Ex Parte Mestha et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 11, 201311170946 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 11, 2013) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE __________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD __________ Ex parte LALIT K. MESTHA, YAO RONG WANG, and ZHIGANG FAN __________ Appeal 2011-008432 Application 11/170,946 Technology Center 2600 __________ Before DONALD E. ADAMS, LORA M. GREEN, and JEFFREY N. FREDMAN, 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 dynamically generating a uniform color object in a printing system. The Examiner rejected the claims as obvious. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm-in-part. 1 Appellants identify the Real Party in Interest as Xerox Corporation (see App. Br. 4). Appeal 2011-008432 Application 11/170,946 2 Statement of the Case Background The Specification teaches that a “system and method is disclosed to render spatially uniform memory colors, and more particularly, to adjust when images printed with CMYK primaries are not rendered uniformly due to output device quality errors” (Spec. 1 ¶ 0003). The Claims Claims 1, 3-12, 14-19, 21, and 22 are on appeal. Claim 1 is representative and reads as follows: 1. A method for dynamically generating a uniform color object in a printing system, comprising: identifying at least one memory color object from an image, including segmenting the image into a plurality of discrete segments, classifying the segments, and using the classifications to identify at least one memory color; using the image as an input, printing a test image; scanning the test image to produce scanned image data; extracting the memory color object from the scanned image data; and using the at least one memory color object and the scanned image data, generating an inverse spatial color map. The Issues A. The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3-9, 11, 12, 14-16, 18, 19, 21, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Arazi2 and Asada3 (Ans. 4-10). B. The Examiner rejected claims 10 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Arazi, Asada, and Ohkubo4 (Ans. 10-11). 2 Arazi et al., US 5,212,546, issued May 18, 1993. 3 Asada, S., US 5,018,008, issued May 21, 1991. 4 Ohkubo, A., US 5,619,427, issued Apr. 8, 1997. Appeal 2011-008432 Application 11/170,946 3 A. 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Arazi and Asada The Examiner finds that “Arazi'546 teaches a method for dynamically generating a uniform color object in a printing system” (Ans. 4). The Examiner finds that “Arazi'546 fails to teach segmenting the image into a plurality of discrete segments, classifying the segments, and using the classifications to identify at least on memory color” (Ans. 4-5). The Examiner finds that Asada'008 teaches segmenting the image into a plurality of discrete segments (memory color region, column 6, line 1), classifying the segments (determine the shape, the size, and the position of the memory color region, column 6, lines 2-7), and using the classifications to identify at least one memory color (only colors resembling closely the designated memory color are regarded as substantially same color with the designated memory color, column 7, lines 10- 20). (Ans. 5.) The Examiner finds it obvious to “modify the color correction system of Arazi'546 reference to include the color separation techniques taught by Asada'008 reference, since memory colors must be reproduced on a print in a color tone corresponding to the impression on humans and the results of the combination would have been predictable” (Ans. 5). The issue with respect to this rejection is: Does the evidence of record support the Examiner’s conclusion that Arazi and Asada render the claims obvious? Findings of Fact 1. Arazi teaches “significantly enhanced color reproduction results in printer applications and copiers” (Arazi, col. 3, ll. 35-37). Appeal 2011-008432 Application 11/170,946 4 2. Arazi teaches that A second advantage of the use of memory colors is to permit the operator to select a reference picture which includes objects containing memory colors which may appear in the picture to be corrected. Rather than providing reference pictures of scenes which include a great number of memory-color items, it is possible to provide an additional reference library of memory-color images. The displayed reference may be a composite of a scenic reference picture and one or more reference memory colors . . . (Arazi, col. 6, ll. 59-68). 3. Arazi teaches that the “a control unit 109 which generates a digital representation of the test image. The test image may be periodically printed by print engine 106 either automatically or on command and scanned by sensor 108 to measure color densities” (Arazi, col. 15, ll. 11-16). 4. Arazi teaches that the “scanner output can be utilized to control calibration adjustment of the output device. One method is to compare the scanner output to a previously stored expected output and to adjust the print engine characteristics in order to stabilize the printer output based on the comparison” (Arazi, col. 15, ll. 16-21). 5. Arazi teaches that “during the adjustment process the user can insure correction and adjustment of the memory colors contained within the picture to be corrected. In constructing the reference composite only the memory colors contained in the picture to be corrected need be selected from a reference memory color library” (Arazi, col. 6, ll. 68 to col. 7, l. 6). 6. Arazi teaches that “a look-up table may be utilized to modify either the colorant values or the tristimulus sets of appearance values” (Arazi, col. 15, ll. 23-25). Appeal 2011-008432 Application 11/170,946 5 7. Arazi teaches that “memory color areas and the key features may be designated in the displayed reference images in order to guide a user in editing a picture” (Arazi, col. 8, ll. 37-40). 8. Arazi teaches that “‘[d]esignated reference areas or pixels may be chosen by the user one at a time, by sequentially aiming a mouse-driven cursor or the equivalent’” (Arazi, col. 8, ll. 58-60). 9. Asada teaches that the “memory color region LC may be determined so as to have an arbitrary shape. However, in view of the situation in which memory colors in an actual color original are statistically distributed, it is desirable to determine the shape, the size and the position of the memory color region in such a form as to reflect the character of distribution” (Asada, col. 6, ll. 1-7). 10. Asada teaches [I]f a sample pixel having the density values (Bi, Gi, Ri) satisfies the equation (1), the color thereof is regarded as a substantially same color with the memory color. If a relatively small value is employed as the threshold value L2 in the inequality (1), the allowable error is decreased and the criteria for then discriminating memory color from other colors become severe, so that only colors resembling closely the designated memory color are regarded as a substantially same color with the designated memory color. Therefore, it is desirable to select the threshold value L2 while considering a balance between rigorousness in detection of the memory color and the allowable error. (Asada, col. 7, ll. 9-21.) 11. Asada teaches a predetermined color separation is corrected or selected if the percentage of an area having memory colors in a color original is equal to or greater than a threshold value . . . so Appeal 2011-008432 Application 11/170,946 6 that the burden on an operator is reduced, the process is shortened, the work is standardized, and a reproduced image whose finish does not vary even if the operator has no considerable experience is obtained. (Asada, col. 12, ll. 51-61.) Principles of Law “In proceedings before the Patent and Trademark Office, the Examiner bears the burden of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness based upon the prior art.” In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1265 (Fed. Cir. 1992). “The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). “If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, § 103 likely bars its patentability.” Id. at 417. Analysis Claims 1, 12, and 19 Arazi teaches improving color reproduction in a printing system (FF 1) by identifying a test image or “reference picture which includes objects containing memory colors which may appear in the picture to be corrected” (Arazi, col. 6, ll. 60-62; FF 2). Arazi teaches that the “test image may be periodically printed by print engine 106 either automatically or on command and scanned by sensor 108 to measure color densities” (Arazi, col. 15, ll. 11- 16; FF 3). Arazi teaches “to compare the scanner output to a previously stored expected output and to adjust the print engine characteristics in order to stabilize the printer output based on the comparison” (Arazi, col. 15, ll. 16-21; FF 4). Arazi teaches that “a look-up table may be utilized to modify Appeal 2011-008432 Application 11/170,946 7 either the colorant values or the tristimulus sets of appearance values” (Arazi, col. 15, ll. 23-25; FF 6). The Examiner acknowledges that Arazi “fails to teach segmenting the image into a plurality of discrete segments, classifying the segments, and using the classifications to identify at least on memory color” (Ans. 4-5). Asada teaches that the “memory color region LC may be determined so as to have an arbitrary shape. However, in view of the situation in which memory colors in an actual color original are statistically distributed, it is desirable to determine the shape, the size and the position of the memory color region in such a form as to reflect the character of distribution” (Asada, col. 6, ll. 1-7; FF 9). Applying the KSR standard of obviousness to the findings of fact, we conclude that the person of ordinary creativity would have predictably incorporated Asada’s arbitrary shaped memory color regions into Arazi’s method of using color shapes during the printing process to improve the color analysis since Asada teaches a predetermined color separation is corrected or selected if the percentage of an area having memory colors in a color original is equal to or greater than a threshold value . . . so that the burden on an operator is reduced, the process is shortened, the work is standardized, and a reproduced image whose finish does not vary even if the operator has no considerable experience is obtained. (Asada, col. 12, ll. 51-61; FF 11.) Thus, the ordinary artisan interested in improving the color correction of Arazi would have been motivated to use Asada’s memory color separation regions in order to reduce operator burden, speed the process, and obtain standardized images (FF 11). Appeal 2011-008432 Application 11/170,946 8 Appellants “maintain that, because Asada is directed to the pixel-by- pixel processing of an image in a color process scanner, it would not have been obvious (nor predictable) to make the proposed modification/combination” (App. Br. 11). We are not persuaded. Appellants provide no reasons which rebut the Examiner’s finding that “modifying the scanner of the Arazi'546 invention to include the memory color separation taught by Asada'008 thereby allowing for an automated memory color correction (Asada'008 column 1, lines60-68) and increased quality of printing (Asada'008 column 1, lines 25- 30)” (Ans. 12-13). Appellants contend that the “Examiner has incorrectly indicated that Asada teaches ‘segmenting the image into a plurality of discrete segments’ when the teachings at col. 6, line 1 of Asada are related to a memory color region LC (Fig. 4) within a 3-dimensional color space (see col. 5, lines 25- 68), not to a segment of an image” (App. Br. 12). The Examiner responds that The memory color closed region LC which discriminates memory colors in an image from other colors (Asada'008 column 5 line 30-32) reads on the broadest reasonable interpretation of segmenting the image into a plurality of discrete segments. The pixels of the image are discriminated (segmenting) on the basis of memory color region or non memory color region (classified segments). (Ans. 13.) We find that the Examiner has the better position. When claim 1 teaches “segmenting the image into a plurality of discrete segments,” the reasonable interpretation of “segments” encompasses pixels in light of the teaching of the Specification that “[i]terations are carried out on the image Appeal 2011-008432 Application 11/170,946 9 on desired memory colors at the spatial resolution available in the measurement system” (Spec. 3 ¶ 0007). Thus, where the spatial resolution of segments can be in pixels, the pixels are reasonably interpreted as the segments of the image. Claims 3 and 14 Appellants contend that “there is no indication of a region identified as a memory color” (App. Br. 15). The Examiner finds that “Arazi teaches, ‘[d]esignated reference areas or pixels may be chosen by the user one at a time, by sequentially aiming a mouse-driven cursor or the equivalent’” (Ans. 17; citing Arazi, col. 8, ll. 58- 60). We find that the Examiner has the better position. Arazi expressly teaches that “memory color areas and the key features may be designated in the displayed reference images in order to guide a user in editing a picture” (Arazi, col. 8, ll. 37-40; FF 7). As the Examiner has pointed out, Arazi teaches that “‘[d]esignated reference areas or pixels may be chosen by the user one at a time, by sequentially aiming a mouse-driven cursor or the equivalent’” (Arazi, col. 8, ll. 58-60; FF 8). This reasonably teaches “presenting an image for review by a user; and permitting the user to select a region within the image to be identified as a memory color” as required by claims 3 and 14. Claim 5 Appellants contend that “[a]s Arazi does not appear to include the word ‘spectrophotometer,’ Appellants respectfully urge that the limitation of claim 5 cannot be taught by Arazi” (App. Br. 15). Appeal 2011-008432 Application 11/170,946 10 The Examiner finds that the “scanner 100 of Araz'546 [sic] could be a spectrophotometer because a photo detector is taught as being incorporated in the scanning section (column 15, 5-10). A spectrophotometer is reasonably interpreted as a special type of photo detector” (Ans. 18). We find that Appellants have the better position. The Examiner presents no evidence that the photo detector of Arazi is a spectrophotometer or operates in a similar way. See MEHL/Biophile Int’l Corp. v. Milgraum, 192 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“Inherency ... may not be established by probabilities or possibilities. The mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient.”) Claim 6 Appellants contend that a “brief review will establish that there is no teaching that ‘scanning the test image comprises augmenting the scanned image data with location information’ as recited in claim 6” (App. Br. 15). The Examiner finds that “scanning the test image comprises augmenting the scanned image data with location information to read on designation of reference areas or pixels” (Ans. 19). We find that the Examiner has the better position. As noted above, Arazi teaches that “‘[d]esignated reference areas or pixels may be chosen by the user one at a time, by sequentially aiming a mouse-driven cursor or the equivalent’” (Arazi, col. 8, ll. 58-60; FF 8). Such choices within an image would be meaningless if location information was not included in the scanned imaged data. Claim 7 Appellants contend that “multiple proof copies or operator interaction do not teach iteratively repeating a method for dynamically generating a Appeal 2011-008432 Application 11/170,946 11 uniform color object in a printing system. Nor does Asada teach or suggest such a limitation” (App. Br. 16). The Examiner finds that “the iteratively repeating the steps set forth in claim 1 to read on the close-loop feedback proof aspect of Arazi'546. The steps in the Arazi'589 reference are repeated until the desired outcome is realized” (Ans. 20). We find that the Examiner has the better position. The Examiner is relying upon Arazi’s teaching that “several initial copies must be made and the controls adjusted in order to begin to correct the appearance of the output. Often many ‘proofs’ must be made prior to achieving adequate appearance” (Arazi, col. 9, ll. 32-36). This is an express teaching of an iterative type process where the results of the first copy inform the control adjustments used to generate the next copy (see Arazi, col. 9, ll. 32-36). Claims 8, 15, 21, and 22 Appellants contend that these claims “were collectively rejected, albeit failing to identify where a teaching of the distinct limitations of claims 21 and 22 were taught” (App. Br. 16). The Examiner “interprets performing a spatial interpolation of the inverse map using a two-dimensional interpolation to match a larger image resolution to read on the reverse correction made to the reference signal” (Ans. 21). We find that Appellants have the better position. The Examiner does not identify a specific portion of either Arazi or Asada which supports this finding. In the rejection, the Examiner relies upon column 7 of Arazi, but no discussion of “spatial interpolation” is described by Arazi. At best, Arazi teaches adjusting the pictures, but there is no evidence that this occurs by Appeal 2011-008432 Application 11/170,946 12 “spatial interpolation . . . to match a larger image resolution” as required by claim 8. Claims 9, 11, 16, and 18 Appellants contend that “Arazi fails to teach ‘modeling a dynamic behavior of the printing system using a first order linear time invariant finite difference equation, where the difference equation depends on at least a print number and a measured pixel location’” (App. Br. 17). The Examiner finds that a “difference equation is any recurrence relation and in this case, when the lookup table of Arazi'546 is created color values of the input image are related to the color values of the output image” (Ans. 22). We find that Appellants have the better position. Claim 9 requires a “first order linear time invariant finite difference equation.” While it may be possible for the lookup table to represent such a first order equation, the Examiner has not established that the lookup table is inherently and necessarily a first order equation. MEHL/Biophile Int’l, 192 F.3d at 1365. Conclusion of Law The evidence of record supports the Examiner’s conclusion that Arazi and Asada render claims 1, 3, 6, 7, 12, 14, and 19 obvious. The evidence of record does not support the Examiner’s conclusion that Arazi and Asada render claims 5, 8, 9, 11, 15, 16, 18, 21, and 22 obvious. B. 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Arazi, Asada, and Ohkubo Appellants contend that although Ohkubo does disclose a Jacobian matrix (J) for determining color signals (CMY), Appellants continue to urge that such a teaching fails to give rise to the recited limitations of claims 10 Appeal 2011-008432 Application 11/170,946 13 or 17; for example, a Jacobian matrix that is a sensitivity matrix, and where the difference equation is characterized in terms of such a matrix (App. Br. 19). The Examiner finds that “Applicant’s arguments amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references” (Ans. 24). We find that the Examiner has the better position. Appellants acknowledge that Ohkubo teaches a “Jacobian matrix” (App. Br. 19). The language of claim 10 clearly indicates that the difference equation of claim 9 “is characterized in terms of a Jacobian matrix,” so that the Examiner may reasonably find that the “Jacobian matrix” taught by Ohkubo inherently satisfies the sensitivity and difference equation requirements of claims 9 and 10. Where the Examiner establishes a reasonable assertion of inherency and thereby evinces that a claimed process appears to be identical to a process disclosed by the prior art, the burden is properly shifted to the applicant to show that they are not. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 708 (Fed. Cir. 1990). No such evidence is presented. SUMMARY In summary, we affirm the rejection of claims 1, 3, 6, 7, 12, 14, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Arazi and Asada. Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1), we also affirm the rejection of claim 4 as this claim was not argued separately. Appeal 2011-008432 Application 11/170,946 14 We reverse the rejection of claims 5, 8, 9, 11, 15, 16, 18, 21, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Arazi and Asada. We affirm the rejection of claims 10 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Arazi, Asada, and Ohkubo. 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-IN-PART cdc Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation