Ex Parte Loce et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 6, 2011

10909627 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 6, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte ROBERT P. LOCE, CHARLES M. HAINS, BEILEI XU,
CONNIE F. PURDUM, and XIAOXUE SHIRLEY CHENG

____________________

Appeal 2009-014879
Application 10/909,627
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before, MAHSHID D. SAADAT, JONI Y. CHANG and
JASON V. MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

CHANG, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2009-014879
Application 10/909,627
2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of
claims 1-15. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.
Exemplary Claim
Appellants’ invention is related to digital image halftoning. In
particular, Appellants’ claims are directed to a method for minimizing
boundary effects when switching between halftone screens. Claim 1 is
representative of the subject matter on appeal (App. Br. A-1)1:
1. A method for minimizing boundary effects caused by beating
artifacts when switching between adjacent halftone screens,
comprising:
selecting a first halftone screen having a first fundamental
frequency and a first angle for printing pixels of a first type on a
scanline; and
selecting a second halftone screen having a second fundamental
frequency and a second angle for printing pixels of a second type,
wherein the second frequency and second angle are harmonically
matched to the first frequency and first angle, wherein the first and
second halftone screens are harmonically matched halftone screens
(1) when the first halftone screen has at least one resolvable spatial
frequency component that is equal to a resolvable spatial component
of the second halftone screen resulting in zero frequency beats or
(2) when frequency vectors of the first halftone screen and the second
halftone screen are so dissimilar as to product a high frequency,
nonobjectionable beat, wherein at least one pixel of the second type is
adjacent to a pixel of the first type.

Rejections on Appeal
The following grounds of rejection are before us for review:
1. Claims 1-5, 7 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ashworth2 in view of Wang3. (Ans. 2)4

1 All references to Appeal Brief are to the Brief filed March 18, 2009.
2 Ashworth, US 5,680,222, Oct. 21, 1997.
Appeal 2009-014879
Application 10/909,627
3
2. Claims 6 and 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ashworth and Wang in view of Roddy5 or Cheng6 and
further in view of Matell7. Id.
3. Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Ashworth and Wang in view of Ng8. Id.
Appellants’ Contentions
Appellants argue that the combination of Ashworth and Wang does
not teach or suggest the language (“[a] method for minimizing boundary
effects caused by beating artifacts when switching between adjacent halftone
screens”) recited in the preamble of claim 1. (App. Br. 10). Appellants also
contend that Ashworth is concerned with the entire image or object, while
Appellants are concerned with beat artifacts occurring between adjoining
halftones, rather than overlapping halftones. (App. Br. 10-12). Appellants
further allege that “[c]hoosing halftone screens that minimize moiré in the
interior of the object may not work at the boundary of dissimilar object
types.” (App. Br. 12).
Appellants argue claims 1-5, 7 and 12 as a group. (App. Br. 10).
Accordingly, we select claim 1 as the representative claim. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii). Appellants provide separate headings for: (1) claims 5
and 8-11, and (2) claims 13-15. However, Appellants simply state that the
additional applied references do not overcome the lack of teachings of

3 Wang, US 2003/0035145 A1, Feb. 20, 2003.
4 All references to Answer are to the Answer dated April 29, 2009.
5 Roddy et al., US 4,965,599, Oct. 23, 1990.
6 Cheng et al., US 2002/0089708 A1, Jul. 11, 2002.
7 Mantell et al., US 6,307,645 B1, Oct. 23, 2001.
8 Ng et al., US 7,079,287 B1, Jul. 18, 2006, filed Aug. 1, 2000.
Appeal 2009-014879
Application 10/909,627
4
Ashworth and Wang. (App. Br. 12). Claims 1 and 13 are independent
claims.
Issue on Appeal
The issue is whether the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over the cited references. The issue turns
on whether the combination of Ashworth and Wang fails to teach or suggest
the language recited in the preamble.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments. We adopt as our own the Examiner’s findings and reasoning set
forth in the action from which this appeal is taken and in the Examiner’s
Answer. We disagree with Appellants’ contention that the Examiner erred
in rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Ashworth in view of Wang.
Additionally, we disagree with Appellants’ contention that Ashworth
does not teach or suggest “a method for minimizing boundary effects caused
by beat artifacts when switching between adjacent halftone screens,”
because the language in the preamble clearly states a purpose or intended
use for the method steps set forth in claim 1. “It is a general rule that merely
discovering and claiming a new benefit of an old process cannot render the
process again patentable.” In re Woodruff, 919 F. 2d 1575, 1578 (Fed. Cir.
1990). “Such newly discovered benefits are not patentable because they are
inherent in the prior art.” King Pharms., Inc. v. EON Labs, Inc., 616 F.3d
1267, 1275 (Fed. Cir. 2010); see also Perricone v. Medicis Pharmaceutical
Corp., 432 F.3d 1368, 1377-78 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (newly discovered results of
known processes are not patentable because those results are inherent in the
known processes). Here, we agree with the Examiner’s findings that the
Appeal 2009-014879
Application 10/909,627
5
combination of the cited references teaches or suggests the method steps
recited in claim 1 (Ans. 3-5), and the reasons set forth in the response to
Appellants’ arguments (Ans. 18-24). As such, any reduction of boundary
effects is inherent in the prior art teaching.
Moreover, as to Appellants’ allegation that Ashworth is concerned
with minimizing inter-separation moiré effects over the entire image rather
than minimizing beat artifacts at the boundaries of different objects,
Ashworth specifically teaches that “[w]hen printing color images,
undersirable moiré effects in the form of large and small scale patterns are
often seen due to periodic alignment of dots as a whole and of their edges.”
(Emphasis added, Ashworth, col. 1, lines 44-47). An artisan of ordinary
skill would have realized that a color image may have a different color
background or be adjacent to another image that has a different color. Thus,
such an artisan would have realized that Ashworth’s method may be used for
minimizing moiré effects at the edges (or boundaries) of the color images.
As pointed out by the Examiner (Ans. 3-5), it is also known in the art at the
time of the invention that “an undesirable low frequency beat pattern may
appear as a repeating pattern called a Moiré pattern” where the color layers
are superimposed. See e.g., Muir9, col. 2, line 66 through col. 3 line 2.
Furthermore, while Ashworth and Wang describe color image halftoning
processes rather than halftoning black-and-white images (with shades of
gray), the principles nonetheless are similar. As noted by Appellants, beat
frequency analysis for reducing moiré effects in the process of color
halftoning may be used for adjoining halftones because they have similar

9 Muir, US 5,202, 772, Apr. 13, 1993.
Appeal 2009-014879
Application 10/909,627
6
requirements for beats frequencies. (Spec. 3, [0011] and App. Br. 9).
For example, Appellants state in the specification (Spec. 3, [0011]) that:
Beat frequency analysis is often used to understand inter-
separation moiré in process color printing systems. The [Appellants’]
method described herein uses that analysis for adjoining halftones,
rather than overlapping halftones. It has been found that similar
requirements for beats frequencies are also valid for adjoining
halftones.

Therefore, Ashworth’s color halftoning method may be used for minimizing
boundary effects caused by beating artifacts when switching between
adjacent halftone screens, contrary to Appellants’ argument that “[c]hoosing
halftone screens that minimize moiré in the interior of the object may not
work at the boundary of dissimilar object types.”
For the foregoing reasons, we find no error in the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 1. Appellants did not submit separate arguments for other
claims. Accordingly, the rejections for claims 1-15 are sustained.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 1-15 as being
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION
We affirm the rejections of claims 1-15.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED

ke