Ex Parte Gray et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 16, 2016

11396449 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 16, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
111396,449
24959 7590
PPG Industries, Inc,
IP Law Group
One PPG Place
39th Floor
Pittsburgh, PA 15272
0410312006
06/16/2016
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Melinda Gray
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.
13 877/46601 5591
EXAMINER
MARTELLO, EDWARD
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2613
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
06/16/2016 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 MELINDA GRAY, ROSEMARY NIEWOLAK, and
BARBARA RICHARDSON
Appeal2014-003850 1
Application 11/396,449
Technology Center 2600
Before DANIEL N. FISHMAN, MONICA S. ULLAGADDI, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
ULLAGADDI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-26. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. Process for computer assisted selection of at least one color
scheme, comprising:
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Akzo Nobel Coatings Inc.
App. Br. 4.
Appeal2014-003850
Application 11/396,449
allowing through a graphic user interface a selection from
at least one database an architectural surface from a database of
a plurality of architectural surfaces;
presenting on a computer display a plurality of color
design questions concerning a plurality of collections of color
arranged with each collection having at least 5 color families
wherein the collections vary one from the other in the range of
chroma and/or reflectance value for at least 50 hue slices for the
color families;
allowing through a graphic user interface the selection of
a main color and at least one coordinating color selected from
complementary, analogous, and triadic color to the main color as
accent colors through response to the questions; and
presenting on the computer display a recommended color
scheme with the main color and at least one accent color that is
complementary or analogous or triadic to the main color.
REFERENCES and REJECTIONS
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Webb
Bowsher
Strubbe
US 2006/0001677 Al
US 2004/0012542 Al
US 6, 795,808 B 1
Jan. 5,2006
Jan.22,2004
Sept. 21, 2004
Claims 1-3 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Webb, Bowsher, and Strubbe.
Claims 4--12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Webb and Strubbe.
Claims 13-17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Bowsher and Strubbe.
Claim 18 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Bowsher, Strubbe, and Webb.
2
Appeal2014-003850
Application 11/396,449
Claims 19-26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Webb and Bowsher.
ISSUES
First Issue: Did the Examiner err in finding the applied combination
of references teaches or suggests "presenting on a computer display a
plurality of color design questions," as recited in claim 1, and the
commensurate limitations of claims 4 and 13?
Second Issue: Did the Examiner err in finding the applied
combination of references teaches or suggests "a recommended color
scheme," as recited in claim 1, and the commensurate limitations of claims 4
and 13?
Third Issue: Did the Examiner err in finding the applied combination
of references teaches or suggests "color selection advice," as recited in claim
4?
Fourth Issue: Did the Examiner err in finding the applied
combination of references teaches or suggests "a plurality of color shades
based on the selected area of color and the selected color feeling collection,"
as recited in claim 19?
ANALYSIS
First Issue
Appellants argue none of Webb, Bowsher, and Strubbe teach or
suggest the claimed "question/answer method" of independent claims 1, 4,
3
Appeal2014-003850
Application 11/396,449
and 13. App. Br. 14--22.2 Specifically, Appellants argue that (i.) Webb's
teachings of a "myriad of color selection options" is not equivalent to the
"question/answer method" of claims 1 and 4. App. Br. 14--15. Similarly,
Appellants argue that (ii.) Bowsher' s Review Design Suggestions fail to
teach presenting the claimed "color design questions," as recited in claim 13.
Id. at 19-20. Appellants also attempt to distinguish (iii.) Strubbe's teaching
of a "conversation simulator" from "a computer assisted process for a user to
select a main color and a coordinating color, wherein the computer presents
a recommended color scheme." Id. at 20-21 (emphasis omitted). Lastly,
Appellants argue that (iv.) because "Bowsher does not ask any questions to
the user. . .it cannot be said that Bowsher applies a color to a room that is part
of a recommended color scheme, wherein the recommended color scheme
was selected based on the user's response to a question." Id. at 21.
Arguments (i. ), (ii.), and (iv.) fail to address the Examiner's specific
findings because the Examiner cited Strubbe for teaching a question-and-
answer computer user interface that is applicable to a wide range of
situations, including color selection. Ans. 16 citing Final Act. 1 O; see also
Ans. 24, 29.
Concerning argument (iii.), the Examiner cites Strubbe's event driven
architecture, which simulates an interactive question and answer session
designed to provide assistance, information, or answers related to a specific
topic. The Examiner finds that the teachings of Strubbe are applicable to
any field of endeavor, including assisting in color design, because the nature
of Strubbe's schema is dictated by the type of information that is stored. See
2 References are to the Appeal Brief filed April 18, 2013 (hereinafter "App.
Br.").
4
Appeal2014-003850
Application 11/396,449
Ans. 17-21 quoting Strubbe, Abstract, col. 20, 11. 27----67, and col. 3, 1. 15-
col. 4, 1. 61. Moreover, it is sufficient that references suggest doing what
Appellants did, although the Appellants' particular purpose was different
from that of the references. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1333 (Fed. Cir.
1983) (citing In re Gershon, 372 F.2d 535, 539 (CCPA 1967)). Further,
"[o]bviousness is not to be determined on the basis of purpose alone." In re
Graf, 343 F .2d 77 4, 777 (CCP A 1965).
Second Issue
Appellants argue neither Webb nor Bowsher teach or suggest "a
recommended color scheme" as recited in claim 1, and commensurate
limitations of claims 4 and 13, because Webb's coordinated color palettes do
not include computer-provided locations at which to apply the colors in a
room. App. Br. 16. Appellants contend that Webb instead teaches that the
user decides the locations at which to apply colors. Id.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard, the Examiner
interprets the term "color scheme" according to its plain and ordinary
meaning as would have been understood by the ordinarily skilled artisan.
Ans. 23. The Specification does not define the term "color scheme" in a
manner that conforms to the strict "words or expressions of manifest
exclusion or restriction" requirement articulated by the Federal Circuit in
Teleflex, Inc. v. Ficosa N. Am. Corp., 299 F.3d 1313, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
We concur with the Examiner's findings and adopt the Examiner's
interpretation of "color scheme" as our own.
Claim 1 recites, inter alia, "presenting on the computer display a
recommended color scheme." Claim 4 recites, inter alia, "computer assisted
5
Appeal2014-003850
Application 11/396,449
selection of at least one color scheme." Neither claim 1 nor claim 4 "specify
that the colors are applied to the architectural surface." Ans. 23. Therefore,
we agree with the Examiner's finding that the presentation of the color
scheme can be in any reasonable form, including the presentation taught in
Webb. Id. citing Webb i-f 54. Further, we are unpersuaded of Examiner
error because Appellants provide neither an alternative construction for
"recommended color scheme" nor demonstrate how the Examiner's
interpretation of this term is overbroad, unreasonable, or inconsistent with
the Specification.
Claim 13 recites, inter alia, "recommending the color scheme by
applying the selected color to a structure within a room." The Examiner
cites Figures 6-8 and paragraphs 81 through 88 of Bowsher as teaching this
limitation. Final Act. 3; see also Ans. 26-29 citing Bowsher i-fi-1 81-88.
Appellants concede "Bowsher explains in paragraph 85 that the user can
adjust the application of color to an object or location within a room," but
argue "Bowsher does not ask any questions to the user." App. Br. 21.
However, as noted above in the discussion of the first issue, Strubbe is cited
for teaching the claimed "question/answer method" recited in claims 1, 4,
and 13. As such, Appellants' argument regarding Bowsher constitutes an
individual attack on the references that is not persuasive to show non-
obviousness. See In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Further, Appellants' argument that Webb does not teach this limitation of
claim 13 is not responsive to the Examiner's specific findings regarding
Bowsher.
For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded of Examiner error
with respect to the disputed limitation recited in claims 1 and 13 and the
6
Appeal2014-003850
Application 11/396,449
limitations recited in claims 2, 3, and 14--17, which are not separately
argued. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 1-3 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Webb, Bowsher, and Strubbe and the rejection
of claims 13-17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Bowsher and
Strubbe.
Claim 18 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Bowsher, Strubbe, and Webb. We reach the same conclusion as we
reach with respect to claim 13, from which this claim depends, for
substantially similar reasons as this claim is not separately argued.
Third Issue
Appellants argue Webb does not teach or suggest "color selection
advice" as recited in claim 4. Specifically, Appellants argue that Webb
teaches an inspirational library of colors, which includes categories of color,
themes, and moods. App. Br. 18 citing Webb i-fi-1 69 and 92. Appellants
assert that although the user "can browse the inspirational library and choose
a desired color combination .... there does not appear to be any indication
that any advice about the colors is given to help the user select a color." Id.
Specifically, Appellants distinguish Webb's teachings of
Id.
select[ing] a room from a collection of rooms to allow consumers
to see how colors look in a simulated environment [because] ...
there appears to be no advice regarding a room, such as for
example, bedrooms are conducive to monochromatic color
schemes. The user in Webb does not appear to be given advice
regarding the location of the structural archetype to be painted as
recited in claim 4.
7
Appeal2014-003850
Application 11/396,449
The Examiner finds Webb teaches the disputed limitation. Final Act.
12 citing Webb i-fi-159, 64---69, 77, and 92. The Examiner further finds that
Webb also provides a navigation preview that allows a user to preview the
color combinations on a sample house or room. Ans. 24 citing Webb i1 54.
We agree with the Examiner's findings. Webb further teaches the
system may recommend other colors that are complementary to a first color
as a palette, which can be adjusted according to various attributes of the
architecture to which the color is to be applied. Webb i1 67. Additionally,
Webb teaches "[t]he user may specify a starting color visually or by entering
a color code and the expert color coordinator then recommends color
combinations." Id. at i168 (emphasis added). Finally, Webb teaches that a
user can make use of an inspiration library when creating a project, which
allows a user to select a mood or theme palette, and preview selected color
combinations in a particular room or exterior of a home. Id. at i192.
For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded of Examiner error
with respect to the disputed limitations recited in claim 4 and the limitations
recited in claims 5-12, which are not separately argued. Accordingly, we
sustain the rejection of claims 4--12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Webb and Strubbe.
Fourth Issue
Appellants argue the combination of Webb and Bowsher set forth by
the Examiner fails to teach or suggest "a plurality of color shades based on
the selected area of color and the selected color feeling collection" as recited
in claim 19. Specifically, Appellants argue
8
Appeal2014-003850
Application 11/396,449
[ (i.)] It would not have been obvious to utilize the hybrid of
information from steps b) and d) to provide the color shades
recited in step e) of claim 19 as alleged in the rejection, at least
because the Office has relied on two different documents to teach
a hybrid of information. More specifically, neither Webb nor
Bowsher simultaneously teach both the areas of color in step b)
and the color feeling collections in step d).
[(ii.)] The Office has provided no rationale why it would have
been obvious to provide the hybrid of information in step e)
based on both the areas of color in step b) and the color feeling
collections in step d).
App. Br. 22.
Appellants' argument (i.) is not commensurate in scope with the claim
because the claim does not recite the "hybrid of information" argued by the
Appellants. Instead, the claim merely requires "providing a plurality of
color shades based on the selected area of color and the selected color
feeling collection." App. Br. 27 (emphasis added). Appellants do not point
us to a portion of the Specification that would require us to interpret the
disputed limitation to exclude sequentially providing color shades based on
the selected area of color and providing color shades based on the selected
feeling collection. Stated differently, Appellants do not persuade us claim
19 requires simultaneously or concurrently utilizing the selected area of
color and the selected feeling collection in order to provide the plurality of
color shades. Further, this argument fails to address what the combined
teachings of Webb and Bowsher would have suggested to the ordinarily
skilled artisan and, therefore, constitutes individual attacks on each of Webb
and Bowsher, which is not persuasive to show non-obviousness. See Merck,
800 F.2d at 1091.
9
Appeal2014-003850
Application 11/396,449
With regard to Appellants' argument (ii.), the Examiner cited
references that teach or suggest each of the limitations recited in claim 19
and articulated reasoning with rational underpinning for combining the
references. Final Act. 6; see also KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.
398, 418 (2007) (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
Namely, the Examiner finds
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at
the time of the invention to have combined the color mood and
feeling teachings of Bowsher with the detailed color selection
and coordination system and method teachings of Webb for the
benefit of enabling the customer to participate in a paint
selection project that allows the overall environmental
integration and optimization even for those users with little or
no experience or natural ability in interior and exterior design.
Final Act. 6 (emphasis added). Therefore, we are unpersuaded by
Appellants' argument that the Office provides no rationale for combining the
teachings of the cited references.
For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded of Examiner error
with respect to the disputed limitation recited in claim 19 and the limitations
recited in claims 20-26, which are not separately argued. Accordingly, we
sustain the rejection of claims 19-26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Webb and Bowsher.
10
Appeal2014-003850
Application 11/396,449
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections of claims 1-26 are affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
11