Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 27, 2021

2020001145 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 27, 2021)

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.
15/761,959 03/21/2018 Aneesh Rangnekar 84942098 1009
22879 7590 04/27/2021
HP Inc.
3390 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 35
Fort Collins, CO 80528-9544
EXAMINER
BARNES, TED W
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2675
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/27/2021 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):
ipa.mail@hp.com
jessica.pazdan@hp.com
yvonne.bailey@hp.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ANEESH RANGNEKAR, PETER BAUER,
BRENT M. BRADBURN, MARK SHAW,
ELI SABER, and SANKETH MOUDGALYA

Appeal 2020-001145
Application 15/761,959
Technology Center 2600

Before JEAN R. HOMERE, IRVIN E. BRANCH, and
JAMES B. ARPIN, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE1
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant appeals from the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–15, all of the claims pending.2 Appeal
Br. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 We refer to the Specification filed March 21, 2018 (“Spec.”); the Final
Office Action, mailed Apr. 15, 2019 (“Final Act.”); the Appeal Brief, filed
July 30, 2019 (“Appeal Br.”); the Examiner’s Answer, mailed Oct. 3, 2019
(“Ans.”), and the Reply Brief, filed Nov. 27, 2019 (“Reply Br.”).
2 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a).
Appellant identifies Hewlett Packard Development Company, LP as the real
party in interest. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2020-001145
Application 15/761,959

2
II. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claimed subject matter relates to a method and tri-stimulus light
source system using received pixel values of two colors (e.g., red and blue)
to interpolate the missing pixel values of a third color (e.g., green). Spec.
¶ 7. Figure 2, reproduced and discussed below, is useful for understanding
the claimed subject matter:

Figure 2 above illustrates computing device (212) including processor (214)
executing code stored in memory (218) to interpolate pixel values of a third
color based on received pixel values of the two other colors in the tri-
stimulus light. Id. ¶¶ 19, 20.
A scanner uses a tri-stimulus light source to strobe red, green, and
blue (RGB) colors respectively in three exposures during a single pass to
record a minimum amount of information about a physical object being
scanned, as well as to reconstruct color data and generate an accurate digital
image of the scanned physical object by shifting the red and blue scan line
Appeal 2020-001145
Application 15/761,959

3
exposures relative to the green scan line exposure. Spec. ¶ 7. In particular,
upon receiving a plurality of scan lines, each captured using only two of
three different colors of light from a scanner, a processor uses the received
pixel values for the two colors (e.g., red and blue) to interpolate the pixel
values for the third one (e.g., green) of the three different colors for each
scan line to produce a color map, and display information relating to an
image, including the received pixel values and the interpolated pixel values.
Id. ¶ 20.
Claims 1 and 7 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below with
disputed limitations emphasized, is illustrative:
1. A system, comprising:
a processor; and
a memory storing program code executable by the
processor to:
receive a plurality of scan lines each captured using only
two of three different colors of lights from a scanner, wherein
each scan line comprises received pixel values for the two
different colors of lights used to illuminate the plurality of scan
lines;
interpolate, using the received pixel values for the two
different colors, pixel values for the third one of the three
different colors for each scan line to result in a color map; and
display information relating to an image including the
received pixel values and the interpolated pixel values for the
three different colors for the plurality of scan lines.
Appeal Br. 8 (Claims App.) (emphasis added).
Appeal 2020-001145
Application 15/761,959

4
III. REFERENCES
The Examiner relies upon the following references.3
Name Reference Date
Malvar US 2005/0200733 A1 Sept. 15, 2005
Ali US 2010/0254630 A1 Oct. 7, 2010
Depalov US 2015/0124300 A1 May 7, 2015
IV. REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejects claims 1–15 as follows:
Claims 1–13 stand rejected as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over the
combined teachings of Depalov and Malvar. Final Act. 6–14.
Claims 14 and 15 stand rejected as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103
over the combined teachings of Depalov, Malvar, and Ali. Id. at 14–16.
V. ANALYSIS
We consider Appellant’s arguments seriatim, as they are presented in
the Appeal Brief, pages 4–7.4 We are unpersuaded by Appellant’s
contentions. Except as otherwise indicated herein below, we adopt as our
own the findings and reasons set forth in the Final Action, and the
Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellant’s Appeal Brief. Final Act. 2–
17; Ans. 9–16. However, we highlight and address specific arguments and
findings for emphasis as follows.

3 All reference citations are to the first named inventor only.
4 We have considered in this Decision only those arguments Appellant
actually raised in the Briefs. Arguments not made are forfeited. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2017).
Appeal 2020-001145
Application 15/761,959

5
Appellant argues that the Examiner errs in finding that the
combination of Depalov and Malvar teaches or suggests the following
limitations:
interpolate, using the received pixel values for the two different
colors, pixel values for the third one of the three different colors
for each scan line to result in a color map,
as recited in independent claim 1. Appeal Br. 4. In particular, Appellant
argues that Malvar’s disclosure of obtaining two missing colors from a
single color does not teach or suggest interpolating a color from two other
colors, and does not thereby cure the admitted deficiencies of Depalov. Id. at
4–5 (citing Malvar ¶¶ 3, 4). According to Appellant, the proposed
combination of Depalov and Malvar would at best result in interpolating two
color values from the pixel value of a single color as opposed to
interpolating the pixel value of a single color based on the received pixel
values of two different colors. Id. at 5.
Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive of reversible Examiner error
because they are tantamount to individual attacks against Depalov and
Malvar, as opposed to addressing the combined teachings of cited
references, as relied upon by the Examiner in the rejection of claim 1. One
cannot show non-obviousness by attacking the references or the
embodiments thereof individually when the rejections are based on the
combined teachings of the references and/or embodiments. In re Merck &
Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986); see also In re Keller, 642
F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981).
The Examiner relies upon Depalov’s disclosure of reconstructing a
color from two other colors. Final Act. 6–7, Ans. 9–10 (citing Depalov ¶ 15,
Figs. 2–3). The Examiner further relies upon Malvar to teach reconstruction
Appeal 2020-001145
Application 15/761,959

6
by way of interpolation of colors (i.e., using received pixel values of two
colors to interpolate a missing pixel value another color). Final Act. 7 (citing
Malvar ¶ 181, fig. 6A), Ans. 9–10.5 More particularly, the Examiner finds
that because Malvar discloses interpolating pixel values for two different
colors, Malvar necessarily teaches interpolating pixel values for one color.
Ans. 10. In support of the proposed combination, the Examiner provides the
motivation “to obtain a high quality estimate of a missing pixel color at a
pixel image.” Final Act. 9 (citing Malvar ¶ 2). We agree with the Examiner
that the interpolation discussed in the Specification (i.e., using the pixel
values of the colors red and blue to interpolate the pixel values of the color
green) is similar to the demosaicing interpolation technique discussed in
Malvar. Ans. 10–15 (citing Spec. ¶¶ 34, 35, Malvar ¶¶ 5, 6). Further, we find
the Examiner’s proposed combination of the cited teachings Depalov and
Malvar is no more than a simple arrangement of old elements with each
performing the same function it had been known to perform, yielding no
more than what one would expect from such an arrangement. See KSR, 550
U.S. at 416. Therefore, the ordinarily skilled artisan, being “a person of
ordinary creativity, not an automaton,” would have been able to fit the
teachings of the cited references together like pieces of a puzzle to
predictably result in a scanner that processes the pixel values of two received

5 “The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary
reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary
reference . . . . Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the
references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.” Keller,
642 F.2d at 425. “The obviousness analysis cannot be confined by [the]
formalistic conception of the words teaching, suggestion, and motivation, or
by overemphasis on the importance of . . . the explicit content of issued
patents.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 419 (2007).
Appeal 2020-001145
Application 15/761,959

7
colors to interpolate the pixel values of a missing value third color in a tri-
stimulus light source. Id. at 420–21, Ans. 5.
Because Appellant has not demonstrated that the Examiner’s
proffered combination would have been “uniquely challenging or difficult
for one of ordinary skill in the art,” we agree with the Examiner that the
proposed modification would have been within the purview of the ordinarily
skilled artisan. See Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d
1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 418). Consequently, we
are satisfied that, on this record, the Examiner has established by a
preponderance of the evidence that the combination of Depalov and Malvar
teaches or suggests the disputed claim limitations. Because we are not
persuaded of Examiner error, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1
as unpatentable over the combination of Depalov and Malvar.
Regarding the rejections of claims 2–15, Appellant does not present
separate patentability arguments or reiterates substantially the same
arguments as those discussed above for the patentability of claim 1. Appeal
Br. 7. As such, claims 2–15 fall therewith. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
VI. CONCLUSION
For the above reasons, we affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims
1–15.
Appeal 2020-001145
Application 15/761,959

8
VII. DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35
U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–13 103 Depalov, Malvar 1–13
14, 15 103 Depalov, Malvar, Ali 14, 15
Overall
Outcome 1–15

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).
AFFIRMED