Ex Parte Qiao

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 30, 2017

12338829 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 30, 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.
12/338,829 12/18/2008 Yue Qiao BLD9-2008-0023-US1 6103
50441 7590 04/03/2017
DUFT BORNSEN & FETTIG, LLP
1526 SPRUCE STREET
SUITE 302
BOULDER, CO 80302
EXAMINER
ZHU, RICHARD Z
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2675
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/03/2017 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 @ dbflaw. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte YUE QIAO
Appeal 2014-000043
Application 12/338,8291
Technology Center 2600
Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., TREVOR M. JEFFERSON, and
KEVIN C. TROCK, Administrative Patent Judges.
JEFFERSON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
1 The Real Party in Interest is InfoPrint Solutions Company, LLC. App.
Br. 3.
Appeal 2014-000043
Application 12/338,829
STATEMENT OF THE CASE2
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1,
4—7, 9, 11—13, 15, and 17—19. Claims 2, 3, 8, 14, and 16 were cancelled.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Introduction
The claims are directed to an optimized color conversion. Spec.,
Abstract. Claims 1, 9, and 15 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below,
is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method of converting image data to a color space of an
output imaging device, the method comprising:
identifying color regions in the image data;
identifying portions of the color regions that overlap in the
image data;
processing the overlapping portions of the color regions to
remove abrupt transitions between the overlapping portions of
the color regions; and
converting color values in the color regions to the color
space of the output imaging device based on a plurality of
numerical models.
References
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Gwaltney US
Kuo US
Dalai US
Qiao 965 US
6,456,394 Sept. 24, 2002
7,777,915 Aug. 17,2010
2007/0058222 A1 Mar. 15, 2007
2007/0097965 A1 May 3, 2007
2 Throughout the decision, we refer to the Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“App.
Br.,” filed Apr. 11, 2013) and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed June
26, 2013).
2
Appeal 2014-000043
Application 12/338,829
Qiao, et al, Developing a Computational Radial Basis Function
(RBF) Architecture for Nonlinear Scattered Color Data, 22nd International
Conference on Digital Printing Technologies, Society for Imaging Science
and Technology, 374—377 (September 2006).
Rejections
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 1, 5, 9, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kuo, Gwaltney, and Dalai. Final Act. 8—18.
Claims 3, 4, 13, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Kuo, Gwaltney, Dalai, and Qiao. Final Act. 18—19.
Claims 6,1, 11, 12, 17, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Kuo, Dalai, Qiao 965, and Qiao. Final Act. 19—
20.
ANAFYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
argument the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellant’s
conclusions. We adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by
the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 8—20)
and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in
response to Appellant’s Appeal Brief (Ans. 3—10) and concur with the
conclusions reached by the Examiner. We highlight the following for
emphasis.
Appellant argues that “[njothing in the prior art or the cited references
teaches a color conversion process that optimizes overlapping portions of
color regions to remove abrupt transitions between the overlapping portions
of the color regions.” App. Br. 6. Appellant contends that Kuo, which
3
Appeal 2014-000043
Application 12/338,829
calibrates a scanner that may be used to improve color conversion, does not
disclose a color conversion process that converts image data to a color space
of an output imaging device. App. Br. 7. Unlike the claims, which require
“converting image data to the color space of an output device,” Appellant
argues that Kuo maps from RGB color space to a Lab color space, which is
perceptual color and not used by output devices. App. Br. 7.
Appellant contends that “Kuo also fails to disclose optimizing
overlapping portions of color regions to remove abrupt transitions between
the overlapping portions of the color regions” as required in the independent
claims. App. Br. 9. Appellant contends that Gwaltney also fails to disclose
optimizing overlapping portions of color regions because the color regions
in Gwaltney do not overlap. App. Br. 9 (citing Gwaltney 8:9—9:17, Fig. 6
(item 18, 90), claim 1). Further, Appellant contends, Qiao does not disclose
optimization of overlapping regions. App. Br. 10.
Appellant also argues the Examiner has failed to provide an
articulated reasoning with rational underpinning to support the legal
conclusion of obviousness. App. Br. 10.
Although Appellant admits that Dalai discloses that Gwaltney can be
for reducing the effect of dark areas from trapping and is incorporated by
reference in its entirety into Dalai, (App. Br. 11; Dalai 0058), Appellant
argues that:
Kuo, Gwaltney, and Dalai all fail to show, either alone or in
combination, the optimization of overlapping portions of color
regions to remove abrupt transitions between the overlapping
portions of the color regions. This limitation is simply not stated
unless one selects individual words from the three references to
form a sentence. That is not determining the scope and contents
of the prior art and ascertaining the differences between the prior
4
Appeal 2014-000043
Application 12/338,829
art and the claims in issue, as required by Graham v. John Deere.
That requires more than the mere identification of similar words.
In fact, none of the references are even color conversion systems.
Rather, they all relate to calibration systems that improve color
conversion processes.
App. Br. 11.
The Examiner finds that Kuo “discloses applying a progressive
technique containing a global low degree multidimensional mapping and
local mapping accuracy refinement to the identified regions of interests (Col.
8, Rows 50-62 and Col., Rows 3-6) to map the RGB values of the scanner
into LAB values.” Ans. 5 (citing Kuo, 8:40—62, 8:35—42; 11:3—6). The
Examiner finds Kuo’s teaching of a process that converts or maps scanner
RGB color values to printer CIELAB values, and optimizes its mapping
accuracy using a radial basis function during the conversion teaches
mapping “consistent with [Appellant’s] definition of color transformation.”
App. Br. 6. Furthermore, Kuo is not limited to visual color perception
mapping, the Examiner finds (App. Br. 7), but instead expressly discloses
“automatically creating] the color mapping from the scanner RGB to printer
CIELAB (or XYZ).” Kuo, 12:25-26.
We agree with the Examiner. We first note that Appellant discusses
claim 1 as it relates to the prior art (App. Br. 6), but proceeds to only
generally discuss the cited prior art references as they relate to Appellant’s
“claims” (see, e.g. App. Br. 8) without specific reference to individual
claims. Where an Appellant’s remarks do not point to any specific language
within the claims to distinguish over the prior art, those remarks amount to a
general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention. Such
allegations will not be considered an argument for separate patentability. 37
5
Appeal 2014-000043
Application 12/338,829
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(vii) (2007). Thus, Appellant’s arguments stand or fall
with claim 1.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the references
teach away from each other because they conflate discussion of non­
overlapping and over-lapping regions together. App. Br. 8. We do not find
that the technical discussions in Kuo, Dalai, and Gwaltney constitute
teaching away, as they do not criticize, discredit or discourage their
combined solution. See In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201(Fed. Cir. 2004).
Indeed, Dalai expressly suggests the trapping method disclosed in Gwaltney
and incorporates it by reference. Dalai 10058
We are also not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the asserted
references do not teach optimization, as the Examiner has provided
persuasive evidence that Dalai and Gwaltney teach optimization processes
for color transition areas, which are discussed in Kuo. Ans. 8—10 (citing
Dalai 3—5, 58, Fig. 1 (items 108, 110, 114); Kuo, 10:60-63; Gwaltney,
Fig. 6, 8:10-42, 8:55-61, 8:65-67.
The Examiner has provided an articulated reason with rational
underpinning that Dalai and Gwaltney address the color transition area
discussed in Kuo, which is directed to color conversion between devices.
Ans. 9—10. Appellant has not provided sufficient or persuasive evidence and
argument to show that Kuo does not disclose color conversion or that
Gwaltney and Dalai do not discuss optimization of overlapping color areas.
We agree with the Examiner’s findings that Kuo, Gwaltney, and Dalai teach
the limitations of claims 1, 5, 9, and 15. Ans. 5—7.
We are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding that claims 1, 5,
9, and 15 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) over Kuo, Gwaltney,
6
Appeal 2014-000043
Application 12/338,829
and Dalai; claims 3,4, 13, and 19 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103(a)
over Kuo, Gwaltney, Dalai, and Qiao; and claims 6, 7, 11, 12, 17, and 18 are
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Kuo, Dalai, Qiao 965, and Qiao.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 4—7, 9, 11—13,
15, and 17-19
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 4—7, 9, 11—13, 15, and 17—19 is
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)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
7