Ex Parte Mestha et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 11, 2013

11170946 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 11, 2013)

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