Ex Parte Clark et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 20, 2016

13201213 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 20, 2016)

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.
13/201,213 08/11/2011 Stephan R. Clark 82819663 7681
22879
HP Tnr
7590 12/22/2016 EXAMINER
3390 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 35
DECENZO, SHAWN H
FORT COLLINS, CO 80528-9544 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2877
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/22/2016 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
barbl@hp.com
y vonne.bailey @ hp. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL
AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte STEPHAN R. CLARK and BRETT E. DAHLGREN
Appeal 2015-004646
Application 13/201,213
Technology Center 2800
Before ROMULO H. DELMENDO, MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, and
LILAN REN, Administrative Patent Judges.
COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2015-004646
Application 13/201,213
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 the final rejection of claims
1,3,4, 6-8, and 10-15. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Appellants’ invention is directed to a color sensor for a printing
system that prevents unnecessary color corrections due to inaccurate color
sensing from different types of print media (glossy versus matte) or
deviating positions of the first and second samples on the print media (Spec.
112).
Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A color senor array, comprising a plurality of sensors,
wherein:
each of the plurality of sensors has a width dimension and a
length dimension that is elongated with respect to the width of
dimension, the length dimensions of the sensors being substantially
equal to another and parallel to an illumination plane;
each of the plurality of sensors includes a face defined by
opposing first and second elongated sides and opposing first and
second non-elongated sides, the first non-elongated sides of the
plurality of sensors being aligned with one another along an axis that
is substantially perpendicular to the illumination plane; and
wherein the color sensor array is positioned such that a spot of
light from the illumination plane is focused to a width that is less than
the length dimension of each of the plurality of sensors.
Appellants appeal the following rejections:
1. Claims 1, 4, 6, 8, 10, and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Christie (US 4,003,660 issued Jan. 18, 1977) in
view of Brown (US 8,279,441 B2 issued Oct. 2, 2012) and Ishikawa
(US 6,693,658 2B issued Feb. 17, 2004).
2
Appeal 2015-004646
Application 13/201,213
2. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Christie in view of Brown, Ishikawa, and Bassler (US 7,701,580 B2
issued Apr. 20, 2010).
3. Claims 7 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Christie in view of Brown, Ishikawa, Bassler, and Sedlmayr (US
5,903,388 issued May 11, 1999).
FINDINGS OF FACT & ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds that Christie teaches all the limitations of claim 1,
except for, in relevant part1, the color sensor array is positioned such that a
spot of light from the illumination plane is focused to a width that is less
than the length dimension of each of the plurality of sensors (Final Act. 2-5).
The Examiner finds that Ishikawa teaches that “when the sensor width is
[greater] than the irradiated spot of the focused light beam, the maximum
amplitude becomes constant while the entire irradiated spot moves inside the
sensor” (Final Act. 7). The Examiner concludes that it would have been
obvious to apply the teachings of Ishikawa to Christie and Brown to have the
color sensor array positioned such that a spot of light from the illumination
plane is focused to a width that is less than the length dimension in order to
1 The Examiner relies on Brown to teach lamp placement in a circular format
around an area of inspection so that it would have been obvious that
Christie’s sensors are aligned with one another along an axis that is
substantially perpendicular to a plane of illumination (Final Act. 6).
Appellants do not challenge the Examiner’s finding or conclusion with
regard to the combination of Christie and Brown (App. Br. 7-9). Therefore,
we will not discuss this portion of the rejection in our analysis.
3
Appeal 2015-004646
Application 13/201,213
be able to have the maximum amplitude constant even if the irradiated spot
moves inside the sensor (Final Act. 7).
Appellants argue that Ishikawa is directed to pitch sensors for
detecting light beam positions based on a quantity of light illuminating one
or more of the pitch sensors, not color sensors (App. Br. 10). Appellants
contend that Ishikawa’s teaching regarding maximizing of the light’s
amplitude is based upon detecting whether a light beam is focused or
defocused, not a color sensor (Reply Br. 4). Appellants contend that
Ishikawa’s teachings would have no bearing on the color sensor of Christie
that uses an aperture plate that is configured to block part of the light beam.
Id. Appellants argue that there is no reason to combine Ishikawa and
Christie in the manner suggested by the Examiner absent hindsight. Id.
The Examiner responds that Ishikawa’s teachings regarding making
the maximum amplitude constant provides a reason for combining
Ishikawa’s teachings with Christie’s color sensor (Ans. 3). The Examiner,
however, does not explain why one of ordinary skill in the art concerned
with a color sensor would have looked to Ishikawa’s teachings directed to
using the maximum amplitude as an indication of whether a light beam is
focused or defocused. The Examiner’s position is that Ishikawa provides a
generalized teaching of collecting light with a sensor using an aperture
opening (Ans. 4). The Examiner, however, does not direct us to any portion
of Ishikawa that teaches sending light through an aperture.
Moreover, Christie teaches that the light reflected off the printed
material 11 is sent through objective lens assembly 16, which is designed to
provide a maximum numerical aperture, so as to deliver “sufficient diffusely
reflected light flux to the photodetector cell assembly” (Christie col. 11,11.
4
Appeal 2015-004646
Application 13/201,213
7-12). Christie discloses that the image of the respective, elemental color
areas of the color bar is projected through aperture plate 17 and filter
element 18 onto photosensitive surfaces of the small area, photodetector
cells 19 (col. 11,11. 12-16). In other words, Christie uses objective lens
assembly 16 to provide a diffuse light to the aperture plate 17 and the
photosensitive elements 19. The Examiner has not explained why one of
ordinary skill would have used Ishikawa’s focused light beam with
Christie’s device that uses optics to produce a diffuse light that is sent to the
photodetectors. The Examiner has not explained the benefit imparted to
Christie’s sensor by using Ishikawa’s focused beam that provides a constant
maximum amplitude.
On this record, the preponderance of the evidence favors Appellants’
argument of nonobviousness. We reverse all of the Examiner’s § 103
rejections as all of the rejections are based upon the combination of Christie
and Ishikawa.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision is reversed.
ORDER
REVERSED
5