13916527 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 25, 2017)

Ex Parte Okamoto

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 25, 2017

13916527 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 25, 2017)

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. 13/916,527 06/12/2013 Takahiro OKAMOTO 13A021USN1FF 9549 21254 7590 09/26/2017 MCGINN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP, PLLC 8321 OLD COURTHOUSE ROAD SUITE 200 VIENNA, VA 22182-3817 EXAMINER BATAILLE, FRANTZ ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2677 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/26/2017 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 TAKAHIRO OKAMOTO ____________________ Appeal 2017-001972 Application 13/916,5271 Technology Center 2600 ____________________ Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and JOHN D. HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judges. HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant files this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s December 14, 2015 Final Rejection (“Final Act.”) of claims 1– 20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. 1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is FujiFilm Corporation. March 31, 2016 Appeal Brief (“App. Br.”) 1. Appeal 2017-001972 Application 13/916,527 2 THE CLAIMED INVENTION Appellant’s claimed invention “relates to . . . an image data processing technique for performing printing using a printer (printing apparatus).” June 12, 2013 Specification (“Spec.”) ¶ 2. Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter of the appeal and is reproduced below. 1. An image processing apparatus configured to correct image data for printing, comprising: a defect image data acquisition unit configured to acquire defect image data indicating a texture of an image defect appearing on a printed material due to an abnormal discharge of a nozzle of an inkjet printer; a print target image data input unit configured to acquire print target original image data to be printed by the inkjet printer; a defect similar component extraction unit configured to extract a defect similar component, which is a pixel value of a region that is similar to the defect image data, from the print target original image data; and a defect similar component subtraction unit configured to subtract the defect similar component from the print target original image data and thereby generate an intermediate image, wherein image processing apparatus causes the inkjet printer to print the intermediate image. REJECTION ON APPEAL The Examiner rejected claims 1–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Donovan et al. (US 2007/0188815 A1; published Aug. 16, 2007) (hereinafter “Donovan”), Miura (US 2012/0026545 A1; published Feb. 2, 2012) (hereinafter “Miura”), and Iida et al. (US 2001/0007138 A1; published July 5, 2001) (hereinafter “Iida”). Appeal 2017-001972 Application 13/916,527 3 ISSUE The dispositive issue for this appeal is whether the combination teaches or suggests “a defect similar component extraction unit configured to extract a defect similar component, which is a pixel value of a region that is similar to the defect image data, from the print target original image data.” ANALYSIS We find Appellant’s arguments discussed herein persuasive. Appellant argues the combination of Donovan, Iida, and Miura fails to teach or suggest “a defect similar component extraction unit configured to extract a defect similar component, which is a pixel value of a region that is similar to the defect image data, from the print target original image data,” in accordance with independent claims 1, 16, 17, and 20. App. Br. 17–18; Reply Br. 7. More specifically, Appellant argues Donovan teaches determining error measurements for calibrating the imaging device’s optical sensor (e.g., subtracting skew, distance, and angle variation from the total positional error) using a reference image. App. Br. 17–18 (citing Donovan ¶¶ 24–26). As to Iida, Appellant argues it teaches obtaining “defective output image data” and transferring it to a remote diagnostic apparatus for analysis when an outputted image is defective, rather than extracting the pixel values of a defective region of any image. Reply Br. 7 (citing Iida ¶ 204). Appellant contends that the combined teachings fail to teach or suggest the disputed limitation. See id. The Examiner finds the combination teaches or suggests the disputed limitation. Ans. 9; Final Act. 13. The Examiner finds Donovan teaches or suggests the disputed limitation via its teachings of determining error values Appeal 2017-001972 Application 13/916,527 4 (e.g., angle variation, skew, distance errors) for calibrating the optical imager’s sensor based on reference patterns (i.e., “the print target original image data”). Final Act. 13 (citing Donovan ¶ 24). The Examiner finds Iida teaches or suggests “extract[ing] or retriev[ing] defective output image data[, which] . . . consists of several pixel values within the region of the defective output image data.” Ans. 9 (citing ¶¶ 204, 206) (emphasis omitted). We are persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. We agree with Appellant that the cited portions of the combination fail to teach or suggest the disputed limitation. We agree with Appellant (App. Br. 17–18) Donovan teaches or suggests calibrating an imaging device’s optical sensor using a reference image to adjust the sensor to expected parameters — there is no teaching of determining pixel values corresponding to a defect in any image. See Donovan ¶¶ 24–26. As to Iida, we agree with Appellant (Reply Br. 6–7) the cited portions teach or suggest extracting (i.e., gathering) for defective images the related image processing component information, which comprises the parameters used for developing the image (e.g., information relating to image reading, image processing, exposure, and development). See Iida ¶¶ 204, 206. Iida likewise fails to teach or suggest determining pixel values corresponding to a defect in any image. See id. We agree with Appellant (App. Br. 17–18; Reply Br. 6–7) that these cited teachings fail to teach or suggest extracting a portion of an image having a region with similar pixel values (i.e., “defect similar component”) to a known defect found within a previous image (i.e., “defect image data”), as claimed. Appeal 2017-001972 Application 13/916,527 5 CONCLUSION Based on our above findings and reasoning, we do not sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of independent claims 1, 16, 17, and 20, as well as claims 2–15, 18, and 19, which each depend directly or indirectly from one of these independent claims. DECISION We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–20. REVERSED