Ex Parte Kroon

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 26, 2013

10280216 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 26, 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.
10/280,216 10/25/2002 Stephen M. Kroon A2399USNP/XERZ201839US01 1540
62095 7590 01/26/2013
FAY SHARPE / XEROX - ROCHESTER
1228 EUCLID AVENUE, 5TH FLOOR
THE HALLE BUILDING
CLEVELAND, OH 44115
EXAMINER
KAU, STEVEN Y
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2671
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/26/2013 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 STEPHEN M. KROON
____________________

Appeal 2011-000404
Application 10/280,216
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, and
LARRY J. HUME, Administrative Patent Judges.

STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2011-000404
Application 10/280,216

2
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) (2002) from a final
rejection of claim 24. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Introduction
According to Appellant, the invention relates generally to raster
printing enhanced black, and more particularly to selectively printing
enhanced black.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Claim
Claim 24 is the claim at issue and is reproduced below:
24. A method of printing comprising:

(a) providing a processor and printer;

(b) identifying pixel locations on a print output medium to be
marked with black as determined by transforming each pixel of
multi-bit per pixel black input image data through threshold
array halftoning using, for each pixel location, the
corresponding predetermined black threshold level and
producing single bit per pixel output data;

(c) identifying a subset of the pixel locations to be printed
with black to also be enhanced as determined by transforming
each pixel of the multi-bit per pixel black input image data
through threshold array halftoning using, for each pixel
location, the corresponding predetermined non-white threshold
level such that a darker multi-bit input pixel value is required to
identify the pixel location to be marked with black;

(d) printing black at the identified pixel locations; and,
Appeal 2011-000404
Application 10/280,216

3

(e) enhancing only the subset by printing non-black color
thereon.

References
Hayasaki US 4,953,015 Aug. 28, 1990
Harrington US 6,014,226 Jan. 11, 2000

Rejections
Claim 24 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Hayasaki and Harrington.
We have only considered those arguments that Appellant actually
raised in the Briefs. Arguments Appellant could have made but chose not to
make in the Briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be waived.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2011).

ISSUE
35 U.S.C. § 103(a): claim 24
Appellant asserts their invention is not obvious over Hayasaki and
Harrington because “Hayasaki does not determine a subset by a second
halftoning of the black multi-bit per pixel input image data using the
predetermined different threshold level than was used for determining which
pixel locations are to be printed with black” (App. Br. 7). Specifically,
according to Appellant, the system of Hayasaki does not use the black multi-
bit per pixel input image data for a second threshold array halftoning to
determine a subset of black to be enhanced (id.), i.e., does not use
thresholding based upon input image data to determine the subset to be
Appeal 2011-000404
Application 10/280,216

4
enhanced (Reply Br. 4). Instead, Appellant contends Hayasaki always
operates on bi-level data using a fixed pattern color matrix table for
determining black pixels to be enhanced independent of input image data
(App. Br. 7 and Reply Br. 4).

Issue: Has the Examiner erred in finding the combination of
Hayasaki and Harrington teaches or suggests “identifying a subset of the
pixel locations to be printed with black to also be enhanced as determined by
transforming each pixel of the multi-bit per pixel black input image data
through threshold array halftoning using, for each pixel location, the
corresponding predetermined non-white threshold level such that a darker
multi-bit input pixel value is required to identify the pixel location to be
marked with black” as recited in claim 24? (Emphasis added).

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed Appellant’s arguments but are not persuaded
oferror in the Examiner’s findings and conclusions. We emphasize the
following. Appellant argues Hayasaki “teaches using a fixed pattern color
matrix table for determining black pixels to be enhanced independent of
input image data and does not employ thresholding based upon input image
data for determining a subset to be enhanced” (Reply Br. 4) (emphasis in
original). However, Appellant is arguing limitations not recited in the claim.
We instead agree with the Examiner that Hayaskai teaches or at least
suggests identifying a subset of the pixel locations to be printed with black
to also be enhanced (Ans. 6-8). We further agree Hayasaki teaches or at
Appeal 2011-000404
Application 10/280,216

5
least suggests enhancing as determined by transforming each pixel of the
multi-bit per pixel black input image data through threshold array halftoning
such that a darker multi-bit input pixel value is required to identify the pixel
location to be marked with black (Ans. 8-9).
Therefore, Appellants have not persuaded us that the Examiner erred
in finding the combination of Hayasaki and Harrington teaches or suggests
“identifying a subset of the pixel locations to be printed with black to also be
enhanced as determined by transforming each pixel of the multi-bit per pixel
black input image data through threshold array halftoning using, for each
pixel location, the corresponding predetermined non-white threshold level
such that a darker multi-bit input pixel value is required to identify the pixel
location to be marked with black” as recited in claim 24. (Ans. 8-9).
Accordingly, the Examiner did not err in finding the combination of
Hayasaki and Harrington teaches or suggests the invention as recited in
claim 24. Therefore, the Examiner did not err in rejecting claim 24 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness over Hayasaki and Harrington.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claim 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Hayasaki and Harrington 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).

Appeal 2011-000404
Application 10/280,216

6
AFFIRMED

ke