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 HONG LI, JUAN LIN, CHAO MA, and
YUEQIAO
Appeal2017-010041
Application 14/628,787
Technology Center 2600
Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, NORMAN H. BEAMER, and
ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1, 3-9, 11-16, and 18-23, which are all claims
pending. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify Ricoh Company, Ltd., as the real party in interest (App.
Br. 3).
Appeal2017-010041
Application 14/628,787
THE INVENTION
Appellants' claimed invention is directed to "converting [] color data
to grayscale data by analyzing color gamut and perceptual color differences
in the color data and generating a profile based on the conversion"
(Abstract).
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the
subject matter on appeal:
1. A method comprising:
receiving color data;
converting the color data to grayscale data by
analyzing color gamut and perceptual color differences in
the color data, including:
performing color range compression;
assessing color difference in the color data; and
building a model to determine black values for the
grayscale data that corresponds to color values in the color
data, wherein the model comprises a hue weighting
function defined with a hue angle as a first input to the
model and a lightness weighting function with lightness as
a second input to the model; and
generating a monochrome profile to map the color
data to the grayscale data based on the conversion.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is the following:
2
Appeal2017-010041
Application 14/628,787
Tuijn et al. US 6,058,207
Abhyankar et al. US 2003/0142327 Al
Hakamada et al. US 2015/0181081 Al
May 2, 2000
July 31, 2003
June 25, 2015
REJECTION
The Examiner made the following rejection:
Claims 1, 3-9, 11-16, and 18-23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Abhyankar, in view of Hakamada and Tuijn.
Final Act. 3.
ISSUE
The pivotal issue is whether the Examiner erred in finding that the
combination of Abhyankar, Hakamada, and Tuijn teaches or suggests
building a model to determine black values for the
grayscale data that corresponds to color values in the color data,
wherein the model comprises a hue weighting function defined
with a hue angle as a first input to the model and a lightness
weighting function with lightness as a second input to the
model,
as recited in independent claim 1, and similarly recited in independent
claims 8 and 16.
ANALYSIS
We adopt the Examiner's findings in the Answer and Final Office
Action and we add the following primarily for emphasis. We note that if
Appellants failed to present arguments on a particular rejection, we will not
unilaterally review those uncontested aspects of the rejection. See Ex parte
3
Appeal2017-010041
Application 14/628,787
Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential); Hyatt v. Dudas,
551F.3d1307, 1313-14 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (the Board may treat arguments
Appellants failed to make for a given ground of rejection as waived).
Appellants argue Examiner error because Tuijn "does not disclose or
reasonably suggest using hue weighting functions or lightness weighting
functions with 'a hue angle' or 'a lightness,' but instead "discloses weight
functions applicable to hue angle differences and lightness differences" and
Tuijn' s "weighting functions are a function of differences in hue angles and
differences in lightness between two colors ('the original colour' and 'the
selected colour')" (App. Br. 11-12, citing Tuijn 7:66-8:16).
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments. The Examiner finds,
and we agree, that Tuijn "discloses wherein the model comprises a hue
weighting function defined with a hue angle as a first input to the model and
a lightness weighting function with lightness as a second input to the model"
(Final Act. 4, citing Tuijn 7:66-8: 16) and further that
[t]he weight function applicable to difference in hue angle
between the original colour and the selected colour (58) allows
the operator to specify how much an original colour, having a
hue angle Ho, will undergo the colour change of a selected
colour, having hue angle Hs. The difference H0 - Hs is set out on
a horizontal axis under the curve (58), with the origin under the
maximum of the curve, and the weight value is proportional to
the height of the curve. In the same way, the operator may
select or specify the weight function applicable to the saturation
difference between the original colour and the selected colour
(59) and 15 the weight function applicable to the lightness
difference between the original colour and the selected colour
(60)
(Ans. 4, quoting Tuijn 8:4--8:16).
4
Appeal2017-010041
Application 14/628,787
With reference to the quoted portion above, Tuijn teaches a model
having {hue, saturation, lightness} weighting functions with the following
inputs:
a. hue angle H0 of the original color (corresponding to the claimed "first
input");
b. hue angle Hs of the selected color;
c. saturation of the original color;
d. saturation of the selected color;
e. lightness of the original color (corresponding to the claimed "second
input"); and
f. lightness of the selected color.
Here, Appellants' claim 1 uses the presumptively open-ended
transition terms (1) "comprising" in the preamble and (2) "comprises" in the
limitation at issue. "'Comprising' is a term of art used in claim language
which means that the named elements are essential, but other elements may
be added and still form a construct within the scope of the claim."
Genentech, Inc. v. Chiron Corp., 112 F.3d 495, 501 (Fed. Cir. 1997). "The
word 'comprising' transitioning from the preamble to the body signals that
the entire claim is presumptively open-ended." Gillette Co. v. Energizer
Holdings Inc., 405 F.3d 1367, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2005); see also MPEP
§ 2111.03 (9th ed., Rev. 08.2017, Jan. 2018).
In other words, the recitation of limitations, steps, or functions in
claim 1 does not prevent the claim from reading on methods that perform
additional steps or functions or that have additional limitations. Because
claim 1 uses the terms "comprising" and "comprises," and Tuijn teaches a
model "compris[ing] a hue weighting function defined with a hue angle as a
5
Appeal2017-010041
Application 14/628,787
first input to the model and a lightness weighting function with lightness as a
second input to the model," the claim limitation encompasses Tuijn's model.
Thus, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 1 and
independent claims 8 and 16 not argued separately with particularity (see
App. Br. 8-9), and dependent claims 3-7, 9, 11-15, and 18-23 not argued
separately (see App. Br. 12).
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in finding that the combination of
Abhyankar, Hakamada, and Tuijn teaches or suggests
building a model to determine black values for the
grayscale data that corresponds to color values in the color data,
wherein the model comprises a hue weighting function defined
with a hue angle as a first input to the model and a lightness
weighting function with lightness as a second input to the
model,
as recited in independent claim 1, and similarly recited in independent
claims 8 and 16.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 3-9, 11-16, and 18-23 is
affirmed.
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
6