Ex Parte Kulkarni et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 13, 2013

11056626 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 13, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte MANISH S. KULKARNI and
LARS U. BORG
____________

Appeal 2010-010515
Application 11/056,626
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before JAMESON LEE, KEVIN F. TURNER,
and DAVID C. McKONE, Administrative Patent Judges.

McKONE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-24, which constitute all the claims pending in this application. See
App. Br. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

Appeal 2010-010515
Application 11/056,626

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention relates to accurately reproducing digital data
from print film. See Spec., Abstract. Claim 1, which is illustrative of the
invention, reads as follows:
1. A method comprising:
determining an exposure range of print film using
an encoding range and a color calibration reference;
sampling a sensitometric curve associated with the
print film over the exposure range to obtain a plurality of
density samples;
converting the density samples to transmittance
samples; and
encoding the transmittance samples within a color
profile.

THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies on the following prior art in rejecting the claims:
Murashita US 2002/0093509 A1 July 18, 2002
Bogdanowicz US 2002/0163657 A1 Nov. 7, 2002
Bevans US 2004/0056965 A1 Mar. 25, 2004
Cineon KODAK MOTION PICTURE & TELEVISION IMAGING,
CONVERSION OF 10-BIT LOG FILM DATA TO 8-BIT
LINEAR OR VIDEO DATA FOR THE CINEON DIGITAL
FILM SYSTEM, Ver. 2.1 (July 26, 1995)
Bergmann LUDWIG BERGMANN ET AL., OPTICS OF WAVES AND
PARTICLES (1993)
Eastman Kodak EASTMAN KODAK, USING LAD TO SET UP AN
ELECTRONIC COLOR ANALYZER AND PRINTING
CONTROL (1992)
Appeal 2010-010515
Application 11/056,626

3
Claims 1, 2, 4, 11-18, and 20-24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bevans, Cineon, and Bergmann. See
Ans. 4-9.
Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Bevans, Cineon, Bergmann, and Bogdanowicz. See Ans.
9.
Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Bevans, Cineon, Bergmann, and Murashita. See Ans. 9-
10.
Claims 6-10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Bevans, Cineon, Bergmann, and Eastman Kodak. See
Ans. 10-11.
Claim 19 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Bergmann and Bevans. See Ans. 11-12.

ANALYSIS
REJECTION OF CLAIMS 1, 2, 4, 11-18,
AND 20-24 UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Claims 1, 2, 4, 17, 18, 20, 22, and 23
Appellants argue independent claims 1, 20, and 23 together. See App.
Br. 10. Regarding independent claim 1, the Examiner finds: (1) Cineon
teaches determining an exposure range of print film using an encoding range
and a color calibration reference, and sampling a sensitometric curve
associated with the print film over the exposure range to obtain a plurality of
density samples; (2) Bergmann teaches converting density samples to
transmittance samples; and (3) Bevans teaches encoding transmittance
Appeal 2010-010515
Application 11/056,626

4
samples within a color profile. See Ans. 4. The Examiner concludes that it
would have been obvious to combine these teachings. See Ans. 5.
Appellants dispute the finding that Bevans teaches encoding
transmittance samples within a color profile (see Ans. 4, citing Bevans,
¶0034), contending that Paragraph 0034 of Bevans is “silent on any teaching
of ‘transmittance samples,’ much less ‘encoding the transmittance samples
within a color profile,’” as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 6. According to
Appellants, Bevans only discloses International Color Consortium (“ICC”)
profiles. See id. The Examiner responds that Bevan’s disclosure that “the
ICC profile may transform a red-green-blue triplet . . . into its corresponding
coordinate on the chromaticity diagram 140 shown in FIG. 1c” means that
colors are encoded within a color profile, and finds that encoding color
samples is the same as encoding transmittance samples. Ans. 14 (quoting
Bevans, ¶ 0034). Appellants reply that such disclosure of encoding color
data generally is not a teaching of encoding transmittance samples because
“transmittance is a more specific concept relating to the fraction of radiant
energy that, having entered a layer of absorbing matter, reaches its farther
boundary.” Reply Br. 3.
Appellants have not adequately explained why Bevans’ disclosure of
encoding color data is not a teaching of encoding transmittance samples.
Bevans explains that at least one way to look at the color data it discusses is
as a successive series of filters, each of which transmits some portion of a
band of the visible spectrum and absorbs other portions. See Bevans, ¶
0023. Bevans also explains that “RGB [Red Green Blue] information can be
used as the basis for subtractive image reproduction.” Bevans, ¶ 0025.
Thus, Bevans suggests that the “red-green-blue triplet” encoded in
Appeal 2010-010515
Application 11/056,626

5
Paragraph 0034 is not simply a teaching of “color data generally” as
Appellants argue (Reply Br. 3), but may also be more specific transmittance
samples. See Ans. 14.
Appellants also dispute the Examiner’s finding (see Ans. 4) that
Cineon teaches “determining an exposure range of print film using an
encoding range and a color calibration reference” and “sampling a
sensitometric curve associated with the print film over the exposure range to
obtain a plurality of density samples,” as recited in claim 1. See App. Br. 7-
9. Specifically, the Examiner finds that Cineon’s disclosure (page 4, §§ 1.1
and 1.2), of a Cineon scanner calibrated for a 2.048 density range, is a
disclosure of determining an exposure range of print film using an encoding
range and a color calibration reference. See Ans. 4. The Examiner finds that
Cineon’s characteristic curve shown in Figure 9 is a sensitometric curve
associated with print film that can be sampled to obtain a plurality of density
samples over the 2.048 density range. See id. According to the
Specification, a “sensitometric curve,” “also known as a characteristic curve,
is a plot of density versus relative log exposure and indicates the response of
film to each of red, green, and blue lights.” Spec. ¶ 0031.
Appellants argue that “Cineon . . . provides no details about how the
Cineon scanner operates and how the print film is processed because Cineon
is merely describing converting digital negative data to specific output
formats.” App. Br. 7. According to Appellants, Figure 9 of Cineon merely
shows “a characteristic curve for the Cineon Digital negative for normally
exposed negative film” rather than an exposure range that has been
“determined.” App. Br. 8.
Appeal 2010-010515
Application 11/056,626

6
In response, the Examiner finds that Cineon’s use of the term “color
negative film” is the same as “print film” as used in claim 1. Ans. 14. The
Examiner also points to Cineon, page 2, § 1.1, as providing additional
disclosure of “digitize[ing] the full range of the original negative film,”
which the Examiner finds is “determining.” Ans. 15. The Examiner also
notes that Cineon’s use of “calibration” implies a “color calibration
reference.” Id. We agree with the Examiner. Cineon teaches an exposure
range for “color negative film” that is created by digitizing the full range
(2.048 density range) of the negative film. See Cineon, p. 2, § 1.1; p. 4, §
1.1. This is similar to Appellants’ description of determining an exposure
range. See Spec. ¶ 0031 (“This determination may, for example, be based
on a 2.046 relative log exposure range (as based on a default 2.046 density
range encoded by DPX files) from a sensitometric curve associated with the
print film.”). And as the Examiner points out, Cineon terms this a
“calibration range,” Cineon, p. 2 § 1.1, implying a color calibration
reference. See Ans. 15. Appellants do not adequately explain why these
findings are erroneous.
Appellant also argues that Cineon does not teach sampling the curve
of Figure 9. See App. Br. 8. The Examiner acknowledges that “Cineon does
not explicitly teach sampling a sensitometric curve,” but concludes that
“with the availability of a sensitometric curve associated with the print film
over the exposure range, one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to
obtain a plurality of density samples” from the curve. Ans. 15. In reply,
Appellants simply argue that the Examiner is using hindsight reasoning and
that, “[i]n the present situation, the knowledge within the level of ordinary
skill in the art would not have led one, based on the cited art, to the claimed
Appeal 2010-010515
Application 11/056,626

7
‘sampling a sensitometric curve associated with the print film over the
exposure range to obtain a plurality of density samples.’” Reply Br. 3-4.
However, Appellants have not offered any evidence or explanation to show
that sampling a sensitometric curve to obtain density samples would have
been outside the level of ordinary skill. Indeed, it is logical that a curve that
plots density as a function of exposure over a given range can be sampled to
determined density values over that range. See Perfect Web Technologies,
Inc. v. InfoUSA, Inc., 587 F.3d 1324, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“[A]n analysis
of obviousness . . . may include recourse to logic, judgment, and common
sense available to the person of ordinary skill that do not necessarily require
explication in any reference or expert opinion.”).
Appellants also contend that the Examiner has articulated no
reasoning with rational underpinning to support the conclusion of
obviousness. See App. Br. 10. Appellants argue that Bevans is silent on
scanning print film, while Cineon describes converting digital negative data
to specific output formats. See id. The Examiner responds that a person of
ordinary skill in the art would appreciate, from Cineon, that data can be
converted among the three media that are typically used to store color
pictures, namely film, computer data, and video images. See Ans. 16. The
Examiner further finds that Cineon, Bergmann, and Bevans disclose the
individual conversions recited in claim 1. See id. The Examiner then
concludes that claim 1 is merely a predictable use of these conversions. See
id.
In reply, Appellants argue that the Examiner’s reasoning is improperly
grounded in hindsight, and that Cineon describes converting digital negative
data to a specific output data format, while Bevans and Bergmann are “silent
Appeal 2010-010515
Application 11/056,626

8
regarding converting contents from film to computer.” Reply Br. 4. This
argument does not adequately address the Examiner’s reason to combine.
The Examiner does not find that Bevans or Bergmann teach converting
image contents from film to computer data. See Ans. 3-4. Rather, the
Examiner finds that Cineon teaches this conversion, and concludes that
Cineon, Bevans, and Bergmann teach well known data conversion
techniques that, when applied for their intended purposes in converting data
among film, computer, and video images, as suggested by Cineon, yield no
more than predictable results. See Ans. 4, 15-16. See also KSR Int’l Co. v.
Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007) (“[A] court must ask whether the
improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according
to their established functions.”). Appellants do not adequately explain how
claim 1 recites more than the predictable use of well-known conversions
according to their established functions.
Claims 20 and 23, argued together with claim 1, include recitations
substantially the same as claim 1. Our reasoning for claim 1, then, applies to
claims 20 and 23 as well. Appellants only nominally argue claims 2, 4, 17,
18, and 22 separately. See App. Br. 10.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of: (1) claim 1; (2) claims 20
and 23; (3) claims 2, 4, 17, and 18, which depend on claim 1; and (4) claim
22, which depends on claim 20.

Claim 11
Claim 11 depends on claim 1 and recites “wherein the encoding range
is based on a density range encoded by a DPX file.” The Examiner finds
that it was well-known that the DPX file format is derived from the Cineon
Appeal 2010-010515
Application 11/056,626

9
file format and thus the density range encoded by a DPX file would be the
same as that encoded by a Cineon file. See Ans. 5. From that, the Examiner
concludes that it would have been obvious that Cineon’s encoding range can
be based on a density range encoded by a DPX file. See id. Appellants
disagree, contending that Cineon “only shows a density range, not one that is
encoded by any file.” App. Br. 11. We are not persuaded by Appellants’
argument. As explained above for claim 1, we agree with the Examiner’s
finding that Cineon discloses an encoding range. Moreover, Appellants’
own Specification details the relationship between Cineon and DPX. See
Spec. ¶ 0026 (discussing the “CINEON / Digital Picture eXchange (DPX)
format file”); 0033 (“The CINEON image file format is a subset of the
ANSI/SMPTE DPX file format.”). Thus, we agree with the Examiner that a
person of ordinary skill in the art would have known to encode Cineon’s
encoding range using a Cineon/DPX file format. See Ans. 5, 11.

Claims 12-16, 21, and 24
Claim 12 depends on claim 1; claim 21 depends on claim 20; and
claim 24 depends on claim 23. Regarding claim 12 (and similar recitations
in claims 21 and 24), the Examiner finds that Bergmann teaches “calculating
red, green, and blue transmittance spectra respectively using the magenta
layer, yellow layer, and cyan layer transmittance spectra.” See Ans. 5-6.
Appellants argue that “Bergmann merely mentions that the colors red, green
and blue are produced by the combination of two dyes, but does not teach or
suggest calculating their transmittance spectra . . . .” App. Br. 11. In
response, the Examiner finds that Bergmann, at the top of page 719,
discloses an equation for calculating the spectral densities of other colors
Appeal 2010-010515
Application 11/056,626

10
from values of yellow, cyan, and magenta (“Y1,” “Cy,” and “Mg”). See
Ans. 19. The Examiner also points to Bergmann’s explanation that setting
two of the yellow, cyan, and magenta values to “1” and the other to “0”
would yield one of the red, green, and blue values. See Ans. 19 (the other
two RGB values similarly would be obtained by different combinations of
two “1’s” and one “0” for the Cy, Mg, and Yl values). Appellants do not
adequately explain why this finding is erroneous. We note also that Bevans,
too, explains this relationship and gives equations solvable for R, G, and B
based on Cy, Mg, and Yl, see Bevans, ¶ 0025, further highlighting that this
calculation was well-known.
Also regarding claim 12, the Examiner finds that Bevans, at
paragraphs 0008 and 0012-13, teaches “calculating X, Y, and Z values based
on a viewing illuminant spectra and respectively based on the red, green, and
blue transmittance spectra, and respectively based on X, Y, and Z color
matching functions.” See Ans. 6. Appellants argue that “Bevans is silent on
any teaching of a ‘viewing illuminant spectra’ as well as ‘red, green, and
blue transmittance spectra.’” App. Br. 12. We are not persuaded by
Appellants’ arguments. The Specification gives examples of viewing
illuminant spectra as a xenon illuminant spectrum and CIE Illuminant D50,
which “is a reference illuminant that defines the spectral distribution of
daylight with a color temperature of 5003 K.” Spec. ¶¶ 0048-49. Similarly,
Bevans teaches calculating X, Y, and Z values based on CIE Illuminant D65,
a white illuminant. See Bevans, ¶¶ 0008, 0012-13; see also id. at ¶ 0010
(“exemplary matrix multiplication 125 for determining the tristimulus values
(X, Y, Z) for a white light illuminant D65”). Bevans, at paragraph 0013,
further notes that another example of a color model is “linear Red-Green-
Appeal 2010-010515
Application 11/056,626

11
Blue (RGB).” Thus, Appellants have not adequately explained why the
Examiner’s findings are erroneous.
Claims 13-16 depend on claim 12, and are not argued separately. See
App. Br. 10.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 12-16, 21, and 24.

REJECTION OF CLAIM 3 UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Claim 3 depends on claim 1. Appellants only nominally argue claim
3 separately. See App. Br. 13. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 3 for the same reasons given above for claim 1.

REJECTION OF CLAIM 5 UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Claim 5 depends on claim 1. Appellants only nominally argue claim
5 separately. See App. Br. 13. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 5 for the same reasons given above for claim 1.

REJECTION OF CLAIMS 6-10 UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Claims 6-10 depend on claim 1. Appellants only nominally argue
claims 6-10 separately. See App. Br. 14. Accordingly, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 6-10 for the same reasons given above for
claim 1.

REJECTION OF CLAIM 19 UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Regarding independent claim 19, the Examiner finds that Bergmann
teaches calculating cyan layer, yellow layer, and magenta layer
transmittance spectra; calculating red, green, and blue transmittance spectra
Appeal 2010-010515
Application 11/056,626

12
respectively using the magenta layer, yellow layer, and cyan layer
transmittance spectra; and calculating X, Y, and Z values based on a viewing
illuminant spectra and respectively based on the red, green, and blue
transmittance spectra. See Ans. 11-12. The Examiner concedes that
Bergmann does not disclose either calculating X, Y, and Z values based on
X, Y, and Z color matching functions or encoding X, Y, and Z values within
a matrix in a color profile, but finds that these are taught by Bevans. See
Ans. 12.
Appellants argue that Bergmann does not teach “calculating red,
green, and blue transmittance spectra respectively using the magenta layer,
yellow layer, and cyan layer transmittance spectra.” App. Br. 14 (emphasis
Appellants’). For the reasons given for claim 12, which also includes this
claim language, we find that this limitation is taught by Bergmann.
Appellants also argue that Bevans does not teach “encoding the X, Y,
and Z values within a matrix in a color profile,” as recited in claim 19. See
App. Br. 15-16. The Examiner finds this taught in paragraphs 0009 and
0034 of Bevans. Appellants argue that, while Bevans discloses matrix
multiplication, at paragraph 0009, it does not teach encoding values within a
matrix in a color profile. See App. Br. 15; Reply Br. 7-8. Appellants also
argue that “the concept of a matrix is completely missing” from Bevans’s
paragraph 0034. App. Br. 15; accord Reply Br. 7.
The Examiner responds that Bevans’s paragraph 0034 teaches
encoding X, Y, and Z values in an ICC color profile, and that paragraph
0009 teaches encoding X, Y, and Z information in a matrix. See Ans. 23.
Logically, then, the ICC color profile of paragraph 0034 can be in the form
of the matrix discussed in paragraph 0009. See Ans. 23. Indeed,
Appeal 2010-010515
Application 11/056,626

13
Appellants’ Specification gives “an ICC Profile” as an example of a “three-
component Matrix-based color profile.” Spec. ¶ 0029. Appellants have not
persuasively explained why the Examiner’s finding is erroneous.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 19.

ORDER
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-24 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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2010).

AFFIRMED

rwk