Ex Parte Bai

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 15, 2012

11439187 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 15, 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.
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