Ex Parte Zhang et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 19, 2012

10923116 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 19, 2012)

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.
10/923,116 08/20/2004 Yeqing Zhang A4073USNP/XERZ200769US01 3314
62095 7590 11/19/2012
FAY SHARPE / XEROX - ROCHESTER
1228 EUCLID AVENUE, 5TH FLOOR
THE HALLE BUILDING
CLEVELAND, OH 44115
EXAMINER
ZHU, RICHARD Z
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2675
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/19/2012 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 YEQING ZHANG, ROBERT PAUL LOCE, and BEILEI XU
____________

Appeal 2010-006604
Application 10/923,116
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before DENISE M. POTHIER, STANLEY M. WEINBERG,
and DAVID C. McKONE, Administrative Patent Judges.

McKONE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-24, which constitute all the claims pending in this application. See
App. Br. 3.
1
The Examiner withdraws the rejection of claim 4. See Ans. 34.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm in part.

1
Throughout this opinion, we refer to the Appeal Brief filed January 23,
2009, the Examiner’s Answer mailed December 21, 2009, and the Reply
Brief filed February 18, 2010.
Appeal 2010-006604
Application 10/923,116

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention relates to compensating for imperfections in
image rendering systems (e.g., compensating for streaking or artifacts in
printing by an ink jet printer). See Spec. ¶¶ 0034-37. Claims 1 and 20,
which are illustrative of the invention, read as follows:
1. A method for compensating for a spatial
non-uniformity in an image rendering device, the method
comprising:
predetermining a spatially dependent
compensating tone reproduction curve for the rendering
device;
receiving a halftoned image including a plurality
of respective halftone pixels having respective halftone
pixel values, the respective halftone pixels being
associated with respective halftone pixel positions in the
image; and
determining respective compensated values for the
respective halftone pixels based on the respective
halftone pixel positions, the spatially dependent
compensating tone reproduction curve and associated
respective halftone pixel values.
20. A system operative to compensate a
halftoned image for spatial non-uniformity in an image
rendering device, the system comprising:
a modification value determiner that is operative to
receive respective pixel position information regarding a
respective pixel of a halftoned image, and determine a
spatially dependent modification value from a
compensating tone reproduction curve associated with
the image rendering device based on the pixel position
information from the received halftoned image data;
Appeal 2010-006604
Application 10/923,116

3
a combiner that is operative to receive the spatially
dependent modification value from the modification
value determiner, receive a respective pixel value
associated with the respective pixel of the halftoned
image and combine the respective pixel value associated
with the respective pixel with the modification value,
thereby generating a combined value; and
a quantizer that is operative to receive the
combined value from the combiner and to quantize the
combined value, thereby producing a compensated
halftone pixel value associated with the respective pixel
position of the respective pixel of the halftoned image.

THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies on the following prior art in rejecting the claims:
Knox US 5,649,073 July 15, 1997
Loce US 2003/0090729 A1 May 15, 2003
Av-Shalom US 6,704,123 B1 Mar. 9, 2004
Shaw US 6,792,160 B2 Sept. 14, 2004
(filed July 27, 2001)
Claims 1-3, 5, 11, 13, 15, 16, and 20-23 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a) or (e) as anticipated by Av-Shalom. See Ans. 3-13.
Claims 6 and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatenable over Av-Shalom and Shaw. See Ans. 14-16.
Claims 8-10 and 17-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatenable over Av-Shalom, Shaw, and Knox. See Ans. 16-22.
Claims 12, 14, and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatenable over Av-Shalom and Loce. See Ans. 22-23.

Appeal 2010-006604
Application 10/923,116

4
ISSUES
Regarding independent claims 1 and 15, the Examiner found that
Av-Shalom’s “calibration curve” is a “spatially dependent compensating
tone reproduction curve” (“TRC”). See Ans. 4 (citing Av-Shalom, col. 5, l.
50-col. 6, l. 5; col. 7, ll. 20-33); 9-10 (same). Among other arguments,
Appellants contend that this calibration curve is not “spatially dependent.”
App. Br. 19. Thus, for claims 1 and 15, the issue is whether the Examiner
erred in finding that Av-Shalom discloses a “spatially dependent
compensating tone reproduction curve.”
Regarding independent claim 20, the Examiner found that Av-Shalom
discloses “determin[ing] a spatially dependent modification value from a
compensating tone reproduction curve,” Ans. 11, and “a combiner . . . that is
operative to receive the spatially dependent modification value from the
modification value determiner . . . ,” Ans. 11-12. Appellants contest these
findings, arguing that “Av-Shalom does not disclose or suggest spatially
dependent tone reproduction curves or determining a spatially dependent
modification value therefrom,” and that “Av-Shalom does not disclose or
suggest that the processing unit receives a spatially dependent
modification value that is determined from a compensating tone
reproduction curve based on pixel position information.” App. Br. 25, 26
(emphases omitted). Thus, for claim 20, the issue is whether the Examiner
erred in finding that Av-Shalom discloses (1) “determin[ing] a spatially
dependent modification value from a compensating tone reproduction
curve”; and (2) “a combiner that is operative to receive the spatially
dependent modification value from the modification value determiner . . . .”
See id.
Appeal 2010-006604
Application 10/923,116

5
ANALYSIS
REJECTION OF CLAIMS 1-3, 5, 11, 13, 15, 16, AND 20-23 UNDER 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(a) OR 102(e)
Claims 1-3, 5, 11, 13, 15, and 16
For independent claims 1 and 15, the Examiner cites to Av-Shalom
(col. 5, l. 50-col. 6, l. 5) as disclosing a “spatially dependent compensating
tone reproduction curve.” See Ans. 4. Av-Shalom describes “descreening”
an original image of “halftone”
2
pixels to create a continuous tone, or
“contone”
3
image. Av-Shalom, col. 6, ll. 16-28. The descreened original
image is calibrated using a “calibration curve” for a target device, such as a
printer. See Av-Shalom, col. 7, ll. 20-28. Probabilities of changing
individual pixels (“on” to “off” or vice versa) in regions of the original
halftone image are determined by comparing the calibrated and original
descreened images. See Av-Shalom, col. 7, ll. 45-56; col. 5, ll. 56-64.
The Examiner finds that Av-Shalom’s “calibration curve” is a
“spatially dependent compensating tone reproduction curve.” Ans. 4.
Appellants disagree, arguing that a TRC “is spatially dependent when
different compensation values may be provided for a given input value when
the given input value is from different positions in image rendering space.”
Reply Br. 3 (emphases in original). Av-Shalom’s “calibration curve,” in
contrast, is “an ordinary calibration curve whereby each portion of the
halftone image is processed according to pixel values alone, independent of

2
In halftoning, approximate tone values are created with a region of binary
“on” or “off” pixels, where the percentage of “on” pixels in the cell
determines the perceived tone. Av-Shalom, col. 1, l. 46-col. 2, l. 3.
3
In a contone image, each pixel can take on a range of tones (e.g., 256
shades of gray for an 8-bit pixel). See Av-Shalom, col. 6, ll. 25-28.
Appeal 2010-006604
Application 10/923,116

6
the position of the pixels in image space.” App. Br. 19. Thus, the fact “that
the function [applied by the calibration curve] is read to obtain the desired
tone at each spatial point does not disclose or suggest that the location of
each spatial point influences the value of the function.” App. Br. 20.
Citing Paragraphs 51, 74, and 75 of the Specification, the Examiner
states that “a spatially dependent tone reproduction curve is spatially
dependent because it generates a modified or compensated value on the basis
of : a. Estimated gray value of respective input pixel; b. The position of the
pixel (In the context of the claim, halftone pixel).” Ans. 24. Therefore,
according to the Examiner, it is sufficient to show that Av-Shalom’s curve
satisfies two criteria (1) “an estimated gray value of respective input halftone
pixel [is] taken into consideration” and (2) “the position of the halftone pixel
[is] being taken into consideration when the curve of Av-Shalom generates a
compensating tone.” Ans. 24-25. The Examiner then constructs a
hypothetical example showing that, in Av-Shalom, the input value provided
to the calibration curve is the average tone value for a specific region, and
different regions will have different average tone values. See Ans. 26-28.
“As a result, information indicative of the respective halftone positions are
being considered by Av-Shalom’s calibration curve.” Ans. 28 (emphases in
original).
Even if we accept the Examiner’s construction that “a spatially
dependent compensating tone reproduction curve” must satisfy the two
above criteria, Av-Shalom’s compensation curve does not meet the test set
forth by the Examiner. Av-Shalom states that its calibration curve “specifies
the density of ‘on’ pixels (i.e. number of ‘on’ pixels per unit area) required
to obtain a desired tone” and that “[t]he calibration curve may be a function
Appeal 2010-006604
Application 10/923,116

7
of the desired tone.” Av-Shalom, col. 7, ll. 26-30. There is no discussion
that the values on this curve depend on a pixel position (i.e., criteria 2); it
discusses generating an output tone value based on the input tone value. See
id.
The Examiner’s position essentially is that Av-Shalom’s descreening
process is spatially dependent because the process produces different
average tone values for different regions of an image. See Ans. 24-28.
While this may be the case, Appellants correctly point out that the
descreening process takes place before any application of the calibration
curve. See Reply Br. 3; Av-Shalom, Fig. 3. The calibration curve then
generates output tone values based simply on the input tone values,
irrespective of what regions those tone values are from. See Reply Br. 3;
Av-Shalom, col. 7, ll. 20-33. Thus, based on the evidence in the record, the
Examiner has failed to demonstrate that Av-Shalom’s calibration curve
necessarily considers the position of the halftone pixel when the curve
generates a compensating tone.
While the overall process of calibrating an image in Av-Shalom may
produce different compensation results for different image regions, and in
that sense may be spatially dependent, Av-Shalom’s calibration curve itself
is not spatially dependent. We disagree with the Examiner’s finding that
Av-Shalom discloses a “spatially dependent compensating tone reproduction
curve” as recited in claim 1.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of (1) claim
1; (2) claim 15, which includes a recitation substantially the same as that we
find not to be disclosed in Av-Shalom; (3) claims 2, 3, 5, 11, and 13, which
depend on claim 1; and (4) claim 16, which depends on claim 15.
Appeal 2010-006604
Application 10/923,116

8
Claims 20-23
Unlike claim 1, claim 20 does not recite a “spatially dependent
compensating tone reproduction curve.” Instead, it recites determining a
spatially dependent modification value for a pixel from a compensating tone
reproduction curve that is not specified as spatially dependent. While claim
20 recites determining a modification value “based on the pixel position
information,” there is no recitation in the claim language that the results of
the compensating TRC must depend on pixel position.
The Examiner finds that “information indicative of the respective
halftone positions are being considered by Av-Shalom’s calibration curve.”
Ans. 27-28 (emphases in original). While, as stated above, Av-Shalom’s
calibration curve is not itself dependent on a position or space, we agree
with the Examiner that the input values to Av-Shalom’s calibration curve
depend on average tone values on a region-by-region basis, and thus the
process’ outputs indirectly consider or depend on pixel position. See Ans.
25-28. Also, because the pixel position is accounted for, an output from this
overall process can be considered “a spatially dependent modification
value.” Giving “pixel position information” its broadest reasonable
interpretation in claim 20, Av-Shalom’s overall compensation decision takes
into account pixel position. See Ans. 28. Thus, we are not persuaded by
Appellants’ argument that “[t]he cited discussion of processing tone
information from each spatial point in the image does not disclose or
suggest that the location information of those spatial points is considered
when determining a compensation value,” App. Br. 25 (emphasis in
original).
Appeal 2010-006604
Application 10/923,116

9
For the same reason, we reject Appellants’ argument that Av-Shalom
does not disclose the claimed “combiner” of claim 20 because it “does not
disclose or suggest that the processing unit receives a spatially dependent
modification value that is determined from a compensating tone
reproduction curve based on pixel position information.” App. Br. 26
(emphases in original).
Further, we note that Appellants’ argument that “Av-Shalom does not
disclose or suggest spatially dependent tone reproduction curves or
determining a spatially dependent modification value therefrom,” id.
(emphases in original), is not commensurate in scope with the claim
language, which does not recite a “spatially dependent” compensating TRC.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 20.
Appellants do not separately argue claims 21-23, which depend on claim 20.
See App. Br. 26. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims
21-23.

REJECTION OF CLAIMS 6 AND 7 UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Claims 6 and 7 depend on claim 1. Thus, each includes a recitation
substantially the same as that we find to not be taught or suggested by the
cited prior art. The Examiner also does not rely on Shaw to cure the above-
noted deficiency. See Ans. 14-16. Accordingly, we do not sustain the
rejection of claims 6 and 7.

REJECTION OF CLAIMS 8-10 AND 17-19 UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Claims 8-10 depend on claim 1 and claims 17-19 depend on claim 15.
Thus, each includes a recitation substantially the same as that we find to not
Appeal 2010-006604
Application 10/923,116

10
be taught or suggested by the cited prior art. The Examiner also does not
rely on Shaw or Knox to cure the above-noted deficiency. See Ans. 16-22.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 8-10 and 17-19.

REJECTION OF CLAIMS 12, 14, AND 24 UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Claims 12 and 14
Claims 12 and 14 depend on claim 1. Thus, each includes a recitation
substantially the same as that we find to not be taught or suggested by the
cited prior art. The Examiner also does not rely on Loce to cure the above-
noted deficiency. See Ans. 22-23. Accordingly, we do not sustain the
rejection of claims 12 and 14.

Claim 24
Claim 24 depends on claim 20. Appellants do not separately argue
claim 24. See App. Br. 26. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 24 for the same reasons as claim 20.

ORDER
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-3 and 5-19 is
reversed. The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 20-24 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)(1). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2010).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

rwk