Ex Parte Loce et alDownload PDFBoard of Patent Appeals and InterferencesSep 6, 201110909627 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 6, 2011) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation