Ex Parte Morovic et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 21, 2016

12876939 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 21, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/876,939 09/07/2010
22879 7590 03/23/2016
HP Inc,
3390 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 35
FORT COLLINS, CO 80528-9544
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Peter Marovic
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.
82263257 2275
EXAMINER
BEKELE, MEKONEN T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2666
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/23/2016 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 PETER MOROVIC, JORDI VILAR, JORDI ARNABAT
BENEDICTO, JAN MOROVIC, and
MANUEL ANGEL ALBARRAN MOYO
Appeal2014-003078
Application 12/876,939
Technology Center 2600
Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and
MONICA S. ULLAGADDI, Administrative Patent Judges.
COURTENAY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's Final
Rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We Affirm.
Appeal2014-003078
Application 12/876,939
Invention
The invention on appeal relates to a method, system, and computer
readable medium for "generating a modified color lookup table (CLUT)
based on an original image, a profile connection space (PCS) image, and an
adjusted image." (Abstract.)
Representative Claim
1. A method, comprising:
receiving an original image, a profile connection space
(PCS) image, and an adjusted image;
for each PCS pixel of the PCS image:
identifying a subset of color lookup table (CLUT)
nodes corresponding to the PCS pixel;
identifYing a color shift between an original pixel
of the original image and an adjusted pixel of the
adjusted image, wherein the original pixel and the
adjusted pixel are co-located with the PCS pixel; and
associating the color shift \x1ith each one of the
subset of CLUT nodes;
for each CLUT node, determining a combined color shift
based on the color shifts associated with the CLUT node; and
generating a modified CLUT based on the combined
color shift computed for each of the CLUT nodes.
(Emphasis added regarding the contested limitation.)
Rejections
A. Claims 1--4, 6-9, 11, 13-16, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§§ 102(a) and 102(e), as being anticipated by Mestha (US 2009/0296152
Al; Dec. 3, 2009).
2
Appeal2014-003078
Application 12/876,939
B. Claims 5, 12, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
obvious over the teachings and suggestions of Mestha. 1
C. Claims 10 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as being
obvious over the combined teachings and suggestions of Mestha, in view of
Raja Balasubramanian, Reducing the Cost of Lookup Table Based Color
Transformations, 44:4 J. OF IMAGING SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 321,
321-27 (2000).
Grouping of Claims
Based on Appellants' arguments, we decide the appeal of Rejection A
of claims 1--4, 6-9, 11, 13-16, 19, and 20 on the basis of representative
claim 1. We address the remaining claims rejected under Rejections Band
C, infra. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2012).
ANALYSIS
Rejection A of Claims 1-4, 6--9, 11, 13-16, 19, and 20under§102
Issue: Under § 102, did the Examiner err in finding Mestha expressly
or inherently discloses: "receiving ... an adjusted image" and "identifying a
color shift between an original pixel of the original image and an adjusted
pixel of the adjusted image," within the meaning of claim 1?
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner broadly but reasonably reads the
claimed "adjusted image" on a printed image in Mestha wherein the color
shifts away from that of a reference image due to the application of a clear
coat:
1 The Examiner combined the teachings and suggestions of Mestha with
"Official Notice" to teach or suggest the subject matter recited in claims 5,
12, and 18. (Ans. 12).
3
Appeal2014-003078
Application 12/876,939
ivlestha specifically teaches a control system designed to
receive a reference color information of an image in a Profile
Connection Space (PCS) and the color information of a clear
coated image. The control system shown in Fig. 1 designed to
receive the difference between target colors represented in
L *a*b* color space and the measured color information
L*a*b* of the coated image as input signals.
(Final Office Act. 6-7 (emphasis added).)
Appellants contend the Examiner's interpretation of "adjusted image"
is overly broad, and urge: "a person of ordinary skill in the art will interpret
the term 'adjusted image' to be an image whose colors have been
intentionally changed by a user as compared to the unadjusted image." (App.
Br. 9 (citing Spec. i-f 8).) However, Appellants do not proffer any extrinsic
evidence in support to show how a person of ordinary skill would have
understood the claim term "adjusted image" (see id. at 20; claim 1 ).
Instead, Appellants point to several portions of their Specification
which describe the "adjusted image" captures a user's preferences. (Id. at
10-11.) With this reading in mind, Appellants contend:
Mestha is unrelated to capturing a user's color preferences,
much less modifying a CLUT in accordance with a user's color
preferences. Therefore, Mestha does not disclose all of the
elements of independent claims 1, 8, and 15. For example,
Mestha fails to disclose "receiving an original image, a profile
connection space (PCS) image, and an adjusted image; ... [and]
identify a color shift between an original pixel of the original
image and an adjusted pixel of the adjusted image." Indeed,
Mestha does not disclose an adjusted image at all.
(Id. at 9-10.)
Although the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim must be
consistent with the specification, In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054--55
4
Appeal2014-003078
Application 12/876,939
(Fed. Cir. 1997), "a particular embodiment appearing in the written
description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader
than the embodiment," SuperGuide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358
F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2004), even when the specification describes only a
single embodiment. Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc., 358 F. 3d 898,
906 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Although the patentee is entitled to be his or her own
lexicographer, the claims "will not be read restrictively unless the patentee
has demonstrated a clear intention to limit the claim scope using 'words or
expressions of manifest exclusion or restriction." Id. (quoting Teleflex, Inc.
v. Ficosa N. Am. Corp., 299 F.3d 1313, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2002)).
This reasoning is applicable here. As the Examiner correctly notes,
"[ n ]one of the claims mentioned above contain[] a limitation that indicates
or suggests capturing a user's color preferences, much less modifying a
CLUT in accordance with a user's color preferences." (Ans. 3, internal
quotations and emphasis omitted). Moreover, Appellants' Specification
describes the user's preferences using non-limiting, exemplary language.2
Nothing in the written description appears to conform to the strict "words
... of manifest exclusion or restriction," as articulated by our reviewing
court in Teleflex. Teleflex, 299 F.3d at 1327.
2 See, e.g., Spec. i-f 8 (a user "may" generate an adjusted image); i-f 9 ("color
differences may be used to modify the color lookup table in accordance with
the user's color adjustments") (emphasis added); i-f 17 ("the color lookup
table modifier 120 may be configured to determine a user's color
preferences") (emphasis added).
5
Appeal2014-003078
Application 12/876,939
Appellants additionally contend:
[A ]t best Mestha describes comparing the adjusted image with
the desired color target output to generate the printer profile.
This stands in contrast with the present claims, wherein the
adjusted image represents the desired color attributes and is
therefore not compared to desired color targets. In other words,
the adjusted image of the present claims is the target, whereas
the asserted "adjusted" image of Mestha is not the target, but
rather is further adjusted to match the target.
(App Br. 12 (emphasis added).)
This argument attempts to distinguish the intended purpose of the
recited "adjusted image" (claim 1) from the intended purpose of Mestha' s
image, which we do not find persuasive. "[A ]rguments that the alleged
anticipatory prior art is 'nonanalogous art' or 'teaches away from the
invention' or is not recognized as solving the problem solved by the claimed
invention, [are] not 'germane' to a rejection under section 102." Twin Disc,
Inc. v. United States, IO Cl. Ct. 713, 728 (Cl. Ct. 1986) (quoting In re Self,
671F.2d1344, 1350-51(CCPA1982)).
For at least these reasons, and on this record, we find a preponderance
of the evidence supports the Examiner's finding of anticipation regarding
representative claim 1. Because Appellants have not persuaded us the
Examiner erred, we sustain Rejection A of representative claim 1. Grouped
claims 2--4, 6-9, 11, 13-16, 19, and 20, also rejected under Rejection A, fall
with claim 1. See Grouping of Claims, supra.
Rejection B of Dependent Claims 5, 12, and 18 under§ 103 (a)
Appellants urge these claims are patentable by virtue of their
dependency from the corresponding independent claim. (App. Br. 13.)
6
Appeal2014-003078
Application 12/876,939
Appellants do not advance separate substantive arguments and/or supporting
evidence demonstrating error regarding the Examiner's rejection B.
Arguments not made are considered waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Therefore, we sustain Rejection B of claims 5, 12, and 18.
Rejection C of Dependent Claims 10 and 17 under§ 103 (a)
Appellants urge these claims are patentable by virtue of their
dependency from the corresponding independent claim. (App. Br. 13.)
Appellants do not advance separate substantive arguments and/or supporting
evidence demonstrating error regarding the Examiner's rejection C of claims
10 and 17. Arguments not made are considered waived. (Id.) Therefore,
we sustain Rejection C of claims 10 and 17.
Reply Brief
To the extent Appellants advance new arguments in the Reply Brief
not in response to a shift in the Examiner's position in the Answer, we note
arguments raised in a Reply Brief that were not raised in the Appeal Brief or
are not responsive to arguments raised in the Examiner's Answer will not be
considered except for good cause. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2).
CONCLUSION
For at least the aforementioned reasons, on this record, and by a
preponderance of the evidence, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred.
7
Appeal2014-003078
Application 12/876,939
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-20.
No time for taking any action connected with this appeal may be
extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(±).
AFFIRMED
8