Ex Parte Malik

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 13, 2017

13545025 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 13, 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.
13/545,025 07/10/2012 Amal Z. Malik 20120252-US-NP 3297
100913 7590 11/15/2017
JONES ROBB, PLLC (w/XEROX CORPORATION)
1420 Spring Hill Road
Suite 325
McLean, VA 22102
EXAMINER
WASHINGTON, JAMARES
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2675
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/15/2017 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):
docketing @j onesrobb. com
kevin.robb @j onesrobb. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte AMAL Z. MALIK
Appeal 2017-004703
Application 13/545,0251
Technology Center 2600
Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, HUNG H. BUI, and JON M. JURGOVAN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final
Rejection of claims 8—11, 13—15, 17, 35, and 36. Claims 1—6, 16, and 18—34
have been withdrawn from consideration, and claims 7 and 12 have been
cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.2
1 Appellant identifies Xerox Corporation as the real party in interest.
(App. Br. 2.)
2 Our Decision refers to the Specification filed July 10, 2012 (“Spec.”), the
Final Office Action mailed February 2, 2016 (“Final Act.”), the Appeal
Brief filed September 2, 2016 (“App. Br.”), the Examiner’s Answer mailed
November 17, 2016 (“Ans.”), and the Reply Brief filed January 17, 2017
(“Reply Br.”).
Appeal 2017-004703
Application 13/545,025
CLAIMED INVENTION
The claims are directed to methods and systems for facilitating
modification of text colors in digital images by providing options for
defining a number of text colors and/or for selecting text colors to appear in
images, and then modifying digital images to include text with the defined or
selected number of text colors. (Spec. Tflf 4, 6, 110; Title, Abstract.)
Claims 8 and 17 are independent. Claims 8 and 17, reproduced
below, are illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
8. A method for facilitating modification of text colors in a
digital image, the method comprising:
displaying, by a processor, an option to input a number of
text colors on a display associated with a computing device;
receiving, by the processor, an input comprising the
number of text colors;
scanning, by the processor, a document to generate the
digital image, wherein the digital image comprises at least text
comprising a first set of text colors such that the text is
extracted into a plurality of layers based on color and spatial
proximity;
determining, by the processor, a count of pixels
comprising text in the digital image for each color in the first
set of text colors based on the extracted layers;
identifying, by the processor, colors from the first set of
text colors based on at least the count of pixels for each color in
the first set of text colors, wherein a number of the identified
colors equals the inputted number of text colors; and
modifying, by the processor, the digital image such that
the text in the modified digital image comprises the identified
colors, wherein the modification comprises changing the color
of text in the digital image that does not comprise one of the
identified colors to one of the identified colors.
17. A method for facilitating modification of text colors in a
digital image, the method comprising:
2
Appeal 2017-004703
Application 13/545,025
determining, by a processor, a first set of text colors from
the digital image, wherein the first set of text colors are
determined based on colors of text in the digital image and the
text of the digital image is extracted into a plurality of layers
based on color and spatial proximity;
displaying, by the processor, the first set of text colors on
a display associated with a computing device;
receiving, by the processor, an input for selecting a
plurality of colors from the first set of text colors;
displaying, by the processor, a second set of text colors
on the display in response to the selection of the plurality of
colors, wherein the second set of text colors corresponding to
each of the selected text color comprise a set of replacement
text colors;
receiving, by the processor, an input for selecting a
replacement text color, from the set of replacement text colors,
for each of the selected plurality of colors;
converting, by the processor, text color that comprises
one or more of the selected plurality of colors to corresponding
selected replacement text color based on the extracted layers;
and
generating, by the processor, a modified digital image
based on the converting; and
performing optical character recognition (OCR) on the
modified digital image, wherein the number of text colors for
text that undergoes OCR of the modified digital image is less
than the number of text colors of the digital image.
(App. Br. 33, 35—36 (Claims App.).)
REJECTIONS & REFERENCES
(1) Claims 8, 9, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Chang (US 2007/0146754 Al, published June 28,
2007), Spaulding et al. (US 2003/0011607 Al, published Jan. 16, 2003,
3
Appeal 2017-004703
Application 13/545,025
“Spaulding”), and Malik et al. (US 2011/0069885 Al, published Mar. 24,
2011, “Malik”). (Final Act. 2-5.)
(2) Claims 10, 11, 13, 14, and 35 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Chang, Spaulding, Malik, and
Hsu (US 2012/0203371 Al, published Aug. 9, 2012). (Final Act. 5—7.)
(3) Claims 17 and 36 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Chang, Spaulding, Malik, Hsu, and Martinez et al.
(US 2006/0001690 Al, published Jan. 5, 2006, “Martinez”). (Final Act.
8-10.)
ANALYSIS
Claims 8—11, 13—15, and 35
Claim 8 recites, inter alia:
receiving, by the processor, an input comprising the
number of text colors;
scanning, by the processor, a document to generate the
digital image, wherein the digital image comprises at least text
comprising a first set of text colors . . . ;
determining, by the processor, a count of pixels
comprising text in the digital image for each color in the first
set of text colors . . . ;
identifying, by the processor, colors from the first set of
text colors based on at least the count of pixels for each color in
the first set of text colors, wherein a number of the identified
colors equals the inputted number of text colors; and
modifying, by the processor, the digital image such that
the text in the modified digital image comprises the identified
colors, wherein the modification comprises changing the color
of text in the digital image that does not comprise one of the
identified colors to one of the identified colors.
(App. Br. 33 (Claims App.).)
4
Appeal 2017-004703
Application 13/545,025
The Examiner relies on Chang to teach the claimed displaying,
receiving, scanning, and modifying a digital image “such that the text in the
modified digital image comprises the identified colors, wherein the
modification comprises changing the color of text in the digital image that
does not comprise one of the identified colors to one of the identified
colors,” as recited in claim 8. (Final Act. 2—3.) The Examiner further relies
on (1) Spaulding to teach the claimed determining and identifying steps
employing “the count of pixels for each color in the first set of. . . [an
image’s] colors,” and (2) Malik to teach text extraction into layers based on
color and spatial proximity. (Final Act. 3—4.)
Appellant contends Chang does not teach or suggest “receiving ... an
input comprising the number of text colors.” (App. Br. 20—21; Reply Br. 6,
12.) Particularly, Appellant argues Chang merely discloses segmenting an
image into text and pictorial/graphic areas, and selecting output colors for
rendering the image before printing, but Chang’s “selected output colors are
not specific to text colors” or “to a text segment.” (App. Br. 20—21.) We do
not agree.
Initially, we note claim 8 does not restrict the received “input” to only
“text colors,” and merely requires “an input comprising the number of text
colors” (emphasis added) to designate an “inputted number of text colors”
for modifying a digital image’s text colors. We agree with the Examiner
that Chang’s “set of ‘good’ output colors” that a print engine can print
includes a “number of text colors” as claimed. (Ans. 5—6 (citing Chang
132).) Chang’s set of “‘good’ output colors” for the print engine are a
specific palette of colors chosen to reduce the number of colors in an
original image before the image is printed. (See Chang 132, Abstract.)
5
Appeal 2017-004703
Application 13/545,025
Chang also discloses the original image includes text, which is segmented
from graphic and pictorial objects/areas and is “improve[d] . . . differently
based on the type of the object, e.g., sharpening for the text. . . and applying
different color conversion and color enhancement for the different [image]
areas.” (See Chang 111.) We find the skilled artisan, viewing this teaching,
would recognize that Chang selects text colors, as claimed, for modifying an
image’s original text colors, for example by sharpening the image’s text and
by reducing the number of text (and other) colors in the image to the set of
“‘good’ output colors” printable by a print engine. (Ans. 8, 12 (citing Chang
111)-)
Appellant further argues “Spaulding discloses counting pixels based
on the number of occurrences for each input color, but the counted pixels for
each input color are not specific to pixels comprising text.” (App. Br. 22;
see also Reply Br. 6, 12—13.) We are not persuaded by Appellant’s
argument because Spaulding’s counted pixels for each input color (of an
input image) would be specific to pixels comprising text when, for example,
the input image includes only text. The skilled artisan would recognize that
Spaulding’s counting pixels in images to determine color distributions can
be readily applied to a digital text image for “determining ... a count of
pixels comprising text in the digital image for each color in the [image’s]
first set of text colors” as recited in claim 8. (Ans. 8, 13 (citing Spaulding
120; see also ^fl[ 28—29).)
Appellant additionally argues the Examiner’s combination of Chang
and Spaulding lacks articulated reasoning because “Chang and Spaulding do
not specifically address text color and/or text pixels”; rather, Chang and
Spaulding, “at best,. . . disclose an inputted number of colors that is not
6
Appeal 2017-004703
Application 13/545,025
specific to text colors.” (App. Br. 22—23.) As discussed supra, we are not
persuaded that Chang and Spaulding do not teach processing specific to text
colors. Additionally, the Examiner has articulated sufficient reasoning for
combining Chang’s text color adjustment with Spaulding’s color
redistribution based on pixel counting, to reduce image colors and, thereby,
improve image storage and reproduction. (Ans. 9, 14—15 (citing Spaulding
11 6, 20); see also Spaulding 13; Chang || 2—3.)
In light of the above, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Chang,
Spaulding, Malik.
No separate arguments are presented for dependent claims 9—11,
13—15, and 35. (See App. Br. 30.) Accordingly, for the reasons stated with
respect to independent claim 8, we sustain the rejections of these dependent
claims. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Claims 17 and 36
Claim 17 recites “performing optical character recognition (OCR) on
the modified digital image” that was generated based on “converting . . . text
color that comprises one or more of the selected plurality of colors [from a
first set of text colors of an original digital image] to corresponding selected
replacement text color,” and “wherein the number of text colors for text that
undergoes OCR of the modified digital image is less than the number of text
colors of the [original] digital image.” (App. Br. 35—36 (Claims Appx.).)
The Examiner, among other things, finds Martinez discloses
“applying an OCR process to the already modified image [of Chang and
Spaulding] as shown in | [84] wherein as a first measure, step 41, the color
reduction process is implemented wherein colors are ‘snapped’ to the closest
7
Appeal 2017-004703
Application 13/545,025
primary color and subsequently undergoes the OCR process in step 42.”
(Ans. 5—6 (citing Martinez 1 84).) We do not agree.
We agree with Appellant’s arguments that Martinez, alone or in
combination with other cited references, fails to teach or suggest performing
OCR on a modified digital image whose number of text colors for text that
undergoes OCR is less than the number of text colors of the original (un­
modified) digital image. (App. Br. 10.) Particularly, Martinez performs
OCR on an original digital image in order to identify text characteristics of
color, size, and orientation, and based on the identified text characteristics,
Martinez then modifies the original image by color-snapping to reduce the
number of text colors in the image. (See Martinez H 44, 84, Figs. 5
(describing step 41) and 8 (describing step 42).) Therefore, we do not agree
with the Examiner’s finding that Martinez applies “an OCR process to the
already modified image . . . wherein as a first measure, step 41, the color
reduction process is implemented wherein colors are ‘snapped’ to the closest
primary color and subsequently undergoes the OCR process in step 42.”
(Ans. 5—6.) Martinez does not apply OCR to the snapped-color image of
step 41; rather, Martinez applies OCR to an original image before the color­
snapping procedure in step 41 and before the spatial resolution increase of
step 42. (See Martinez H 44, 84, Figs. 5 and 8.)
Thus, Martinez does not perform OCR on a modified image that was
generated (before the OCR) from a reduced number of text colors of an
original image, as required by claim 17. (App. Br. 10-11, 13; Reply Br.
2—3.) Rather, Martinez discloses an inverse sequence that performs OCR on
an original image in order to reduce text colors in the image. (See Martinez
1144, 84, Figs. 5 and 8.)
8
Appeal 2017-004703
Application 13/545,025
We also agree with Appellant that the Examiner has not presented
sufficient rationale to show “why one of ordinary skill in the art would find
it obvious to combine the color processing techniques disclosed in Chang
and Spaulding with the OCR techniques disclosed in Martinez,” in the
particular order recited in claim 17. (Reply Br. 9; see also App. Br. 3.) The
Examiner’s rationale to combine the references (to enhance image quality of
an output image by selecting important colors, (Ans. 10), and to recognize
font sizes to enable further processing of the identified characters, (Ans. 9))
is insufficient to show that the skilled artisan would apply Martinez’ OCR to
Chang and Spaulding’s reduced-color image, because Martinez performs
OCR before reducing the colors in an image, as discussed supra. Martinez
also does not recognize the benefits of reducing the colors in a digital image
prior to performing optical character recognition; rather, Martinez requires
optical character recognition to identify text characteristics before reducing
the colors in an image. (App. Br. 14—15; Reply Br. 12; see Martinez || 44,
84, Figs. 5 and 8.) In contrast, Appellant’s claim 17 advantageously reduces
the colors in a digital image prior to performing optical character
recognition, to improve optical character recognition for the image. App.
Br. 14—15 (citing Spec. Tflf 3, 110).
The Examiner also has not shown that the additional teachings of
Malik and Hsu make up for the above-noted deficiencies of Martinez,
Chang, and Spaulding. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim
17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Chang, Spaulding, Malik,
Hsu, and Martinez. For the same reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of
claim 36 (reciting “performing optical character recognition (OCR) on the
modified digital image, wherein the number of text colors for text that
9
Appeal 2017-004703
Application 13/545,025
undergoes OCR of the modified digital image is less than the number of text
colors of the generated digital image”) under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Chang, Spaulding, Malik, Hsu, and Martinez.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 8—11, 13—15, and
35 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 17 and 36 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
10