Ex Parte Zeng

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 26, 2013

11186325 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 26, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte HUANZHAO ZENG
____________

Appeal 2011-008743
Application 11/186,325
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before JEFFREY N. FREDMAN, ERICA A. FRANKLIN, and
ULRIKE W. JENKS, Administrative Patent Judges.

JENKS, Administrative Patent Judge

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal1 under 35 U.S.C. § 134 involving claims directed to
color calibration in an image processing system. The Examiner has rejected
the claims as obvious. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We
affirm.

1 Appellant identifies Hewlett-Packard Development Company, LP as the
Real Party in Interest (App. Br. 3).
Appeal 2011-008743
Application 11/186,325

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claims 1-20 are on appeal, and can be found in the Claims Appendix
of the Appeal Brief. Claim 1 is illustrative of the claims on appeal, and
reads as follows:
1. A method of color calibration in an image processing system,
the method comprising:
printing a target image using pre-defined target image
data;
scanning the printed target image;
generating scanned target image data from the scanned
target image;
generating a three-dimensional relative colorimetric table
from a comparison of the target image data with the scanned
target image data using closed-loop color calibration;
performing perceptual color adjustment and gamut
adjustment to form a color adjustment function; and
updating the three-dimensional relative colorimetric table
to reflect the color adjustment function;
wherein the perceptual color adjustment occurs between
an original hardcopy and a reproduced hardcopy on the image
processing system.
The Examiner has rejected claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Balasubramanian2 in view of Chan.3

Findings of Fact
FF 1. We adopt the Examiner’s findings and analysis concerning the
scope and content of the prior art. The following facts are repeated for
reference convenience.
FF 2. Balasubramanian disclosed the process of converting a scanned

2 Balasubramanian et al., US 6,381,037 B1, issued Apr. 30, 2002.
3 Chan et al., US 6,262,812 B1, issued July 17, 2001.
App
App

imag
repro
(Bal

calib
eal 2011-0
lication 11
e into a pr
duced bel
An origi
Go, Bo,
colorime
scanner,
defined
the scan
processo
provide
colorime
values m
or lum
transform
A
convert
The outp
terms of
Cp, Mp,
possible
cyan, m
given ar
image m
[reprodu
have a re
the prin
similar
ultimate
asubraman
FF 3. Fi
ration flow
08743
/186,325
inted imag
ow:
nal image
which, by
tric R,G,
resulting
in device
ner or a
r 14, whi
a correcti
tric terms
ay be in t
inance-chr
thereof.
color spac
the device
ut of colo
a device
Yp, Kp tha
example,
agenta, ye
ea in an el
ay be sa
ced hardc
lationship
ted output
to the o
ly depende
ian, col. 4
g. 3, repro
chart:
e, the pro
12 [origin
definitio
B (red-gr
in a set o
dependen
nother pr
ch uses th
on of sca
, Rc, Gc,
erms of CI
ominance
e transfor
independ
r space tr
dependen
t will be
the colora
llow, and
ectrophoto
id to be
opy], a m
with Ro, G
image h
riginal im
nt upon th
, ll. 15-41;
duced belo
3
cess steps
al hardcop
n, can be
een-blue)
f scanner
t scanner
ocessing p
e scanner
nner imag
Bc usually
E color sp
space (
m, indicate
ent data to
ansform 2
t space, or
used to dr
nt signals
black tone
graphic pr
defined i
easured re
o, Bo [ori
as a color
age, alth
e gamut o
Ans. 3-4.
w, of Bal
involved a
y] rendere
defined
space, is
image sign
terms. Inc
ath is a
calibratio
e signals
digital i
ace (rgb),
L,C1,C2)
d by bloc
device d
0 is the im
printer c
ive a prin
represent
rs to be de
inter. The
n terms
sponse, th
ginal hard
that is c
ough that
f the print
)
asubraman
re shown

d in color
in terms
fed into
als Rs, G
orporated
post-scan
n transfor
Rs, Gs, B
n nature.
or the L*,
or a l
k 20, is us
ependent
age defin
olorant sig
ter 30. In
the amoun
posited o
printed o
of Rp, Gp
at is hope
copy] such
olorimetri
similarit
ing device
ian shows
in Fig. 1,
s Ro,
of a
the
s, Bs,
into
ning
m to
s to
The
a*,b,
inear
ed to
data.
ed in
nals
one
ts of
ver a
utput
, Bp
d to
that
cally
y is
.
a
App
App

(Bal

to ad
eal 2011-0
lication 11
From th
made at
scan pro
produce
represen
processo
processo
signals,
may gen
asubraman
FF 4. Ch
just image
[T]he im
values to
values
Preferab
uniform
08743
/186,325
e calibratio
printer 30
cessor 14
response
ting the
r 202 rea
r and cor
so that a d
erated.
ian, col. 5
an illustra
s as show
age valu
an adjus
to an adj
ly, the a
color spac
n image,
, to produ
are used
signals a
colors of
ds the re
relates the
evice inde
, ll. 48-56;
tes a gene
n in Fig. 1
e convert
tment colo
ustment
djustment
e. The ad
4
a print of
ce an ima
to scan th
s a func
each sca
sponses p
response
pendent c
Ans. 4.)
ral purpos
, reproduc
er 110 co
r space a
color spa
color sp
justment c
the calibr
ge. Scann
e calibra
tion of s
nned patc
rovided f
with the
olor to co
e compute
ed below:
nverts th
nd outputs
ce value
ace is a
olor space
ation patte
er 10 and
tion target
ensed den
h. Calibr
rom post
input col
lorant map
r that is pr
e input im
the conv
adjuster
percept
value adj

rn is
post
and
sity,
ation
scan
orant
ping
ogrammed

age
erted
120.
ually
uster

App
App

(Cha

syste
(Spe
Prin

is lik
KSR

eal 2011-0
lication 11
120 adju
control
adjustme
adjustme
converte
gamut, s
device’s
n, col. 2, l
FF 5. Th
m shown
The sca
compare
table, w
dimensio
data 26
copied h
match or
c. 5, ll. 9-1

ciple of La
“The com
ely to be o
Int’l Co. v
08743
/186,325
sts the con
values inp
nt color
nts to the
d values
uch as a m
color gam
. 57 to col
e Specific
in Fig. 2, r
nner RGB
d at step
ith adjus
nal looku
and adjust
ardcopies
iginal har
2.)
w
bination
bvious wh
. Teleflex
verted im
ut by a u
space val
values, i
are scaled
onitor or
ut, such a
. 3, l. 3 (em
ation teac
eproduced
data 26
27, such
tment, is
p table is
RGB col
processed
dcopies.
of familiar
en it does
Inc., 550 U
5
age values
ser into t
ue adjust
ncluding
based on
printer co
s a printer
phasis ad
hes a close
below:
and target
that a th
built at
used to c
or values.
in the i
elements
no more t
.S. 398, 4
in accord
he contro
er 120 ca
scaling.
an input
lor gamut
gamut.
ded); Ans
d-loop co
RGB da
ree-dimen
step 28.
orrect the
With suc
mage proc
according
han yield
16 (2007)
ance with
ller 140.
n make
Preferably
device’s
, and an o
. 22.)
lor calibra

ta 20 are
sional lo
This t
scanner
h adjustm
essing sy
to known
predictable
.
user
The
other
, the
color
utput
tion
then
okup
hree-
RGB
ents,
stem
methods
results.”
Appeal 2011-008743
Application 11/186,325

6
Analysis
Appellant contends that the claims “specify that the perceptual color
adjustment occurs between an original hardcopy and a reproduced hardcopy
on the image processing system in order to increase color quality” and that
this claim limitation requires that “the scanner color error and printer color
error are treated as a combined source of color error and compensated for as
a total color error,” and that neither Balasubramanian nor Chan calibrate the
source image (App. Br. 7-8). “[The] references do not teach or suggest
calibration of the color error from the source device is that their approaches
are used to calibrate printers, in which the color error of the source color
space cannot be mixed with the printer’s color error.” (Id. at 7; see also
Reply Br. 3.)
We are not persuaded. We agree with the Examiner that arguments
directed to the adjustment of the total color error from the source and printer
is not persuasive because this interpretation is “not found to be supported by
the claim language.” (Ans. 24.) Claim 1 recites “wherein the perceptual
color adjustment occurs between an original hardcopy and a reproduced
hardcopy on the image processing system,” there is nothing in this claim
language that would indicate that the adjustments need to occur at both the
scanner and the printer at the same time in order to arrive at a hardcopy that
replicates the original image. Adjustments at only one source, either the
printer or the scanner order could result in a reproduced a hardcopy that
duplicates the original. Appellant has not pointed to any evidence in the
Specification that would support the claim interpretation that both scanner
and printer color error must always be adjusted together. Accordingly, we
find this argument unpersuasive.
Appeal 2011-008743
Application 11/186,325

7
Appellant contends that the “[c]losed -loop color calibration [CLCC]
calibrates both the scanner’s color drift and the printer’s color drift using
calibration copy tables and not scanner LUTs or printer LUTs like in the
Balasubraminan [sic] reference. . . . [T]he method is not able to compensate
the scanner’s color shift.” (App. Br. 8.)
We find that the Examiner has the better position.
The [E]xaminer understands [A]ppellant’s Figure 2 to illustrate
a general process of a CLCC. A hardcopy image is printed with
a printer using predefined image data. The hardcopy image is
scanned via a scanner. Scanned image data is produced from
the scanned image. The scanned image data and the predefined
image data are compared.

(Ans. 25; see also FF 5.) The Examiner finds that Balasubramanian uses the
exact same process were “a mapping is generated to derive a look up table,
LUT. The LUT is generated from reading the scanned image data and
correlating (comparing) it to the starting calibration image data.” (Ans. 25;
see also FF 3.) “With the look up table derived, it may be stored in LUT
100 at color space transform 20, for use in converting device dependent
values received from image creators to device independent printer signals.”
(Balasubramanian, col. 5, l. 66 to col. 6, l. 2.) We agree with the Examiner
that Balasubramanian creates a calibration copy table in the CLCC loop that
can be applied during the color space transform process (FF 3).
Accordingly, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s contention that the CLCC
process always requires adjustment at the scanner, because, as
acknowledged by the Appellant’s (App. Br. 8) in those instances when the
scanner is stable and accurate all adjustments are made only at the printer in
order to ensure that the original and reproduced hardcopies are identical.
Appeal 2011-008743
Application 11/186,325

8
With regard to claim 14, Appellant contends that the combination of
references does not teach “turning off perceptual color adjustment before
generating a three-dimensional relative colorimetric table from a comparison
of the target image data with the scanned target image data using closed-
loop color calibration.” (App. Br. 9.)
We find that the Examiner has the better position. The Examiner
explains that:
Balasubramanian teaches generating a lookup table, LUT, for
purpose of color calibration to then be implemented and used in
a printing system. . . . It is understood that Figure 3 [FF 3] uses
a closed-loop color calibration, CLCC, to generate a table. As
described with Figure 3, a starting calibration image, image
data, is obtained from storage or generated with a
predetermined generation function. The image data is printed
to a hardcopy which is scanned. The scanned hardcopy is
measure to produce scanned image data. The image data and
the scanned image data are compared to derive a LUT which is
three-dimensional. At no time during this process is it taught
that a perceptual color adjustment is performed. . . .
Balasubramanian teaches turning on perceptual adjustment
when using the generated LUT in a printing system as the on[e]
in Figure 1. Perceptual adjustment is used in order to provide
gamut adjustment from transforming RGB color space to
CMYK color space. . . . Chan is also understood to teach
turning off/on perceptual adjustment in performing the same
steps of generating a table to be used in a system, and using the
generated table in the system.
(Ans. 27-28, see also FFs 2-4.) We agree with the Examiner’s position that
Balasubramanian uses the LUT generated in the calibration process (FF 3) in
the process of copying an original document (FF 1). Appellant has not
pointed to any errors in the Examiner’s rationale that would indicate the
perceptual color adjustment is necessarily on during the calibration process
Appeal 2011-008743
Application 11/186,325

9
in either the Balasubramanian or Chan reference. Accordingly, we find the
argument based on turning the perceptual color adjustment on or off
unpersuasive.
Based on the evidence cited in the rejection, and the Examiner’s
reasoning, we conclude that the rejection established a prima facie case for
obviousness. Further, the Examiner responded specifically and persuasively
to Appellant’s arguments, showing that when all the evidence is considered,
it weighs in favor of obviousness. (See Ans. 3-28.) Accordingly, we affirm
the rejection of claim 1 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious.
As claims 2-13 and 15-20 have not been argued separately, they fall with
claims 1 and 14. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).

SUMMARY
We affirm the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Balasubramanian in view of Chan.

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).

AFFIRMED

cdc