Ex Parte Wagner et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 13, 2016

12871610 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 13, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/871,610 08/30/2010 David Wagner
76073 7590 06/14/2016
InfoPrint Solutions/ Blakely
1279 Oakmead Parkway
Sunnyvale, CA 94085-4040
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.
8185Pl01 2049
EXAMINER
CHACKO, SUNIL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2674
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
06/14/2016 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 DAVID WAGNER, LARRY M. ERNST, and JOS. KIRKENAER
Appeal2014-007173
Application 12/871,610
Technology Center 2600
Before KAMRAN JIV ANI, MONICA S. ULLAGADDI, and
SCOTT E. BAIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
JIVANI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's final decisions rejecting claims 1-10 and 12-35, which are all
the claims pending in the present patent application. Claim 11 has been
cancelled. App. Br. 3. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellants identify InfoPrint Solutions Company LLC as the real party in
interest. App. Br. 3.
Appeal2014-007173
Application 12/871,610
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The present application relates to substituting colors in a printing
system. Spec. i-f 1.
Claim 1 is illustrative (disputed limitation emphasized):
1. A computer generated method comprising:
examining a print job file to retrieve a source
color to be mapped from a source color space to a
device color space;
selecting a starting color based on values
received via a user interface;
generating a set of color patches based on the
starting color; and
selecting a first patch in the set of color
patches as a replacement color.
The Rejections
Claims 1-3, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12-14, 16, 17-19, 23, 26-28, and 30-35 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Hinds (US 7,092,119 Bl; Aug. 15,
2006) and Olson (US 6,381,036 Bl; Apr. 30, 2002)
Claims 4, 5, 8, 15, and 29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
over Hinds, Olson, and Klassen (US 2007/0146742 Al; June 28, 2007).
Claims 20-22, 24, and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
over Hinds, Olson, and Gill (US 6,633,666 B2; Oct. 14, 2003).
ANALYSIS
Based on Appellants' arguments, we decide the appeal on the basis of
representative claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2012).
2
Appeal2014-007173
Application 12/871,610
Appellants contend the Examiner errs in citing Hinds as teaching or
suggesting the disputed limitation of claim 1 because Hinds' "generated
calibration file cannot reasonably be construed as a print job file." App.
Br. 10; Reply Br. 2-3. Appellants contend, "Hinds fails to disclose or
suggest a process of retrieving a source color from the calibration file."
App. Br. 10.
We have considered Appellants' arguments in the Appeal Brief and
Reply Brief, as well as the Examiner's Answer thereto. We disagree with
Appellants' arguments. Rather, we agree with, and adopt as our own, the
Examiner's findings and reasons as set forth in the Final Action and the
Answer. We further emphasize the following.
Appellants' arguments fail to persuade us because they are not
responsive to the Examiner's findings. The Examiner relies on Hinds'
examining of printed color patches, not its calibration file, as teaching or
suggesting the claimed examining a print job file. Final Act. 3; Ans. 3.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection
of claim 1. App. Br. 8-10. Appellants advance no further arguments on any
other pending claims. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejections of claims 2-10 and 12-35.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decisions rejecting claims 1-10 and 12-35.
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 ). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
3
Appeal2014-007173
Application 12/871,610
AFFIRMED
4