Ex Parte Constable et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardOct 31, 201411940267 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 31, 2014) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE _____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD _____________ Ex parte PETER CONSTABLE and VLADIMIR POTAP’YEV _____________ Appeal 2012-006510 Application 11/940,267 Technology Center 2600 ______________ Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JAMES R. HUGHES, and ERIC S. FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judges. FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2012-006510 Application 11/940,267 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the final rejection of claims 1–19. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. We have reviewed Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief filed October 6, 2011 (Br. 4–8) that the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Dean (US 7,333,154 B2; Feb. 19, 2008) and Kim (US 2005/0253866 A1; Nov. 17, 2005) (Ans. 4–10) is in error, and the Examiner’s response to Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief (Ans. 10–12). We agree with Appellants with regard to independent claim 1 that the Examiner did not properly articulate sufficient reasons to combine Dean and Kim (see Br. 4–7). Appellants contend (Br. 7–8) that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 2–19 for the same reasons argued with respect to claim 1. We find that Dean does not select between, and Kim does not disclose, first and second color spaces as recited in each of independent claims 1, 5, 9, and 14. Based on the foregoing determinations, we concur with Appellants’ main contention (see Br. 7) that the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Dean and Kim, teaches or suggests a user interface and/or method for “presenting one or more user interface controls configured to receive selection of a first color space, from a plurality of first color spaces corresponding to media encodings for recording cinema or video data, and a second color space, from a plurality second color spaces corresponding to output devices,” as recited in independent claims 1, 5, and 9, and as similarly recited in remaining independent claim 14. Appeal 2012-006510 Application 11/940,267 3 Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1, 5, 9, and 14, as well as dependent claims 2–4, 6–8, 10–13, and 15–19 depending respectively therefrom. CONCLUSION The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1–19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Dean and Kim. DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–19 is reversed. REVERSED lv Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation