14733119 - (R) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 30, 2020)

Paolo Fazzini

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardJan 30, 2020

14733119 - (R) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 30, 2020)

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. 14/733,119 06/08/2015 Paolo Fazzini 2645-0178US01 8864 125968 7590 01/30/2020 Potomac Law Group PLLC (IMGTEC) 8229 Boone Boulevard Suite 430 Vienna, VA 22182 EXAMINER SUN, HAI TAO ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2616 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/30/2020 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): Eofficeaction@appcoll.com Patents@potomaclaw.com vdeluca@potomaclaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte PAOLO FAZZINI Appeal 2018-008146 Application 14/733,119 Technology Center 2600 Before IRVIN E. BRANCH, ADAM J. PYONIN, and DAVID J. CUTITTA II, Administrative Patent Judges. CUTITTA, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING Appellant timely requests rehearing under 37 C.F.R. § 47.52(a)(1) (2013) (“Request”) for reconsideration of our Decision on Appeal mailed October 30, 2019 (“Decision”). The Decision reversed the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 4–14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 and affirmed the Examiner’s rejection of claims 15–21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Dec. 19, 20. ARGUMENTS AND ANALYSIS “The request for rehearing must state with particularity the points believed to have been misapprehended or overlooked by the Board.” 37 C.F.R. § 41.52(a)(1). Appellant presents two arguments. Appellant first argues we overlooked an argument regarding claim 15. Appellant next argues we misunderstood an argument regarding claim 21. We have Appeal 2018-008146 Application 14/733,119 2 considered and address each argument herein, but decline to change our decision in view of Appellant’s arguments. Argument 1 Appellant points out that, with respect to independent claim 15, “[t]he final rejection asserts that control points 743, 745 in Fig. 7A of Ramanath correspond to ‘each source colour point lying outside the destination colour gamut.’” Request 1 (citing Final Act. 45). Appellant argues, By contrast, points 743 and 745 in Fig. 7A are control points themselves. Control point 743, representing the maximum chroma of the input gamut 710, is merely manually mapped to control point 744 for the maximum chroma of the output gamut 720. Control point 745 in input gamut 710 maps to control point 746 in output gamut 720. See col. 8, ll. 4–18. Thus, Ramanath does not disclose translating a source colour point to a destination colour point, within the destination colour gamut along a curve of constant hue and varying luminance varying with distance . . . as recited in claim 15. Request 1. We are not persuaded we misapprehended or overlooked any points in our Decision sustaining the rejection of claim 15. See Decision 9–11. The Examiner finds, and we agree, that the combined teachings of Ramanath, Ben-Chorin, and Longhurst teach or suggest “a gamut mapper configured to, for each source colour point lying outside the destination colour gamut: identify a mapping operator for translating a source colour point to a destination color point,” as recited in claim 15. See Dec. 10, 11; Ans. 59. Particularly, the Examiner, as acknowledged by Appellant, finds control points 743, 745 in Figure 7A of Ramanath lie outside of destination gamut of Figure 2A and therefore teach ‘“each source colour point lying outside the destination colour gamut,’” as recited in claim 15. Final Act. 45. Appeal 2018-008146 Application 14/733,119 3 The Examiner further relies on Ramanath’s equations at column 7, lines 1– 15 to teach “translating a source color point to a destination color point within the destination colour gamut,” as in claim 15. Ans. 56 (“In col. 7, lines 1–15, Ramanath teaches equations would allow any point within the input gamut to be mapped to a corresponding point within the output gamut.”). Appellant’s argument that “points 743 and 745 in Fig. 7A are control points themselves” does not persuade of us of error in the Examiner’s finding that control points 743 and 745 lie outside Ramanath’s destination colour gamut as shown in Fig. 7A, because Appellant fails to explain why being designated control points precludes points 743 and 745 from lying outside the destination colour gamut. Appellant’s argument that control points 743 is merely manually mapped to control point 744 is unpersuasive for lack of evidence because the portion of Ramanath relied upon by Appellant does not disclose manually mapping control point 743. Furthermore, Appellant fails to point to any other portion of Ramanath to support this argument. Nor does Appellant explain why this controverts the Examiner’s finding that control points 743 and 745 lie “outside the destination colour gamut,” as in claim 15. Appellant argues “Control point 745 in input gamut 710 maps to control point 746 in output gamut 720.” Even assuming this statement is accurate, Appellant fails to demonstrate why the statement is inconsistent with the Examiner’s findings or why the Examiner’s findings are in error. Thus, Appellant’s arguments regarding claim 15 are unavailing and we decline to change our affirmance of the Examiner’s rejection of claim 15. Appeal 2018-008146 Application 14/733,119 4 Argument 2 Appellant argues that we misapprehended an argument in the Appeal Brief that the Examiner provided erroneous reasoning in combining the teachings of Ramanath and Ben-Chorin in the rejection of claim 21. Request 2 (citing Decision 17). Specifically, Appellant argues, The Decision misapprehended [Appellant’s] argument as being premised on a “physical” or “bodily” incorporation of limitations of one reference into the other (Decision at 17). By contrast, Appellant’s argument is that the concept of Ramanath’s teaching of a coefficient bo that modifies luminance, cannot be conceptually combined with a teaching of a curve having constant luminance (for which the rejection relies on Ben- Chorin). Request 2. Appellant does not show we erred in finding one of ordinary skill in the art would combine the teachings of the cited references in the manner claimed. See Decision 17. To the extent Appellant now argues that “conceptually combining” the references is different than bodily incorporating a reference, we did not misapprehend or overlook this argument because it was not presented previously. Request 2. In the Appeal Brief, Appellant argued “the attempted combination of Ramanath and Ben- Chorin is improper because the two disclosures are incompatible with each other.” Appeal Br. 19. In response, the Examiner recognized “that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference . . . [but] [r]ather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.” Ans. 69 (citing In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981)). In the Reply, Appellant does not Appeal 2018-008146 Application 14/733,119 5 respond to the Examiner’s bodily incorporation rationale or reliance on Keller. See Reply Br. 5–6. Appellant therefore presents additional arguments and evidence in the Request that are beyond the scope of the Appeal Brief and Reply Brief. It is not appropriate in the Request for Rehearing to present additional arguments and evidence that have not been considered by the Examiner in an attempt to show that the Board misapprehended or overlooked something that was not timely presented to the Examiner or the Board. 37 CFR § 41.52(a). Thus, Appellant has not persuaded us that we misapprehended or overlooked any points in rendering our Decision regarding claim 21. CONCLUSION We have reconsidered our Decision in light of Appellant’s arguments in the Request. We have granted Appellant’s Request for Rehearing to the extent that we have reviewed our Decision and considered the arguments made in the Request. We are not persuaded of error in our previous Decision. DECISION SUMMARY Outcome of Decision on Rehearing: Claims 35 U.S.C § Basis Denied Granted 15–20 103 Ramanath, Ben- Chorin, Longhurst 15–20 21 103 Ramanath, Higgins, Lee, Ben- Chorin 21 Overall Outcome 15–21 Appeal 2018-008146 Application 14/733,119 6 Final Outcome of Appeal after Rehearing: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 5, 6, 10, 11, 13, and 14 103 Ramanath, Higgins, Lee 1, 5, 6, 10, 11, 13, and 14 4 103 Ramanath, Higgins, Lee, Henley 4 7, 8, 9 103 Ramanath, Higgins, Ulichney, Dillinger 7, 8, and 9 12 103 Ramanath, Higgins, Lee, Aldrich 12 15–20 103 Ramanath, Ben- Chorin, Longhurst 15–20 21 103 Ramanath, Higgins, Lee, Ben-Chorin 21 Overall Outcome 15–21 1, 4–14 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)(1). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). REHEARING DENIED 37 C.F.R. § 41.52(a)(1)