Mary Rose. Rice et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 30, 2019

14704708 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 30, 2019)

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.
14/704,708 05/05/2015 Mary Rose Rice 5037P-000001-US-COL 2561
142312 7590 09/30/2019
Harness Dickey (Masco)
P.O. BOX 828
BLOOMFIELD HILLS, MI 48303
EXAMINER
MA, TIZE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2613
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/30/2019 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):
mdoerr@hdp.com
troymailroom@hdp.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte MARY ROSE RICE, DAMIEN REYNOLDS, and
MARC WEBB
____________

Appeal 2017-007640
Application 14/704,708
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before JEAN R. HOMERE, ADAM J. PYONIN, and
KAMRAN JIVANI, Administrative Patent Judges.

JIVANI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s final rejections of claims 1–5, 8–13, and 16–34, which constitute
all the claims pending in this application. Claims 6, 7, 14 and 15 have been
cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.

1 Appellants identify Behr Process Corporation as the real party in interest.
App. Br. 3.
Appeal 2017-007640
Application 14/704,708

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The present patent application relates to a distributed system and
method for aiding consumers in selecting complementary paint colors.
Spec. ¶ 2.
Claim 1 is reproduced below with formatting and bracketed material
added:
1. A system comprising:
a server configured to provide a web site application to a
remote computing device over the Internet, the web site
application being configured to enable the remote computing
device
to receive a starting paint color selected from a plurality of
paint colors via an input device,
to display on a display device a color palette including the
starting paint color and a plurality of coordinating paint colors
for the starting paint color,
to receive a selection of a type of interior room of a house
from a plurality of interior room types including at least one of a
living room, a dining room, a kitchen, a bathroom, and a
bedroom,
[L1] to display a plurality of interior room templates
corresponding to the selected type of interior room, each interior
room template being preformatted to include a plurality of
predetermined separate elements for selection including at least
one of a wall, a trim, a door, a floor, and a ceiling,
to receive a selection of an interior room template from the
plurality of interior room templates,
to receive a selection of a predetermined separate element
from the plurality of predetermined separate elements associated
with the selected interior room template,
[L2] to display on the display device a first simulated
environment showing the selected interior room template with at
least one paint color selected from the starting paint color and the
Appeal 2017-007640
Application 14/704,708

3
plurality of coordinating paint colors on a surface of the selected
predetermined separate element of the selected interior room
template,
to receive a picture of an interior room uploaded to the
remote computing device by a user of the remote computing
device,
to display on the display device a second simulated
environment showing the interior room from the picture with a
paint color selected from the plurality of paint colors on at least
one surface of the interior room, the at least one surface of the
interior room including at least one of a wall surface, a trim
surface, a door surface, a floor surface, and a ceiling surface of
the interior room, and
to store at least one of the first simulated environment and
the second simulated environment on the server.

REFERENCES
Ringland et al. US 5,751,829 May 12, 1998
Massengill US 2002/0064302 A1 May 30, 2002
Gordon US 2002/0099725 A1 July 25, 2002
Turpin et al. US 2003/0151611 A1 Aug. 14, 2003
Green et al. US 2005/0091008 A1 Apr. 28, 2005

THE REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1–5, 8–13, 16, 31, and 33 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Turpin, Green, Ringland, and
Gordon.
2. Claims 17–30, 32, and 34 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Turpin, Green, Ringland, Gordon, and
Massengill.

Appeal 2017-007640
Application 14/704,708

4
ANALYSIS
Claims 1–5, 8–13, 16, 31, and 33
Limitations L1 and L2 of independent claim 1 recite, in relevant part,
selecting an interior room template, with “each interior room template being
preformatted to include a plurality of predetermined separate elements for
selection including at least one of a wall, a trim, a door, a floor, and a
ceiling,” and displaying a “first simulated environment showing the selected
interior room template with at least one paint color selected from the starting
paint color and the plurality of coordinating paint colors on a surface of the
selected predetermined separate element of the selected interior room
template.” Independent claim 9 recites similar limitations.
The Examiner finds Green teaches or suggests the claimed display of
the selected paint color on a surface of a separate element, including at least
one of a wall, a trim, a door, a floor, and a ceiling. Final Act. 7–8; Ans. 2–3.
Appellants contend the Examiner errs because, according to Appellants,
“nothing in the Green reference teaches or suggests displaying a selected
paint color on a selected predetermined separate element of a wall, a trim, a
door, a floor, or a ceiling, as recited by claim 1.” App. Br. 18; see also
Reply Br. 1–7.
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments. As the Examiner
correctly finds, Green teaches the use of “design components” within a
“client-defined space, i.e., a room in the client’s home, or a room in the
client’s office.” Green ¶ 35. Green’s “design components” include, inter
alia, “‘structural design components’ that may include, for example, a
window, a door, crown molding, or a chair rail[, . . .] ‘window treatment
design components’ that may include panels, valances, balloons, rods,
Appeal 2017-007640
Application 14/704,708

5
finials, and/or tiebacks[, . . .] and another example, a room may include
“‘furniture design components’ that may include tables, chairs, pictures,
lamps, couches, and bookshelves.” Thus, Green’s “design components”
include doors (as claimed) and “crown molding, or a chair rail” (i.e., the
claimed “trim”).
Green teaches that its design components can be altered by the user to
reflect design choices. For instance, as the Examiner correctly finds, Green
states, “colors, fabrics and the like may also be selected per furniture piece
and accessory component dropped in the layout view.” Green ¶ 100
(emphasis added). Green further teaches that “digital pictures showing the
various components may be manipulated so that the user can compare colors
between, for example, a digital picture of a fabric and a digital picture of a
trim. Id. at 97. Thus, Green teaches displaying selected colors on various
design components, including explicitly Appellants’ claimed “separate
element, including at least one of a wall, a trim, a door, a floor, and a
ceiling.” App. Br. 27 (emphasis added).
Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that the asserted
combination meets the limitations of independent claims 1 and 9.
Appellants advance no further arguments in support of dependent claims 2–
5, 8, 10–13, 16, 31, and 33. For the same reasons discussed above in the
context of claims 1 and 9, we sustain the Examiner’s rejections of dependent
claims 2–5, 8, 10–13, 16, 31, and 33.
Claims 17–30, 32, and 34
Each of claims 32 and 34 recites, in relevant part, “display a tutorial
option that includes at least one video demonstration with how-to
instructions for a painting project, to receive a selection for a video
Appeal 2017-007640
Application 14/704,708

6
demonstration from the at least one video demonstration, and to play the
selected video demonstration on the display device.” App. Br. 36.
Independent claims 17 and 24 recite commensurate limitations. Id. at 31–32
and 34.
Appellants contend the Examiner errs because, “[t]he Examiner has
provided no rationale or ‘clear articulation’ of any basis for how or why one
skilled in the art would combine the Massengill method and apparatus for
performing virtual cosmetic surgery with the color selection and
visualization system of Turpin et al, the interior design system and method
of Green et al., the spectrally coordinated pattern search-imaging system and
method of Ringland et al., or the automation of construction and decoration
projects of Gordon.” App. Br. 21–22.
We agree with Appellants that the Examiner’s analysis of the cited
references is facially deficient in the presentation of the obviousness
analysis. See, e.g., Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City, 383 U.S. 1,
17 (1966) (“Under § 103, the scope and content of the prior art are to be
determined; differences between the prior art and the claims at issue are to
be ascertained; and the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art resolved.”).
The Examiner makes no finding that Massengill is analogous art (see
generally Final Act.) and we are unable to discern on this record how
Massengill, which is directed to a “method and apparatus for performing
virtual cosmetic surgery” (Massengill Abst.) might be analogous either
because it is within the field of the instant application or reasonably
pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved. See
In re Klein, 647 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As to the former test, we
are persuaded that Massengill is not within the same field of endeavor,
Appeal 2017-007640
Application 14/704,708

7
namely distributed systems and methods for selecting complementary paint
colors. See Spec. ¶ 2. As to the latter test, rather than articulate the
particular problem with which the inventor is involved, the Examiner states:
“[t]he claimed subject is to provide a demo or tutorial video for how to use
the product. . . . For the patentability of the claim, the consideration is only
given to the action of providing a demo or tutorial video.” Ans. 4. This
statement is insufficient to carry the Examiner’s burden to set forth “some
articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal
conclusion of obviousness” by relying on findings within analogous art. See
In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
Accordingly, on the record before us, we reverse the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of claims 17–30, 32, and 34, over Turpin, Green,
Ringland, and Massengill.

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–5, 8–13, 16, 31, and
33.
We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 17–30, 32, and 34.

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)(iv).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART