Ex Parte Low et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 30, 2018

13363227 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 30, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/363,227 0113112012
22879 7590 04/03/2018
HP Inc.
3390 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 35
FORT COLLINS, CO 80528-9544
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Tong Nam Samuel Low
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.
82832948 8443
EXAMINER
OSIFADE, IDOWU 0
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2666
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/03/2018 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 TONG NAM SAMUEL LOW and CHIN HUNG ANDY KOH
Appeal2016-005270
Application 13/363,227
Technology Center 2600
Before ERIC S. FRAHM, JENNIFER L. McKEOWN, and
LINZY T. McCARTNEY, Administrative Patent Judges.
McKEOWN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision to reject claims 1-21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We reverse.
Appeal 2016-005270
Application 13/363,227
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention relates "a system, a method, and a computer-
readable storage medium containing instructions, to enable a quick media
calibration service (sometimes referred to herein as a 'QMC service') for a
light source and sensor that measures light from the source as reflected off a
media." Spec. i-f 13.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed invention and reads as follows,
with the disputed limitation emphasized:
1. A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium
containing instructions, the instructions when executed by a
processor to cause the processor to:
receive a stated reflectance identifier for a media to be
printed on during fulfillment of a print job;
utilizing an optical sensor and an illuminator, take a
measurement of brightness of light from the illuminator reflected
off the media;
compare the measurement to a brightness values database
that comprises a stored average brightness value for medias
identified with a same reflectance type as the stated identifier;
responsive to determining the measurement is within a
range of the average value, adjust the average value to include
the measurement and, cause printing on the media according to
the job;
responsive to determining the measurement is
outside the range,
compare the measurement to a media identifier
database associating brightness measurements and
reflectance identifiers to determine an estimated
reflectance identifier for the media,
send the estimated identifier to a user and prompt
the user to perform a correction event reconciling disparity
between the stated identifier and the estimated identifier,
and
cause printing on the media according to the job.
2
Appeal 2016-005270
Application 13/363,227
THE REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claims 1-21under35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Ono (US 2010/0290090 Al; Nov. 18, 2010) and
Tsujimoto (US 2004/0008244 Al; Jan. 15, 2004). Final Act. 7-15.
ANALYSIS
Claims 1-21
Based on the record before us, we are persuaded that the Examiner
erred in rejecting claims 1-21 as unpatentable over Ono and Tsujimoto.
Appellants assert that Tsujimoto fails to teach or suggest adjusting the
average value to include the measurement responsive to determining the
measurement is within a range of the average value. App. Br. 15-16.
According to Appellants, Tsujimoto only describes determining a recording
medium type and, thus, adding the measurement to a stored average value is
notably absent. App. Br. 15-16.
Appellants also argue that
while Tsujimoto may describe changing the parameters, it
doesn't teach changing the parameters by including a
measurement to a definition of a reflectance type. In fact,
Tsujimoto does not describe any adjustment to an average value,
and merely acknowledges that different media types may have
different average brightness values. This difference between the
cited references and claim 1 is significant because allowing
adjustment of the average brightness value allows for a more
robust identification of a correct media based on brightness.
App. Br. 16. Appellants further characterize the Examiner's Answer as
"suggesting that merely outputting image information is the same as
3
Appeal 2016-005270
Application 13/363,227
adjusting an average value that is used to determine a media type yet
provides no support for this interpretation." Reply Br. 6.
We find Appellants' argument persuasive. While Tsujimoto teaches a
comparison to determine whether the measured brightness value is within a
range, the Examiner does not sufficiently explain how Tsujimoto teaches
adjusting the average value to include that measurement or performing this
adjustment in response to the determination of the measured value being
within the range. Rather, as Appellants point out, the Examiner cites
Tsujimoto's general discussion of correcting or adjusting parameters when a
new type of medium is added and then concludes that Tsujimoto teaches the
limitation. See Ans. 7; see also Final Act. 9 (stating that Tsujimoto teaches
allowing corrections or changes to be performed in a flexible manner but
failing to address including the measured result in the average value or
performing this adjustment in response to determining the measurement is
within the range). We find this explanation insufficient to show that
Tsujimoto teaches or suggests the disputed limitation of responsive to
determining the measurement is within a range of the average value, adjust
the average value to include the measurement.
Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner's rejection of claim 1, as well
independent claims 12 and 20, which include similar limitations, and
dependent claims 2-11, 13-19, and 21 as unpatentable over Ono and
Tsujimoto.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-21.
4
Appeal 2016-005270
Application 13/363,227
REVERSED
5