Ex Parte LI

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 14, 2016

13900828 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 14, 2016)

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.
13/900,828 05/23/2013 Xing Li 20121293-US-NP 9745
81368 7590
GIBB & RILEY, LLC
Frederick W. Gibb, III, Esq.
844 West Street
Suite 100
Annapolis, MD 21401
12/16/2016 EXAMINER
LAM, ANDREW H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2675
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/16/2016 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
support @ gibbiplaw .com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte XING LI1
Appeal 2016-001670
Application 13/900,828
Technology Center 2600
Before BRUCE R. WINSOR, KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, and
DAVID J. CUTITTA II, Administrative Patent Judges.
CUTITTA, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 1—24, all pending claims of the application. We
have jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Xerox, Inc. See Appeal
Brief 3.
Appeal 2016-001670
Application 13/900,828
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
According to Appellant, the application relates to providing color
registration error compensation by adding a post-raster image processing
step to an image that has been rendered with black over-print. Spec. 129.2
Claims 1,7, 13, and 19 are independent. Claims 1 and 2 are representative
and are reproduced below with disputed limitations emphasized:
1. A raster image processing device comprising:
an input/output device receiving print data to print a multicolor
image, said multicolor image including a black region covering a color
region; and
a processor device operatively connected to said input/output
device, said processor device raster image processing said print data to
assign black data and color data to pixels of a raster data print page,
said raster image processing comprising said processor device:
adding said color data to color pixels of said raster data
print page uniformly across an area of said raster data print page
corresponding to said color region of said multicolor image; and
adding said black data to over-print pixels of said color
pixels to include both said color data and said black data within
at least one of said over-print pixels, said over-print pixels being
located in an over-print region of said raster data print page
corresponding to an area where said black region covers said
color region in said multicolor image;
after said raster image processing, said processor device
removing said color data from, and leaving said black data in, ones of
said over-print pixels that are positioned more than a pixel distance
from non-black color pixels, using said processor, and
2 Throughout this Opinion, we refer to: (1) Appellant’s Specification filed
May 23, 2013 (Spec.); (2) the Final Office Action (Final Act.) mailed Jan.
27, 2015; (3) the Appeal Brief (Appeal Br.) filed May 14, 2015; (4) the
Examiner’s Answer (Ans.) mailed Oct. 7, 2015; and (5) the Reply Brief
(Reply Br.) filed Nov. 23, 2015.
2
Appeal 2016-001670
Application 13/900,828
said processor device outputting said raster data page to a
printing engine through said input/output device.
2. The raster image processing device according to claim 1,
edge pixels being positioned along a circumference of said over-print
region, said pixel distance comprising at least one pixel in a direction
from each of said edge pixels toward a center of said over-print region.
REFERENCES
The art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal:
Mantell US 2004/0135845 A1 July 15,2004
Yao US 2007/0236740 A1 Oct. 11,2007
REJECTION
Claims 1—24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Mantell and Yao. Final Act. 3—6.
Our review in this appeal is limited only to the above rejection and
issues raised by Appellant. We have not considered other possible issues
that have not been raised by Appellant and which are, therefore, not before
us. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2014).
ISSUES
Based on Appellant’s arguments, the issues presented on appeal are
whether the Examiner errs in finding that the combination of Mantell and
Yao teaches or suggests (l)“removing said color data from, and leaving said
black data in, ones of said over-print pixels that are positioned more than a
pixel distance from non-black color pixels,” as recited in claim 1; and (2)
“edge pixels being positioned along a circumference of said over-print
3
Appeal 2016-001670
Application 13/900,828
region, said pixel distance comprising at least one pixel in a direction from
each of said edge pixels toward a center of said over-print region,” as recited
in claim 2.
ANALYSIS
Claim 1
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of the
Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner has erred in rejecting claim 1. We
disagree with Appellant’s conclusions and we adopt as our own: (1) the
findings and reasons regarding claim 1 set forth by the Examiner in the
Office Action from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 2—5) and (2) the
reasons regarding claim 1 set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s
Answer in response to Appellant’s Appeal Brief (Ans. 6—7). We concur
with the conclusions reached by the Examiner, and we highlight the
following for emphasis and completeness.
The Examiner finds Mantell’s discussion of removing process color
pixels from a pixel array teaches the disputed features of claim 1.
Specifically, the Examiner relies on Mantell’s discussion of removing, from
the pixel array, process color pixels in a direction opposite the offset of
black pixels relative to the process color pixels. Final Act. 4. (citing
Mantell 135—36 and Figs. 5 A and 5B).
Appellant argues the Examiner’s findings are in error because claim 1
recites only removing the color data and leaving the black data in the
affected pixels, while Mantell removes the entire pixel. Appeal Br. 19.
We disagree.
4
Appeal 2016-001670
Application 13/900,828
Mantell’s Figure 5A is reproduced below:
oooooooooo
500 oooooooooooooooooooo
OOOO
000@-0(
OOOQQj
OOOO
OOOO
528 512 508 526
FIG. 5A
Mantell’s Figure 5A illustrates pixel array 500, which includes
process color pixels 502, 504, 506, and 508, black pixels 510, 512, 514, and
516, and unmarked image color pixels 520, 522, 524, 526, and 528. Mantell
135. In Figure 5A, process color pixels are marked with a “P,” black pixels
are marked with a “K,” and image color pixels are unmarked. Id. As
indicated by the arrow annotated in Figure 5 A, several of the process color
pixels and black pixels overlap. For example, the arrow indicates the
overlap between process color pixel 504 and black pixel 510. Thus, in
Figure 5A, in the indicated overlapped portion, pixel 510 includes both black
pixel data and color pixel data from overlapping process color pixel 504.
Mantell next discusses removing color process pixels that are located in a
direction opposite the offset of the black pixels relative to the process color.
Mantell 136.
5
Appeal 2016-001670
Application 13/900,828
Mantell’s Figure 5B is reproduced below:
pixels 502, 504, and 506, removed (Mantell 136) and illustrates the removal
of color data from pixels positioned more than a pixel distance from certain
non-black color pixels.
As is apparent from Figure 5B, when process color pixel 504 is
removed, black pixel data of black pixel 510 is left intact. Prior to removal
of pixel 504, however, black pixel 510 included both black pixel data and
color pixel data in the overlapping portion of color pixel 504. Similarly,
when process color pixel 506 is removed, black pixel data of black pixel 512
is left intact. Prior to removal of pixel 506, however, black pixel 512
included both black pixel data and color pixel data in the overlapping
portion of color pixel 506. Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner’s
finding that “Mantell is teaching removing said color data from, and leaving
6
Appeal 2016-001670
Application 13/900,828
said black data in, ones of said over-print pixels,” as illustrated by pixels 510
and 512. Ans. 6.
Appellant argues Mantell does not suggest “removing said color data
from . . . ones of said over-print pixels that are positioned more than a pixel
distance from non-black color pixels,” as recited in claim 1. Specifically,
Appellant argues because claim 1 is limited to removing color from over­
print pixels that are more than a pixel distance from a neighborhood of non­
black pixels, claim 1 removes color from over-print pixels that are within the
interior of the black region, while Mantell only removes pixels from the
edge pixels of the over-print region. Reply Br. 2; Appeal Br. 15—17.
Appellant’s argument is unpersuasive of Examiner error because
Figure 5B illustrates removing color data from over-print pixels that “are
positioned more than a pixel distance from non-black color pixels.” For
example, as discussed above, each of pixels 510 and 512 suggest “removing
said color data from, and leaving said black data in, ones of said over-print
pixels.” Moreover, Figure 5B illustrates that each of pixels 510 and 512 are
positioned more than a pixel distance from non-black color pixels. Both of
pixels 510 and 512, for example, are positioned more than a pixel distance
from any of the unmarked color pixels disposed along the outermost
periphery of pixel array 500 such as the four pixels included within the box
annotated in Figure 5B above. Appellant’s arguments are, thus, not
persuasive becauase they are not commensurate with the scope of claim 1.
Appellant appears to urge an interpretation of claim 1 that indicates
removing color data from over-print pixels positioned more than a pixel
distance from every non-black color pixel. Because this interpretation is not
commensurate with the scope of the claim and because Mantell’s Figure 5B
7
Appeal 2016-001670
Application 13/900,828
confirms that pixels 510 and 512 are positioned more than a pixel distance
from a plurality of non-black color pixels, we are not persuaded by
Appellant’s argument that Mantell fails to teach or suggest the disputed
limitations.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection
of claim 1. We also sustain the Examiner’s rejections of independent claims
7, 13, and 19, which are argued with independent claim 1, for similar
reasons. Dependent claims 3—6, 9-12, 15—18, and 21—24 are not argued
separately and fall with their respective independent claims.
Claim 2
The Examiner finds Mantell’s discussion of removing process color
pixels from a pixel array teaches “edge pixels being positioned along a
circumference of said over-print region, said pixel distance comprising at
least one pixel in a direction from each of said edge pixels toward a center of
said over-print region,” as recited in dependent claim 2. Final Act. 5;
Ans. 7—8. Appellant argues the Examiner’s findings are in error because
claim 2 “more narrowly define[s] that the pixel distance is in the direction
toward the center of the over-print area relative to the edge.” Appeal Br. 20.
We find Appellant’s arguments persuasive because it is not apparent,
nor does the Examiner indicate, how Mantell’s discussion of removing
process color pixels from a pixel array teaches or suggests removing color
data from over-print pixels that are positioned more than a pixel distance
from non-black color pixels where the pixel distance is “at least one pixel in
a direction from each of said edge pixels toward a center of said over-print
region,” as recited in dependent claim 2.
8
Appeal 2016-001670
Application 13/900,828
Accordingly, we are constrained to reverse the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of claim 2, and of claims 8, 14, and 20, which each recite
commensurate limitations.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 3—7, 9-13, 15—
19, and 21-24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claim 2, 8, 14, and 20
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
9