Ex Parte Larson

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 29, 2011

10449025 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 29, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte BRADLEY R. LARSON
____________________

Appeal 2009-008087
Application 10/449,0251
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, ROBERT E. NAPPI,
and MARC S. HOFF, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOFF, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 The real party in interest is Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P.
Appeal 2009-008087
Application 10/449,025

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-10, 12-14, 16-26, 28, 29, and 32-40.2 We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
Appellant’s invention concerns a color imaging device (e.g., an inkjet
printer) including color space conversion circuitry to convert color image
data from an initial color space to a first output color space representation
for some pixels, and to a second output color space representation for others
of the pixels (Spec. 2). In one embodiment, pixel identifiers are provided,
and distinction between conversion to a first output color space
representation and a second output color space representation is based on the
pixel identifiers (Spec. 3). In another embodiment, some pixels comprising
black color information are formed using a single black colorant and others
of the pixels comprising black color information are formed using a plurality
of different non-black colorants (Spec. 4).
Claims 1, 22, and 28 are exemplary of the claims on appeal:
1. A color imaging device comprising:
interface circuitry configured to access color image data of an initial
color space for a plurality of pixels;
color space conversion circuitry coupled with the interface circuitry
and configured to convert the color image data for text pixels from the initial
color space to a first output color space representation and to convert the
color image data for graphics pixels from the initial color space to a second
output color space representation different than the first output color space
representation; and

2 Claims 11, 15, 27, 30, and 31 have been cancelled.
Appeal 2009-008087
Application 10/449,025

3
an image engine coupled with the color space conversion circuitry and
configured to form a color image using the color image data of the first and
the second output color space representations.
22. A color separation method comprising:
providing color image data for a color image to be formed and
comprising a plurality of values for a plurality of pixels, and wherein the
pixels comprise a plurality of different pixel types;
providing a plurality of pixel identifiers for the pixels and
corresponding to respective ones of the different pixel types; and
color space converting the color image data comprising converting the
values having associated first pixel identifiers to a first output color space
representation and converting the values having associated second pixel
identifiers to a second output color space representation different than the
first output color space representation.
28. A color imaging method comprising:
providing color image data for a plurality of pixels of a color image to
be formed and wherein the pixels include text pixels comprising textual
content and graphics pixels comprising graphical content; and
forming a color image using the color image data for the pixels, and
wherein the forming the color image comprises forming the text pixels
comprising black color information using a single black colorant and
forming the graphics pixels comprising black information using a plurality
of different non-black colorants.
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art in rejecting the
claims on appeal:
Srinidhi US 2003/0160802 A1 Aug. 28, 2003
Ohnuma US 6,693,731 B1 Feb. 17, 2004
Claims 1-10, 12, 14, 16-22, 24-26, 28, and 32-40 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Srinidhi.
Claims 13, 23, and 29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Srinidhi in view of Ohnuma.
Throughout this decision, we make reference to the Appeal Brief
(“App. Br.,” filed Jun. 12, 2008), the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Oct. 31,
Appeal 2009-008087
Application 10/449,025

4
2008), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Sep. 8, 2008) for their
respective details.

ISSUES
With respect to claims 1-10, 34, and 35, Appellant argues, inter alia,
that Srinidhi does not teach color space conversion circuitry configured to
convert the color image data for graphics pixels from the initial color space
to a second output color space representation, because Srinidhi teaches the
prior conversion of graphics pixels from RGB data to LAB data (App. Br. 5,
6).
With respect to claims 12-14, 16-21, and 36, Appellant argues, inter
alia, that Srinidhi does not teach identifying first and second portions of the
color image data using information independent of values of colors of the
color image data. According to Appellant, Srinidhi’s use of luminance,
chrominance A, and chrominance B values to determine whether a pixel
segment is text or image amounts to the use of data that is dependent on
color values (App. Br. 7).
With respect to claims 22-26, 37, and 38, Appellant argues that
Srinidhi does not teach providing a plurality of pixel identifiers for the pixels
and corresponding to respective ones of the different pixel types (App. Br.
7).
With respect to claims 28, 29, 32, 33, 39, and 40, Appellant argues (a)
that Srinidhi does not teach forming graphics pixels comprising black
information using a plurality of non-black colorants (App. Br. 9), and (b)
that the Examiner improperly relied upon inherency in the Examiner’s
Answer, because it is not necessarily true that Srinidhi forms pixels
Appeal 2009-008087
Application 10/449,025

5
comprising black information using a plurality of non-black colorants
merely because Srinidhi teaches the usage of those non-black colorants
during the printing process generally (Reply Br. 10-11).
Appellant’s contentions present us with the following issues:
1. Does Srinidhi teach color space conversion circuitry configured to
convert the color image data for graphics pixels from the initial color space
to a second output color space representation?
2. Does Srinidhi teach identifying first and second portions of the
color image data using information independent of values of colors of the
color image data?
3. Does Srinidhi teach providing a plurality of pixel identifiers for the
pixels and corresponding to respective ones of the different pixel types?
4. Does Srinidhi teach forming graphics pixels comprising black
information using a plurality of non-black colorants?

FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
Srinidhi
1. Srinidhi teaches a RGB to luminance-chrominance-chrominance
(LAB) converter 20 that receives RGB pixel values from an external source.
Each RGB pixel value is converted to a corresponding LAB value according
to a conversion matrix (¶ 0023).
2. After conversion to LAB space, an auto-separator 40 determines
whether each pixel line segment is to be processed as text or graphics (¶
0025).
Appeal 2009-008087
Application 10/449,025

6
3. Auto-separator 40 classifies a pixel line segment as text or image
based upon average smoothness index, maximum luminance, minimum
luminance, and the statistical characteristic of the A and B (chrominance)
values (¶ 0031).
4. Text dithering module 70 receives the filtered pixel values and
further processes the pixels by converting data having 8 bits per pixel into
bitonal data (one bit per pixel) (¶ 0027).
5. LAB to CMYK conversion module 80 receives the filtered pixel
values and converts the pixel values to the corresponding CMYK values (¶
0029).
6. Srinidhi teaches that in printing graphics, cyan ink is deposited,
then magenta ink, then yellow ink, and then black ink (¶ 0022).

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
“‘A rejection for anticipation under section 102 requires that each and
every limitation of the claimed invention be disclosed in a single prior art
reference.’” See In re Buszard, 504 F.3d 1364, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2007)
(quoting In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1478-79 (Fed. Cir. 1994)).
“Anticipation of a patent claim requires a finding that the claim at issue
‘reads on’ a prior art reference.” Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO, Inc., 190 F.3d
1342, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (quoting Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778
F.2d 775, 781 (Fed. Cir. 1985)).
“It is well settled that a prior art reference may anticipate when the
claim limitations not expressly found in that reference are nonetheless
inherent in it. Under the principles of inherency, if the prior art necessarily
functions in accordance with, or includes, the claimed limitations, it
Appeal 2009-008087
Application 10/449,025

7
anticipates.” In re Cruciferous Sprout Litig., 301 F.3d 1343, 1349 (Fed. Cir.
2002) (citations omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted). “Inherency,
however, may not be established by probabilities or possibilities. The mere
fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of circumstances is not
sufficient.” In re Robertson, 169 F.3d 743, 745 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (citations
omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

ANALYSIS
CLAIMS 1-10, 34, AND 35
Independent claim 1 recites a color imaging device comprising, inter
alia, color space conversion circuitry to convert the color image data for text
pixels “from the initial color space to a first output color space
representation” and to convert the color image data for graphics pixels “to a
second output color space representation.” Independent claim 10 is very
similar but refers to “some of the pixels” and “others of the pixels,” rather
than “text” and “graphics.”
We agree with Appellant’s argument (App. Br. 5) that Srinidhi does
not teach these features. In Srinidhi, the “initial color space” represented by
the RGB input in Figure 2 undergoes RGB to LAB conversion 20, according
to a conversion matrix, to a different (luminance, chrominance) color space
(FF 1, 2). Therefore, Srinidhi’s subsequent text dithering module 70, and
LAB to CMYK conversion 80, are operative to convert the LAB space,
rather than the “initial” RGB space, to output color space representations
(Fig. 2; FF 4, 5).
Accordingly, we find that Srinidhi does not teach all of the elements
of independent claims 1 and 10. We conclude that the Examiner erred in
Appeal 2009-008087
Application 10/449,025

8
rejecting claims 1-10, 34, and 35 under § 102(e) as being anticipated by
Srinidhi, and we will not sustain the rejection.
CLAIMS 12, 14, 16-21, AND 36
Independent claim 12 recites identifying a first portion and a second
portion of the color image data using information independent of values of
colors of the color image data. We find that the Examiner erred in finding
claim 12 to be anticipated by Srinidhi. Srinidhi teaches an auto-separator 40
using luminance and chrominance values (A, B) to differentiate between text
and graphics (FF 3). Appellant correctly notes that a LAB color space is a
device-independent color space (Reply Br. 6). We do not agree with the
Examiner’s finding that such a device-independent LAB color space is an
“independent” color space within the meaning of claim 12. The Examiner
has presented no evidence to support the statement that it is “commonly
known in the art that . . . the LAB color space is independent color space
since it does not dependent [sic] on any color device or the values in LAB
color space representation are independent of values of colors of the color
image data” (Ans. 13). We find that the luminance and chrominance values
used by Srinidhi’s auto-separator are not independent of values of colors of
the color image data.
Because we find that Srinidhi does not teach all of the elements of
claims 12, 14, 16-21, and 36, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection.
CLAIMS 22, 24-26, 37, AND 38
Independent claim 22 recites providing a plurality of pixel identifiers
for the pixels and corresponding to respective ones of the different pixel
types. The Examiner correctly finds that Srinidhi teaches that auto-separator
40 determines whether each pixel line segment is to be processed as text or
Appeal 2009-008087
Application 10/449,025

9
graphics (Ans. 14; FF 2, 3). This determination is made on the basis of
computations resulting from luminance and chrominance values (A, B). We
agree with Appellant that the Examiner has not pointed to any portion of
Srinidhi that discloses the use of pixel identifiers (App. Br. 7-8).The
chrominance values cited by the Examiner do not identify particular pixels,
nor correspond to respective ones of different pixel types.
We therefore find that the Examiner erred in finding that Srinidhi
teaches all the elements of claims 22, 24-26, 37, and 38. We will not sustain
the § 102 rejection of these claims.
CLAIMS 28, 32, 33, 39, AND 40
Independent claim 28 recites forming “graphics pixels comprising
black information using a plurality of different non-black colorants.” We
agree with Appellant that Srinidhi lacks a teaching of this element. Srinidhi
teaches that graphics are printed by depositing cyan ink, then magenta, then
yellow, then black (FF 6). We find that Srinidhi lacks an affirmative
teaching of forming “black pixels” using a plurality of non-black colorants.
The Examiner’s finding that other systems print black using a
combination of non-black colorants (Ans. 15-16) fails to lead to a conclusion
that such printing is inherently done in Srinidhi. The mere possibility that
black pixels are printed in this fashion in Srinidhi, because Srinidhi also
teaches printing using cyan, magenta, and yellow, is insufficient to support a
finding that Srinidhi inherently prints this way. Robertson, 169 F.3d at 745.
Because Srinidhi does not teach all the limitations of claim 28, we
find error in the Examiner’s § 102 rejection of claims 28, 32, 33, 39, and 40
over Srinidhi, and we will not sustain the rejection.
Appeal 2009-008087
Application 10/449,025

10
CLAIMS 13, 23, AND 29
Claims 13, 23, and 29 depend respectively from claims 12, 22, and 28,
whose rejections over Srinidhi are reversed supra. We have reviewed
Ohnuma and find that it does not remedy the noted deficiencies of Srinidhi.
Accordingly, we will not sustain the § 103 rejection of claims 13, 23, and 29
over Srinidhi in view of Ohnuma, for the reasons stated supra with respect
to parent claims 12, 22, and 28.

CONCLUSIONS
1. Srinidhi does not teach color space conversion circuitry configured
to convert the color image data for graphics pixels from the initial color
space to a second output color space representation.
2. Srinidhi does not teach identifying first and second portions of the
color image data using information independent of values of colors of the
color image data.
3. Srinidhi does not teach providing a plurality of pixel identifiers for
the pixels and corresponding to respective ones of the different pixel types.
4. Srinidhi does not teach forming graphics pixels comprising black
information using a plurality of non-black colorants.

ORDER
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-10, 12-14, 16-26, 28, 29, and
32-40 is reversed.

REVERSED

Appeal 2009-008087
Application 10/449,025

11

babc