Ex Parte Harrison

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 19, 2013

10885421 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 19, 2013)

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.
10/885,421 07/06/2004 Charles Frederick Harrison NG(MS)6766 8795
26294 7590 02/20/2013
TAROLLI, SUNDHEIM, COVELL & TUMMINO L.L.P.
1300 EAST NINTH STREET, SUITE 1700
CLEVELAND, OH 44114
EXAMINER
AMIN, JWALANT B
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2677
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/20/2013 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte CHARLES FREDERICK HARRISON1
____________________

Appeal 2010-007060
Application 10/885,421
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and
LARRY J. HUME, Administrative Patent Judges.

HUME, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Final
rejection of claims 1-3, 9-20, 23-25, and 27. Appellant previously canceled
claims 4-8, 21, 22, and 26. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 The Real Party in Interest is Northrop Grumman Corporation. App. Br. 3.
Appeal 2010-007060
Application 10/885,421

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE 2
The Invention
Appellant’s invention relates to image correction systems and
methods and, more particularly, to a color correction system for an
associated display. Spec. ¶ [0001].
Exemplary Claims
Claim 1 is an exemplary claim representing an aspect of the invention
which is reproduced below:
1. A color display correction system comprising:
a calibration module that determines values for at least
one spatially dependent precorrection coefficient at each of a
plurality of representative pixel locations on an associated
display, the calibration module comprising an automated
system that mechanically repositions an associated
spectroradiometer to measure the color content of the display at
each of the representative pixel locations, the calibration
module comprising a coefficient generator that calculates at
least one spatially dependent precorrection coefficient for each
of the plurality of representative pixel locations according to a
desired color content and the measured color content at the
representative pixel location; and
a precorrection module that precorrects a plurality of
input chromaticity values associated with a pixel location
according to the pixel location and the determined values of the

2 Our decision refers to Appellant’s Supplemental Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,”
filed Oct. 7, 2009); Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Mar. 5, 2010);
Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Jan. 6, 2010); Final Office Action
(“FOA,” mailed Mar. 17, 2009); and the original Specification (“Spec.,”
filed Jul. 6, 2004).
Appeal 2010-007060
Application 10/885,421

3
at least one spatially dependent precorrection coefficient to
produce precorrected chromaticity values, the precorrection
module comprising an [sic] coefficient synthesis component
that computes a plurality of coefficient values for a new pixel
location according to the respective calculated values of the at
least one coefficient for an associated subset of the plurality of
representative pixel locations, and a given precorrected
chromaticity value comprising a weighted linear combination of
the plurality of input chromaticity values, each input
chromaticity value being weighted by a corresponding one of
the plurality of coefficient values.

Claim 12 is an exemplary claim representing an aspect of the
invention which is reproduced below:
12. A method for calibrating a display system,
comprising:
providing a calibration input to a display to instruct the
display system to display a desired color at a plurality of pixel
locations;
measuring an actual color displayed at the plurality of
pixel locations;
computing a set of calibration coefficients associated
with each of the plurality of pixel locations according to the
desired color and the actual color at each pixel location; and
applying a black level offset correction to a set of input
chromaticity values according to a spatially dependent offset
correction coefficient determined at the calibration module and
an associated pixel location of the input chromaticity values.

Appeal 2010-007060
Application 10/885,421

4
Claim 19 is an exemplary claim representing an aspect of the
invention which is reproduced below:
19. A display system comprising:
means for displaying a desired color at a plurality of
pixel locations according to a calibration input;
means for measuring the actual color at the plurality of
pixel locations;
means for calculating at least one precorrection
coefficient for each of the plurality of pixel locations from the
desired color and the measured actual color; and
means for precorrecting at least one input chromaticity
value associated with a pixel location according to the
calculated precorrection coefficients and the associated pixel
location of the at least one input chromaticity value, the at least
one input chromaticity value representing a linear light
representation of a color value corrected by an associated
gamma correction and the means for precorrecting at least one
input chromaticity value comprising:
means for removing the associated gamma correction
from the at least one input chromaticity value to produce the
linear light representation of the at least one input chromaticity
value;
means for applying a chromatic correction to the linear
light representation of the at least one chromaticity value from
the calculated precorrection coefficients and the pixel location
associated with the at least one chromaticity value; and
means for providing a spatially dependent gamma
correction to the linear light representation of the at least one
chromaticity value.

Appeal 2010-007060
Application 10/885,421

5
Prior Art
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art in rejecting the
claims on appeal:
Johnson US 6,377,306 B1 Apr. 23, 2002
Jenkins US 2003/0169347 A1 Sep. 11, 2003
Ben-David US 2004/0100589 A1 May 27, 2004
Ho US 2005/0024382 A1 Feb. 3, 2005
Ishigami US 2006/0103728 A1 May 18, 2006
Koyama US 7,050,074 B1 May 23, 2006
Crow US 7,081,902 B1 Jul. 25, 2006
Yura JP 08-327455 Dec. 13, 1996
Rejections on Appeal
A. Claims 23 and 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Koyama in view of Ho. Ans. 3.
B. Claim 24 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Koyama and Ho in view of Ishigami. Ans. 5.
C. Claim 25 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Koyama and Ho in view of Crow. Ans. 5.
D. Claims 19-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Koyama and Ben-David in view of Crow. Ans. 6.
E. Claims 1 and 9-10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Koyama, Jenkins and Yura in view of Ho. Ans. 9.
F. Claim 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Koyama, Jenkins, Yura, and Ho, in view of Ishigami.
Ans. 12.
Appeal 2010-007060
Application 10/885,421

6
G. Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Koyama, Jenkins, Yura, and Ho, in view of Crow.
Ans. 13.
H. Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Koyama, Jenkins, Yura, and Ho, in view of Johnson.
Ans. 14.
I. Claims 12-16, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Koyama in view of Ishigami. Ans. 15.
J. Claim 17 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Koyama and Ishigami in view of Crow. Ans. 18.
ISSUES AND ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellant’s
conclusions with respect to claims 1-3, 9-20, 23-25, and 27, and we adopt as
our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action
from which this appeal is taken and (2) the reasons and rebuttals set forth by
the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellant’s
Arguments. However, we highlight and address specific findings and
arguments regarding independent claims 1, 12, and 19 for emphasis as
follows.
Appeal 2010-007060
Application 10/885,421

7
1. Rejection of Claims 1-3, 9-11, 23-25, and 27
Issue 1
Appellant argues (App. Br. 7-9; Reply Br. 2-4) that the Examiner’s
unpatentability rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Koyama,
Jenkins and Yura in view of Ho is in error. These contentions present us
with the following issue:
Did the Examiner err in establishing a prima facie case for
unpatentability of claim 1 because there was no suitable
rationale, applicable at the time the invention was made, “given
for one of skill in the art to modify Koyama in view of Ho as
proposed by the Examiner”?

Analysis
We agree with the Examiner’s finding that the combination of
Koyama, Jenkins and Yura in view of Ho teaches or suggests all the
limitations recited in claim 1. (Ans. 9-12, 19-21).
Specifically, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that:
[I]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art at
the time of present invention to use a set of precorrected
chromaticity values comprising a weighted linear combination
of set of input chromaticity values as adjustment coefficients as
taught by Ho and apply it into the system of Koyama because
performing a mapping using a matrix multiplication to adjust
the first color value in the first color space to a second color in a
second color space results in a fast execution with minimal
hardware requirements.
Ans. 19-20 (citing Ho ¶¶ [0006] and [0010]).
Appeal 2010-007060
Application 10/885,421

8
Appellant argues that “Ho teaches away from the matrix
multiplication in favor of a look-up table based approach (See, e.g., ¶¶ 0010
and 0022, noting that the matrix conversion is relatively inefficient and
noting the need for specialized hardware).” App. Br. 7-8.
We disagree with Appellant’s contentions, and agree with the
Examiner’s findings that:
Ho teaches two different inventions, i.e. the matrix
multiplication approach as described by Ho in paragraphs
[0007-0009] is a different invention than the look-up table
based approach, and therefore appellant’s argument that Ho
teaches away from the matrix multiplication in favor of a look-
up table based approach is moot. The examiner combines the
reference of Koyama and the matrix multiplication approach of
Ho to read onto the claimed subject matter, and not with the
look-up table of Ho. Combining the Koyama reference with the
look-up table of Ho does not teach the claimed subject matter.
While relying on both the invention described by Ho for
combination with the Koyama reference will teach away from
Ho’s invention, combining either one of the invention of Ho
with the Koyama reference would have been obvious to one of
ordinary . . . skill . . . [in the] art.
Ans. 20 (citing Ho ¶¶ [0007] - [0009]). We further agree with the Examiner
that “the matrix multiplication technique of Ho was recognized as part of the
ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art.” Ans. 21.
The U.S. Supreme Court has held that “[t]he obviousness analysis
cannot be confined by a formalistic conception of the words teaching,
suggestion, and motivation, or by overemphasis on the importance of
published articles and the explicit content of issued patents.” KSR Int’l Co.
v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 419 (2007). Instead, the relevant inquiry is
Appeal 2010-007060
Application 10/885,421

9
whether the Examiner has set forth “some articulated reasoning with some
rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” In re
Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (cited with approval in KSR, 550
U.S. at 418).
In this case, the Examiner’s conclusions of obviousness are clearly
articulated and based on detailed factual findings supported by the
references of record. See Ans. 9-12, 19-21. Thus, we agree with the
Examiner’s findings and conclusions.
Accordingly, Appellant has not persuaded us of any error in the
Examiner’s characterization of the cited art and related claim construction,
including persuading us of any error by the Examiner in providing a rational
underpinning for his stated motivation to combine the references in the
manner suggested, and in his ultimate conclusions of obviousness.
Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s unpatentability rejection of
independent claim 1.
As Appellant has not provided separate, substantive arguments with
respect to the patentability of dependent claims 2, 3 (App. Br. 12-13), or 9-
11 (App. Br. 9), except to argue their patentability based upon their
respective dependencies on independent claim 1, we similarly sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of these claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Finally, lacking any separate, substantive argument by Appellant
against the rejection of independent claim 23 which recites the disputed
limitation in commensurate form, we sustain the Examiner's unpatentability
rejection of independent claim 23. See App. Br. 12 (relying upon the
Appeal 2010-007060
Application 10/885,421

10
arguments presented with respect to independent claim 1). Since
Appellant’s arguments against the rejections of dependent claims 24, 25, and
27 merely rely upon their dependencies from claim 23 without further
substantive argument, we also sustain the unpatentability rejection of
dependent claims 24, 25, and 27.
2. Rejection of Claims 12-18
Issue 2
Appellant argues (App. Br. 9-11) that the Examiner’s unpatentability
rejection of claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Koyama in view of
Ishigami is in error. These contentions present us with the following issue:
Did the Examiner err in establishing a prima facie case for
unpatentability of claim 12 because “one of skill in the art
would not seek to add a black level offset to the color values of
Koyama, as recited in claim 12, as such an addition would have
no reasonable expectation of success, given the correction
methodology of Koyama” and that “the modification of
Koyama proposed by the Examiner would change the principle
of operation of the prior art invention being modified and that
an obviousness rejection relying on such a modification is
improper”?
Analysis
We agree with the Examiner’s finding that the combination of
Koyama with Ishigami teaches or suggests Appellant’s claimed “method for
calibrating a display system,” as recited in claim 12. Ans. 15-16, 21-23.
Appeal 2010-007060
Application 10/885,421

11
Specifically, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that:
[I]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in [the] art
at the time of present invention to use offset components in a
black correction portion as taught by Ishigami and apply it into
the system of Koyama, Jenkins, Yura and Ho because
subtracting offset components in a black correction portion
from values read by a sensor helps to determine appropriate
gain values for white balance adjustments.
Ans. 22 (citing Ishigami ¶ [0057]).
We further agree with the Examiner that:
[I]t should be noted that the black level correction as taught by
Ishigami was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of
one skilled in the art . . . [who would have] good reason to
pursue the known option of using the black level correction as
taught by Ishigami with the system of Koyama, Jenkins, Yura
and Ho [because it is] within his or her technical grasp.
Ans. 23.
Appellant argues that:
Essentially, the color correction methodology of Koyama is
incompatible with the black level correction of Koyama, and
one of skill in the art, looking to improve the Koyama system,
would not reasonably expect the incorporation of the black
level correction taught in Ishigami into Koyama to result in
success. The Examiner has responded to this by stating that
none of the references “criticize, discredit, or otherwise
disparage the solution claimed”, but it is respectfully submitted
that Applicant’s representative is not arguing that Koyama
teaches away from the use of black level correction, but rather
that the inventive principle of Koyama (e.g., sacrificing
luminance to address color unevenness) is incompatible with
the teachings of Ishigami.
Appeal 2010-007060
Application 10/885,421

12
App. Br. 10. We disagree with Appellant’s contention in this regard, and
agree with the Examiner’s finding in response to this contention that:
[I]t would have been obvious . . . to use offset components in a
black correction portion as taught by Ishigami and apply it into
the system of Koyama, Jenkins, Yura and Ho because
subtracting offset components in a black correction portion
from values read by a sensor helps to determine appropriate
gain values for white balance adjustments.
Ans. 22 (citing Ishigami ¶ [0057]).
Accordingly, Appellant has not persuaded us of any error in the
Examiner’s characterization of the cited art and related claim construction.
Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s unpatentability rejection of
independent claim 12.
Since Appellant has not provided separate, substantive arguments
with respect to the patentability of dependent claims 13-16 and 18 (App. Br.
11), or 17 (App. Br. 13), except to argue their patentability based upon their
respective dependencies on independent claim 12, we similarly sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of these claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
3. Rejection of Claims 19 and 20
Issue 3
Appellant argues (App. Br. 11-12; Reply Br. 4-5) that the Examiner’s
unpatentability rejection of claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Koyama
and Ben-David in view of Crow is in error. These contentions present us
with the following issue:
Appeal 2010-007060
Application 10/885,421

13
Did the Examiner err in establishing a prima facie case for
unpatentability of claim 19 because “the rationales provided by
the Examiner for the combination of each of Ben-Davis and
Crow with Koyama are conflicting”?
Analysis
We agree with the Examiner’s finding that the combination of
Koyama, Ben-David, and Crow teaches or suggests Appellant’s claimed
display system, as recited in claim 19.
Specifically, we agree with the Examiner’s findings that, as variously
recited in independent claim 19, Ben-David teaches or suggests:
[A]t least one input chromaticity value (RGB) representing a
linear light representation of a color value (outcome of a
gamma correction function is linear on the original pixel value)
corrected by an associated gamma correction (gamma
correction function) and the means for precorrecting at least one
input chromaticity value comprising means for removing an
associated gamma correction (de-gamma process) from the at
least one input chromaticity value to produce a linear light
representation (linear output) of the at least one input
chromaticity value.
Ans. 24 (citing Ben-David ¶¶ [0058] – [0059], [0062]). We further agree
with the Examiner that:
[I]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
at the time of present invention to use [a] de-gamma process to
remove gamma correction to produce a linear output of the
RGB values as taught by Ben-David and apply it into the
system of Koyama because the generated linear output can be
more precisely displayed using such a system.
Ans. 24-25 (citing Ben-David ¶ [0062]).
Appeal 2010-007060
Application 10/885,421

14
In addition, we agree with the Examiner that it is “obvious . . . to use
gamma correction as taught by Crow and apply it into the system of Koyama
and Ben-David because such a gamma correction is beneficial to a user to
optimize the appearance of lines and edges without affecting other aspects of
the image.” Ans. 25 (citing Crow col. 7:31-35).
Appellant contends that “the Examiner’s reasoning for removing the
gamma correction is flawed, as one of skilled in the art could not be lead to
combine Ben-David with the cited art in the manner suggested for the cited
reason of more precisely displaying the generated linear output, as, in claim
19, the generated linear output is never displayed.” App. Br. 12. Appellant
further contends in the Reply Brief, in response to the Examiner’s argument
that the linear output and the gamma corrected output could be displayed at
different times, by alleging that no such system is taught or suggested in the
art cited by the Examiner, and that the Examiner has given no rationale as to
why one of ordinary skill in the art would seek to create a system that
displays linear light representations and the gamma corrected output. Reply
Br. 5.
We disagree with Appellant, and agree with the Examiner’s finding
that:
[I]t should be noted that the linear output as displayed by
combining the references of Ben-David and Koyama, is a
different step of the process performed by the system and not
necessarily the final step. The gamma corrected representation
that is displayed is also a different step of the process
performed by the system. The linear output and the gamma
corrected representation are not necessarily displayed at the
same time but are rather displayed at different times.
Appeal 2010-007060
Application 10/885,421

15
Ans. 25. We further agree with the Examiner’s findings that using gamma
correction as taught by Crow and applying it to Koyama’s and Ben-David’s
systems is beneficial to a user because such a gamma correction optimizes
the appearance of lines and edges without affecting other aspects of the
image. Ans. 25 (citing Crow col. 7:31-35).
Finally, we agree with the Examiner that, while Appellant’s claimed
invention does not need to display the generated linear output, it is not
necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same
advantage or result discovered by Appellant. Ans. 25-26.
In support of the Examiner’s finding, we note that the reason or
motivation to modify the reference may often suggest what the inventor has
done, but for a different purpose or to solve a different problem. It is not
necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same
advantage or result discovered by Appellant. See, e.g., In re Kahn, 441 F.3d
at 987 (motivation question arises in the context of the general problem
confronting the inventor rather than the specific problem solved by the
invention); Cross Med. Prods., Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 424
F.3d 1293, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“One of ordinary skill in the art need not
see the identical problem addressed in a prior art reference to be motivated
to apply its teachings.”); In re Linter, 458 F.2d 1013 (CCPA 1972); In re
Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, (Fed. Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 904 (1991).
Accordingly, Appellant has not convinced us of any error in the
Examiner’s characterization of the cited art and related claim construction.
Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s unpatentability rejection of
independent claim 19.
Appeal 2010-007060
Application 10/885,421

16
As Appellant has not provided separate, substantive arguments with
respect to the patentability of dependent claim 20 (App. Br. 12), except to
argue its patentability based upon its dependence on independent claim 19,
we similarly sustain the Examiner’s rejection of this claim under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err with respect to the various unpatentability
rejections of claims 1-3, 9-20, 23-25, and 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
Koyama in view of the other cited references of record, and the rejections
are sustained.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-3, 9-20, 23-25, and 27
is affirmed.
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) (2011).
AFFIRMED

msc