Ex Parte Kirchner et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 14, 2019

14366589 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 14, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/366,589 06/18/2014 Eric Jacob Jan Kirchner
141081 7590 01/14/2019
MCDONNELL BOEHNEN HULBERT & BERGH OFF LLP/ AkzoNobel
300 S. WACKER DRIVE
32NDFLOOR
CHICAGO, IL 60606
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
16-1142-WO-US 1886
EXAMINER
AHMED, JAMIL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2886
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/14/2019 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 ERIC JACOB JAN KIRCHNER, SWIE LAN NJO,
and JOEROEN HOOGINK
Appeal2017-011630
Application 14/366,589
Technology Center 2800
Before TERRY J. OWENS, LINDA M. GAUDETTE, and
JANEE. INGLESE, Administrative Patent Judges.
OWENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellant (Akzo Nobel Coatings International B.V.) appeals
under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-20. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
The Invention
The claims are to a method for selecting the most probable variant of
a matching paint candidate color standard for vehicle repair. Claim 1 is
illustrative:
1. A method of selecting the most probable variant of a
matching paint candidate color standard for vehicle repair
using a mobile device having a color display and an input
unit and which is capable of data exchange with a central
Appeal 2017-011630
Application 14/366,589
computer via an at least partly wireless communication
line, the method comprising,
a) entering in the mobile device identification criteria that
can be associated with the color of the vehicle,
b) sending the identification criteria via the at least partly
wireless communication line to the central computer,
wherein the central computer comprises a color
database,
c) causing the software on the central computer to select
one or more candidate color standards matching the
entered identification criteria and sending, via the at
least partly wireless communication line, information
on the selected candidate color standards to the mobile
device,
d) displaying information on the selected candidate color
standards on the display of the mobile device, wherein
the information includes images of the selected candidate
color standards,
e) visually comparing one or more physical chips painted
with the candidate color standards with the color of the
vehicle to be repaired,
t) selecting a matching candidate color standard,
inputting the selection in the mobile device, and
transmitting the selection to the central computer via
the at least partly wireless communication line,
g) causing the software on the central computer to identify
variants of the selected candidate color standard,
h) if at least one variant has been identified, providing
verbal or symbolic characterizations describing visual
differences between the selected candidate color
2
Appeal 2017-011630
Application 14/366,589
standard and each identified variant, and displaying these
characterizations on the display of the mobile device,
i) selecting the best matching variant based on ( 1) visual
comparison of the vehicle to be repaired and the selected
candidate color standard and (2) the displayed verbal or
symbolic characterizations,
j) transmitting via the at least partly wireless communication
line the selected variant from the mobile device to the
central computer, and
k) transmitting via the at least partly wireless communication
line a paint formula or a link to a paint formula
corresponding to the selected variant from the central
computer to the mobile device.
Hunt
Simons
McClanahan
Rodrigues
Craighead
The References
US 2003/0153265 Al
US 2005/0275842 Al
US 2007 /0035554 Al
US 2008/0291449 Al
US 2011/0085169 Al
The Rejections
Aug. 14, 2003
Dec. 15, 2005
Feb. 15,2007
Nov. 27, 2008
Apr. 14, 2011
The claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as follows:
claims 1-10 and 14--18 over Rodrigues in view of Craighead, claims 11 and
19 over Rodrigues in view of Craighead and Simons, claims 12 and 20 over
Rodrigues in view of Craighead and Hunt, and claim 13 over Rodrigues in
view of Craighead and McClanahan.
OPINION
We reverse the rejections. We need address only the sole independent
claim, i.e., claim 1. That claim requires causing software on a central
computer to select one or more candidate color standards matching
3
Appeal 2017-011630
Application 14/366,589
identification criteria that can be associated with the color of a vehicle,
selecting a matching candidate color standard, causing software on the
central computer to identify variants of the selected candidate color standard,
and selecting the variant that best matches the selected candidate color
standard based upon 1) visual comparison of the vehicle and the selected
candidate color standard and 2) verbal or symbolic characterizations
describing visual differences between the selected candidate color standard
and each identified variant. To meet those claim requirements the Examiner
relies upon the combined disclosures of Rodrigues and Craighead (Final
Act. 3-10).
Rodrigues discloses a method for selecting a paint formula that
matches the color and other appearance characteristics of the paint on a
vehicle, comprising 1) retrieving, based on vehicle identifying information,
one or more preliminary matching formulas from a database containing
refinish coating formulas, 2) generating individual images based on the
preliminary matching formulas, 3) displaying the individual images on a
device such as a handheld display device or a laptop or tablet computer, and
4) comparing the individual images to a target coating and, based on the
comparison, selecting a matching formula (i1i170, 72-75, 77, 82).
Craighead determines the variant of a vehicle standard color repair
paint which best matches the vehicle's color by 1) visually determining the
direction and magnitude of the deviation of the standard color from the
vehicle's color based on predetermined visual properties including at least
one color property and at least one texture property, and 2) selecting the
variant that best matches the vehicle's color from a database which links sets
4
Appeal 2017-011630
Application 14/366,589
of standard color predetermined visual property deviations to specific
variants of the standard color (i1i17-12, 18, 22, 23).
The Examiner relies upon Rodrigues' s preliminary matching
formulas (,r 73) as corresponding to both the Appellant's one or more
candidate color standards (claim 1, step c) and the Appellant's variants of a
selected candidate color standard ( claim 1, step g), and relies upon
Rodrigues' s step of "selecting one or more matching formulas to match
color and appearance of an article" (Abstract) as corresponding to the
Appellant's step of selecting a matching candidate color standard ( claim 1,
step f) (Final Act. 5-8).
The Examiner does not establish that Rodrigues' s preliminary
matching formulas can be variants of themselves. Nor does the Examiner
establish that Rodrigues discloses or would have suggested selecting a
matching formula and identifying variants of the selected matching formula.
The Examiner concludes that it would have been prima facie obvious
to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Rodrigues in view of Craighead
such that "selecting the best matching variant based on ill visual
comparison of the vehicle to be repaired and the selected candidate color
standard, and ill the displayed verbal or symbolic characterizations are
accomplished in order to improve the accuracy of the determination of the
best matching variant when the deviation is determined for more visual
properties for the advantage of obtaining a predictable result" (Final
Act. 10).
The Examiner does not establish that Rodrigues and Craighead would
have suggested, to one of ordinary skill in the art, selecting a matching
formula and identifying variants of the selected matching formula. Also, the
5
Appeal 2017-011630
Application 14/366,589
Examiner does not establish that the Examiner's reason for combining
Rodrigues and Craighead would have been apparent to one of ordinary skill
in the art in view of those references. See KSR Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550
U.S. 398,418 (2007) (establishing a prima facie case of obviousness
requires an apparent reason to modify the prior art as proposed by the
Examiner).
Thus, the record indicates that the Examiner's rejections are based
upon impermissible hindsight in view of the Appellant's disclosure. See In
re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967) ("A rejection based on
section 103 clearly must rest on a factual basis, and these facts must be
interpreted without hindsight reconstruction of the invention from the prior
art."). Accordingly, we reverse the rejections.
DECISION
The rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 1-10 and 14--18
over Rodrigues in view of Craighead, claims 11 and 19 over Rodrigues in
view of Craighead and Simons, claims 12 and 20 over Rodrigues in view of
Craighead and Hunt, and claim 13 over Rodrigues in view of Craighead and
McClanahan are reversed.
The Examiner's decision is reversed.
REVERSED
6