Ex Parte Severens

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 9, 2013

10445049 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 9, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
__________

Ex parte MAURICE EDUARD SEVERENS
__________

Appeal 2011-011368
Application 10/445,049
Technology Center 2600
__________

Before LORA M. GREEN, JEFFREY N. FREDMAN, and
ERICA A. FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judges.

FREDMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal1 under 35 U.S.C. § 134 involving claims to a method
for processing a digital document having at least one page and containing at
least one coloured page element. The Examiner rejected the claims as
obvious. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse.

1 Appellant identifies the Real Party in Interest as OCÉ-
TECHNOLOGIES B.V. (See App. Br. 3.)
Appeal 2011-011368
Application 10/445,049

2
Statement of the Case
Background
“The present invention is related to the processing of digital mixed
colour documents and particularly to the reproduction of the digital mixed
color documents on digital printing and/or copying systems” (Spec. 1 ¶ 002).
The Claims
Claims 1-17, 22-24, and 33-35 are on appeal. Claim 1 is
representative and reads as follows:
1. A method for processing a digital document having at
least one page and containing at least one coloured page
element, the method comprising:
first analyzing at least one page of the document to
determine if the at least one page contains coloured page
elements and thus is a coloured page;
if the first analyzing step determines that the at least
one page is a coloured page, second analyzing the coloured
page elements contained in the at least one coloured page as
to a desirability to be processed in a colour-dedicated
processing channel or in another processing channel,
wherein the step of second analyzing said coloured page
elements is made based on whether each of the coloured
page elements has a functional colour or a non-functional
colour; and
selectively processing said coloured page elements in
the colour-dedicated processing channel or in the another
processing channel based on results of the second analyzing
step,
wherein the first analyzing step and the second
analyzing step are preformed [sic? performed] by a digital
image processing apparatus.

Appeal 2011-011368
Application 10/445,049

3
The issues
A. The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3-8, 14, 15, 17, 22, 24, and 33-35
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Housel2 and Torpey3 (Ans. 5-14).
B. The Examiner rejected claims 2, 13, 16, and 23 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over Housel, Torpey, and Kato4 (Ans. 14-17).
C. The Examiner rejected claims 9-12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Housel, Torpey, Kato, and Takahashi5 (Ans. 17-18).
A. 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Housel and Torpey
The Examiner finds that Housel teaches a method where the “the job
100 includes job request thresholds that allow the RIP 102 to decide whether
the page includes color and should be printed in color or should be printed in
black and white” (Ans. 6). The Examiner finds that Torpey teaches
“deciding if a pixel is color or black (coloured page element) and it goes to
block 116 and block 118 (second analyzing)) is made based on whether each
of the coloured page elements has a functional colour or a non-functional
colour” (id. at 7).
The Examiner finds it obvious to “have modified Housel by the
teaching of Torpey to effectively and accurately analyze color page and non-
color page and save time for printing production” (id.).
The issue with respect to this rejection is: Does the evidence of record
support the Examiner’s conclusion that the combination of Housel and
Torpey renders obvious the step where analysis of “coloured page elements

2 Housel, E., US 2002/0105672 A1, published Aug. 8, 2002.
3 Torpey et al., US 6,753,976 B1, issued Jun. 22, 2004.
4 Kato, T., US 2002/0051176 A1, published May 2, 2002.
5 Takahashi, H. US 6,985,245 B1, issued Jan. 10, 2006.
Appeal 2011-011368
Application 10/445,049

4
is made based on whether each of the coloured page elements has a
functional colour or a non-functional colour” as required by claim 1?
Findings of Fact
1. Housel teaches
[A] system for printing and automatically merging a print
job that includes both color pages and entirely black and
white pages. The system includes at least three elements.
First, there is a data processor configured to receive a print
job in machine readable form and to analyze the print job to
determine what pages in the print job include color, what
pages do not include color and where in the print job those
pages are located. Second there is a color printer in
communication relationship the data processor to receive the
data related to the color pages identified by the data
processor and print the color pages. Finally, there is a black
and white digital printer capable of receiving the printed
color pages and further capable of receiving data for the data
processor, wherein the digital printer prints the non-color
pages and inserts the color pages received from the color
printer in their proper location in the print job.

(Housel 1-2 ¶ 0010.)
2. Housel teaches that the “job 100 includes job request thresholds
that allow the RIP 102 to decide whether the page includes color and should
be printed in color or should be printed in black and white” (Housel 3 ¶
0030).
3. Torpey teaches that “analysis of the image data can be used to
identify graphics objects on the page and their attributes, such as size, border
color, fill color, line thickness, and the like” (Torpey, col. 17, ll. 59-61).
4. Torpey teaches that the “analysis can also provide information
on how and where text is used on the page, as well as the text attributes,
Appeal 2011-011368
Application 10/445,049

5
such as text size, color, spacing and whether the text is next to, or on top of
colored regions” (Torpey, col 17, ll. 61-65).
5. Figure 17 of Torpey is reproduced below:

“FIG. 17 is a flow chart illustrating various steps in an embodiment of a
method for reducing intercolor bleeding” (Torpey, col. 3, ll. 17-18).
6. The Specification teaches that “where the colour information is
considered functional, in other words where the desirability is established to
process all the coloured page elements associated with this page element
type in a colour-dedicated processing channel, may be labelled accordingly”
(Spec. 6 ¶ 014).
Appeal 2011-011368
Application 10/445,049

6
7. The Specification teaches that “[s]uppose a coloured logo is
present on each page of the document. The user could treat a logo as non-
functional on document level but may prefer to overrule this on page level
for the first page of the document” (Spec. 19 ¶ 040).
Principles of Law
“In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the examiner bears the
initial burden of presenting a prima facie case of obviousness. Only if that
burden is met, does the burden of coming forward with evidence or
argument shift to the applicant.” In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1532 (Fed.
Cir. 1993).
“[O]bviousness requires a suggestion of all limitations in a claim.”
CFMT, Inc. v. Yieldup Int’l Corp., 349 F.3d 1333, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2003)
(citing In re Royka, 490 F.2d 981, 985 (CCPA 1974)).
Analysis
As we interpret claim 1 in light of the Specification, the method
requires at least two different analytical steps. The first step is to objectively
determine whether a page contains colored images or not. The second
analytic step of claim 1 is a subjective determination of whether an element
already identified as a color element is then identified as a “functional” or
“non-functional” color element. The Specification clearly demonstrates this
subjectivity in defining whether color is “functional” by exemplifying a
situation where a logo present on all the pages of a document is analyzed as
“functional” color on the first page, but analyzed as “non-functional” color
on the remaining pages (FF 7). Thus, depending upon the user preferences,
Appeal 2011-011368
Application 10/445,049

7
in the second analytic step of claim 1, the same color element may be either
“functional” or “non-functional” color.
Housel teaches the first step of analyzing whether a page contains
colored images or not (FF 1-2). Similarly, Torpey also teaches a step of
analyzing whether a pixel is black or in color (FF 3-5).
However, the Examiner does not identify, and we do not find, any
teaching in either Housel or Torpey teaching or suggesting a second
subjective analytic step distinguishing between some color elements as
“functional” and other color elements as “non-functional” as required by
claim 1.
The Examiner points to Torpey to teach this element, finding that
“Torpey discloses wherein the step of second analyzing coloured page
elements (e.g., analysis of the image data can be used to identify graphics
objects on the page and their attributes (coloured page element), such as
size, border color, fill color, line thickness, and the like” (Ans. 19).
We are not persuaded. Torpey’s analysis at column 17, like Torpey’s
analysis in Figure 17, simply determines whether a particular pixel or
component is colored or not (as well as other information regarding the
graphic or text object). Torpey does not distinguish between some colored
elements which are “functional” (i.e., the method user wishes these elements
to actually be printed in color), and other elements, also in color, which are
“non-functional” (i.e., the method user wishes these elements to be printed
in black and white).
The burden is on the Examiner to provide evidence teaching or
suggesting a second analytical step in a printing process which analyzes
Appeal 2011-011368
Application 10/445,049

8
pages already determined to have color element(s) to subjectively determine
whether these pages should be printed in color because the color is
“functional” or should be printed in black and white because the color is
“non-functional.” No such evidence has been presented, so we are
constrained to reverse this rejection.
Conclusion of Law
The evidence of record does not support the Examiner’s conclusion
that the combination of Housel and Torpey renders obvious the step where
analysis of “coloured page elements is made based on whether each of the
coloured page elements has a functional colour or a non-functional colour”
as required by claim 1
B-C. 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
These rejections rely upon the underlying obviousness rejection over
Housel and Torpey. Having reversed the rejection of claim 1, we
necessarily reverse these obviousness rejections further including Kato and
Takahashi, since these references do not suggest that the analysis of
“coloured page elements is made based on whether each of the coloured
page elements has a functional colour or a non-functional colour” as
required by claim 1.
SUMMARY
In summary, we reverse the rejection of claims 1, 3-8, 14, 15, 17, 22,
24, and 33-35 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Housel and Torpey.
We reverse the rejection of claims 2, 13, 16, and 23 under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as obvious over Housel, Torpey, and Kato.
Appeal 2011-011368
Application 10/445,049

9
We reverse the rejection of claims 9-12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Housel, Torpey, Kato, and Takahashi.

REVERSED

cdc