Ex Parte BaiDownload PDFBoard of Patent Appeals and InterferencesFeb 15, 201211439187 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 15, 2012) Copy Citation 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. 11/439,187 05/24/2006 Yingjun Bai 20051937-326006 5994 76113 7590 02/15/2012 PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN, LLP (Xerox) XEROX CORPORATION P.O. BOX 10500 MCLEAN, VA 22102 EXAMINER BRYAR, JEREMIAH A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2625 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/15/2012 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________ Ex parte YINGJUN BAI ____________ Appeal 2010-0078411 Application 11/439,187 Technology Center 2600 ____________ Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JEAN R. HOMERE, and ANDREW J. DILLON, Administrative Patent Judges. DILLON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-24. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm-in-part. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant’s invention is a color reproduction system with drift correction which includes a storage module, an image processing module, a printer, a scanner, and a calibration module. The calibration module 1 An Oral Hearing was held on February 9, 2012. Appeal 2010-007841 Application 11/439,187 2 generates one or more tone response correction functions based on a comparison between the scanned image data and the stored device independent color signals representative of the calibration target, and creates one or more calibrated linear response halftones based on the generated tone response correction functions. See Abstract. Claim 1 is illustrative with key disputed limitations emphasized: 1. A color reproduction system with drift correction, comprising: a storage module that stores a set of device independent color signals representative of a calibration target; a scanner that scans a copy of the calibration target printed by a printer to generate scanned image data that corresponds to the copy of the calibration target; and a calibration module that compares the scanned image data with the stored device independent color signals representative of the calibration target and generates one or more tone response correction functions based on the comparison between the scanned image data and the stored device independent color signals, and creates one or more calibrated halftones for implementation on the printer based on the generated tone response correction functions, wherein the one or more calibrated halftones are adapted to convert image data to binary print data readable by the printer. (Emphasis added) The Examiner relies on the following as evidence of unpatentability: Borg US 5,625,716 Apr. 29, 1997 Cooper US 2003/0128378 A1 June 19, 2003 Linder US 2004/0114164 A1 June 17, 2004 Appeal 2010-007841 Application 11/439,187 3 THE REJECTIONS 1. The Examiner rejected claims 1-10 and 14-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Linder and Borg. Ans. 4-21.2 2. The Examiner rejected claims 11-13 and 23-24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Linder, Borg and Cooper. Ans. 21-27. CONTENTIONS Regarding representative claim 1, the Examiner finds that Linder discloses a color reproduction system which includes drift correction utilizing a calibration module which compares scanned image data with stored device independent color signals to generate one or more tone response correction functions, but cites Borg, which is referenced within Linder, for teaching the creation of calibrated halftones for implementation on a printer. Ans. 4-6. Appellant argues that the combination of Linder and Borg does not disclose a calibration module which generates one or more tone response correction functions based upon a comparison between scanned image data and stored device independent color signals which then creates one or more calibrated halftones for implementation on a printer based on the generated tone response correction functions. App. Br. 6. The issue before us, then, is as follows. 2 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the Appeal Brief filed November 19, 2009, the Examiner’s Answer mailed February 3, 2010 and the Reply Brief filed April 5, 2010. Appeal 2010-007841 Application 11/439,187 4 ISSUE Under § 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-10 and 14-22 by finding that Linder and Borg collectively would have taught or suggested (1) a color reproduction system which includes drift correction utilizing a calibration module which compares scanned image data with stored device independent color signals to generate one or more tone response correction functions , and (2) the creation of calibrated halftones based on the generated tone response correction functions for implementation on a printer? FINDINGS OF FACT (FF) We find that the following enumerated findings of fact (FF) are supported by at least a preponderance of the evidence. Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1427 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (explaining the general evidentiary standard for proceedings before the Office). 1. Linder discloses a color reproduction system which includes drift correction for computing a set of adjustment values by comparing device independent color signals with a stored representation of a test target. Linder discloses that the compensation may be implemented by modifying the tone reproduction curves or the halftone process used in the color reproduction device. Linder, Abstract. 2. Linder discloses that the color shift correction signals may be utilized with the system disclosed by Borg to modify the halftones utilized with the printer. Linder, ¶[0030]. Appeal 2010-007841 Application 11/439,187 5 3. Borg discloses a compensation function for a printer which may be utilized to vary the halftone (gray levels) which are applied to a printer by selecting from a range of 256 values from a large number of possible patterns (4096 to 65,536). Borg, col. 4, l. 53 through col. 5, l. 15. ANALYSIS Appellant argues, with respect to claims 1 and 14, that the color shift correction signals of Linder are applied to image data before halftoning takes place, and consequently the Examiner’s position that Linder suggests drift correction that is applied during halftoning is not well founded. App. Br 7. We find that Linder teaches discloses a color reproduction system which includes drift correction for computing a set of adjustment values by comparing device independent color signals with a stored representation of a test (calibration) target and that the adjustment values may be implemented by modifying the tone reproduction curves or the halftone process. (FF1). That the color shift correction signals of Linder may be applied to a halftone process is supported by Linder teaching that the system disclosed therein may be utilized with the modified halftones of Borg. (FF2). Finally, the Appellant argues that the combination of Linder and Borg fails to show or suggest the creation of halftones, since Borg teaches the utilization of a set of predetermined halftones. App. Br. 8-9, Reply Br. 4-5. We find that Borg discloses the utilization a large number (4096 to 65,536) of possible halftones and the selection of 256 halftones which provide adequate compensation. (FF3). Additionally, we find that the Appeal 2010-007841 Application 11/439,187 6 halftone values disclosed by Borg must have undergone creation at some point. Nothing within Appellant’s claims requires a temporal relationship which mandates when the halftone values are created and consequently we conclude that the combination of Linder and Borg discloses or suggests creating halftone values based upon a correction requirement. Appellant also argues that the compensation function of Borg “is different†from the tone response curves of Linder. Reply Br. 5. As noted above, we find that Linder expressly discloses that the halftone corrections of Borg may be utilized with the tone correction curves of Linder. We are therefore not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting representative claims 1 and 12, and claims 2, 3, 5-11 and 13-24, not separately argued with particularity, as unpatentable under § 103 over Linder and Borg. Appellant separately argues that claims 4 and 10 are not unpatentable over the combination of Linder and Borg, since that combination of references cannot be said to show or suggest creating calibrated halftones by “adjusting†one or more current halftones. App. Br. 10-11. We find Appellant’s argument persuasive. We find no suggestion within Linder or Borg that the halftones created therein are created by “adjusting†one or more current halftones. Consequently, we find the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 4 and 10 as unpatentable over Linder and Borg. Appeal 2010-007841 Application 11/439,187 7 CONCLUSION The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1 and 14 and claims 2, 3, 5-9, 13, and 15-24, which were not argued separately, under § 103. The Examiner did err in rejecting claims 4 and 10 under § 103. ORDER The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-3, 5-9 and 13-24 is affirmed. The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 4 and 10 is reversed. 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 pgc Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation