Ex Parte Maurer

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 23, 2009

09676866 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 23, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
________________

Ex parte RON MAURER
________________

Appeal 2008-5642
Application 09/676,866
Technology Center 2600
________________

Decided1: March 23, 2009
________________

Before KENNETH W. HAIRSTON, JOHN A. JEFFERY, and BRADLEY
W. BAUMEISTER, Administrative Patent Judges.

BAUMEISTER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 (2002) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1, 2, 16, 17, and 29.2 Claims 3-15, 18, 20-28, 30-34, and

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. 1.304, begins to run from the decided date
shown on this page of the decision. The time period does not run from the
Mail Date (paper delivery) or Notification Date (electronic delivery).
Appeal 2008-5642
Application 09/676,866

2
36-483 have been indicated as containing allowable subject matter. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2002). We affirm.

A. Appellant’s invention
Appellant’s invention relates to a method of reducing chromatic
bleeding artifacts in a digital image. The method comprises reducing
chrominance values of at least some pixels in the digital image. The
chrominance value of a pixel is reduced by an amount that is scaled
according to the chromatic dynamic range of the pixel’s local neighborhood.
(Br. 2).

B. The claims
Independent claims 1 is representative.4 It reads as follows:
1. A method of reducing chromatic bleeding artifacts in a digital
image, the method comprising reducing chrominance values of at least
some pixels in the digital image, the chrominance value of a pixel
reduced by an amount that is scaled according to its chromatic
dynamic range.

2 The Examiner has withdrawn the rejections of claims 14, 28, 34, 36 and 45
(Ans. 2). The Examiner first states in the Status of Claims section of the
Examiner’s Answer that claim 29 contains allowable subject matter (Ans. 2).
However, the Examiner also states that claim 29 is rejected as anticipated by
Harrington (Ans. 3, 7, 10). We interpret the Examiner’s statement regarding
claim 29’s allowable subject matter to be a clerical error. We will treat
claim 29 as rejected.
3 The Examiner’s Answer fails to confirm the status of claims 46-48. We
interpret this omission to be a clerical error intending to state that claims 46-
48 contain allowable subject matter.
4 Appellant argues claims 1, 2, 16, 17, and 29 together as a group. See Br. 5-
7. Accordingly, we select independent claim 1 as representative.
Appeal 2008-5642
Application 09/676,866

3

C. The references and rejections

The Examiner relies on the following prior art references to show
unpatentability:
Harrington US 6,031,581 Feb. 29, 2000
(filed June 26, 1997)
1. Claims 1, 2, 16, 17, and 29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
as anticipated by Harrington.

Rather than repeat the arguments of the Appellant or the Examiner,
we refer to the Brief and the Answer for their respective details.5 In this
decision, we have considered only those arguments actually made by
Appellant. Arguments which Appellant could have made but did not make
in the Brief have not been considered and are deemed to be waived. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).

ISSUE
The Examiner asserts that Harrington, which is also directed to a
system of reducing chromatic bleeding artifacts in a digital image,
anticipates claims 1, 2, 16, 17, and 29 (Ans. 3-12).
Appellant does not dispute that Harrington’s revised chrominance
value may be reduced relative to the initial chrominance value (FF 1).
Appellant also does not dispute that the revised chrominance value is

5 We refer to (1) the Appeal Brief filed Jan. 25, 2007 and (2) the Examiner’s
Answer mailed Aug. 7, 2007 throughout this opinion.

Appeal 2008-5642
Application 09/676,866

4
achieved through a scaling operation (FF 2). Appellant only argues that
“Harrington does not teach or suggest reducing the chrominance value of a
pixel by an amount that is scaled according to its chromatic dynamic range”
(Br. 5; emphasis in original).
The issue before us, then, is whether Appellant has shown that the
Examiner erred in finding that Harrington teaches reducing the chrominance
value of a pixel by an amount that is scaled according to the chromatic
dynamic range of the pixel’s local neighborhood.

FINDINGS OF FACT
The record supports the following Findings of Fact (FF) by a
preponderance of the evidence:
1. Appellant does not dispute that Harrington’s revised chrominance
value may be reduced relative to the initial chrominance value (Br. 5).
2. Appellant does not dispute that the revised chrominance value is
achieved through a scaling operation (Br. 5-6).
3. The 3x3 square-shaped local neighborhood of nine pixels depicted in
figures 3a-3d of the Specification is only an example of neighborhood sizes.
The Specification expressly states that the neighborhood is not limited to any
particular size or number (Spec., 7:9-13).
4. Nothing in the Specification precludes the “local neighborhood” from
reading on two pixels: the pixel of interest itself and a second pixel that is
horizontally or vertically adjacent.
5. The chromatic dynamic range (D) for a pixel of interest may be
computed as the maximum chroma value of the local neighborhood (CM)
Appeal 2008-5642
Application 09/676,866

5
minus the minimum chroma value of the local neighborhood (Cm) (i.e., D =
CM - Cm) (Spec., 4, ll. 27-30; emphasis added).
6. Each pixel’s chroma value (C) may be computed from chrominance
values (Cb and Cr) in various manners, such as C = (Cb2 + Cr2)½ or C ≈ |Cb| +
|Cr| (Spec., 4, ll. 22-27; emphasis added).
7. Harrington discloses a system for removing color bleed from an image
signal source so that a digital image can be favorably printed (Harrington,
col. 1, ll. 5-9).
8. To achieve an improved digital image, Harrington substitutes a
revised chrominance value for the initial chrominance signal for each pixel
in the image by use of a chrominance revising algorithm (Harrington, col. 2,
ll. 34-40).
9. For a pixel of interest, Harrington’s chrominance revising algorithm
measures the chrominance, c(i,j); the total chrominance, c(i,j) + e(i,j),
(where e(i,j) is the chrominance error from previous pixel outputs); and the
differences between the pixel’s total chrominance and the chrominances of
the horizontally and vertically adjacent pixels: dch(i,j)6 = c(i,j) + e(i,j) - (c(i-
1,j)); dcv(i,j) = c(i,j) + e(i,j) - (c(i,j+1)) (Harrington, col. 4, ll. 26-37).
10. Harrington’s chrominance revising algorithm also measures the
pixel’s luminance, y(i,j), and various luminance-based properties
(Harrington, col. 3, l. 61-col. 4, l. 57).

6 It is reasonably clear from the context of their usage that the terms,
“dcv(i,j)” and “dch(i,j),” were inadvertently juxtaposed in the two equations.
Appeal 2008-5642
Application 09/676,866

6
11. Harrington’s chrominance revising algorithm calculates a revised
chrominance output value, co(i,j), as a function of the various chrominance
and luminance parameters (Harrington, col. 4, ll. 57-61).
12. Harrington’s revised chrominance value, co(i,j), may be subsequently
limited to be within the minimum and maximum values of a local
neighborhood to achieve a final revised chrominance value, cz(i,j)
(Harrington, col. 5, ll. 15-26).
13. The error in Harrington’s algorithm made by substituting the final
revised chrominance value for the initial chrominance signal c(i,j) may then
be distributed to neighboring pixels by an error diffusing algorithm
(Harrington, col. 5, ll. 31-55).
14. Appellant’s Specification states,
[a] new chroma value (C’) for a pixel of interest may be computed as
C’ = C – f(Y,D) x (C-Co), where C is the original chroma value for the
pixel, D is the chromatic dynamic range, Co is a chromatic modulus
having a value between zero and the minimum chroma of the local
neighborhood for the pixel, and f(Y,D) is a parametric expression that
determines the amount of relative chroma reduction.

(Spec. 5, ¶ 2).
15. In the parametric expression, f(Y,D), “Y” is the pixel’s luminance
(Spec., 3, ¶ 2), and “D” is the chromatic dynamic range of the neighborhood
(Spec. 4, ¶ 5).

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
1. “A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in
the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior
Appeal 2008-5642
Application 09/676,866

7
art reference.” Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co. of California, 814
F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
2. Appellant has the burden on appeal to the Board to demonstrate error
in the Examiner’s position. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 985-86 (Fed. Cir.
2006).

ANALYSIS
“Before considering the rejections…, we must first [determine the
scope of the] claims….” In re Geerdes, 491 F.2d 1260, 1262 (CCPA 1974).
Accordingly, we first determine the meaning and scope of the claim terms,
“local neighborhood” and “chromatic dynamic range.”
Regarding the term, “local neighborhood,” the Specification provides
examples of a 3x3 square-shaped local neighborhood of nine pixels (e.g.,
figs. 3a-3d). But the Specification also expressly states that the
neighborhood is not limited to any particular size or number (FF 3).
Nothing in the Specification precludes the “local neighborhood” from
reading on two pixels: the pixel of interest itself and a second pixel that is
horizontally or vertically adjacent (FF 4).
The chromatic dynamic range (D) for a pixel of interest may be
computed as the maximum chroma value of the local neighborhood (CM)
minus the minimum chroma value of the local neighborhood (Cm) (i.e., D =
CM - Cm) (FF 5). Each pixel’s chroma value (C), in turn, may be computed
from chrominance values (Cb and Cr) in various manners, such as C = (Cb2 +
Cr2)½ or C ≈ |Cb| + |Cr| (FF 6). Restated, the chromatic dynamic range is a
value derived from—or a function of—local neighborhood chrominance
Appeal 2008-5642
Application 09/676,866

8
values. However, the chromatic dynamic range is not necessarily related to
the local neighborhood chrominance values by any specific equation. Any
equation that incorporates the local neighborhood chrominance values, such
as the difference between maximum and minimum neighborhood values,
may be used to obtain the chromatic dynamic range. As such, a pixel’s
chromatic dynamic range may at least be any number that is derived from
the difference between chrominance or chroma value of the pixel of interest
itself and the chrominance or chroma value of an adjacent pixel.
Harrington discloses a system for removing color bleed from an image
signal source so that a digital image can be favorably printed (FF 7). To
achieve this improved digital image, the chrominance signal for each pixel
in the image is substituted with a revised chrominance value by use of a
chrominance revising algorithm (FF 8). Following is a summary of
Harrington’s chrominance revising algorithm.
For a pixel of interest, the algorithm measures the chrominance, c(i,j);
the total chrominance, c(i,j) + e(i,j), (where e(i,j) is the chrominance error
from previous pixel outputs); and the differences between the pixel’s total
chrominance and the chrominances of the horizontally and vertically
adjacent pixels: dch(i,j) = c(i,j) + e(i,j) - (c(i-1,j)); dcv(i,j) = c(i,j) + e(i,j) -
(c(i,j+1)) (FF 9). The algorithm also measures the pixel’s luminance, y(i,j),
and various luminance-based properties (FF 10). The algorithm then
calculates a revised chrominance output value, co(i,j), as a function of these
various parameters (FF 11). The revised chrominance value, co(i,j), may be
subsequently limited to be within the minimum and maximum values of a
local neighborhood to achieve a final revised chrominance value, cz(i,j) (FF
Appeal 2008-5642
Application 09/676,866

9
12). The error made by substituting the final revised chrominance value for
the initial chrominance signal c(i,j) may then be distributed to neighboring
pixels by an error diffusing algorithm (FF 13).
Turning to the arguments, Appellant first asserts Harrington scales the
pixels’ chrominance value based upon luminance values, but not
chrominance values (Br. 5). This argument is not persuasive. Harrington’s
revised chrominance output value, co(i,j), is a function of various
parameters—expressly including the horizontal and vertical chrominance
differences, dch(i,j) and dcv(i,j) (FF 9-11). The horizontal chrominance
difference is a function of the pixel’s chrominance minus the horizontally
neighboring pixel’s chrominance: dch(i,j) = f(c(i,j) - c(i-1,j)). These two
pixels, (i,j) and (i-j), may be interpreted as constituting the pixels of a local
neighborhood consisting of two pixels.7 As such, one of the pixels has the
maximum local neighborhood chrominance and the other has the minimum
local neighborhood chrominance. Accordingly, the value, dch(i,j), may be
interpreted as constituting the “chromatic dynamic range.” The same may
be said for the vertical change, dcv(i,j). Under either interpretation,
Harrington’s revised chrominance output value, co(i,j), is therefore a
chrominance value that has been scaled according to the local
neighborhood’s chromatic dynamic range.

7 It is immaterial to this analysis that Harrington also discusses “local
neighborhoods” in the context of the subsequent chrominance limiting step,
or that those local neighborhoods may have different dimensions than the
two-pixel neighborhood. The claims do not preclude the chrominance
revising method from employing multiple “local neighborhoods” of
potentially differing sizes.

Appeal 2008-5642
Application 09/676,866

10
We agree with Appellant that Harrington also scales the chrominance
according to luminance values (Br. 5). However, this fact does not preclude
Harrington from anticipating the claims. The claims do not state that the
chrominance scaling is performed according to only the chromatic dynamic
range. Rather, the claims more broadly read on any chrominance scaling
algorithm where the chrominance scaling is according to at least the
chromatic dynamic range. During examination of a patent application,
pending claims are given their broadest reasonable construction consistent
with the specification. In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404-05 (CCPA 1969);
In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
In fact, Appellant’s Specification indicates that the broader
interpretation is what Appellant actually intended. Appellant’s Specification
states,
[a] new chroma value (C’) for a pixel of interest may be computed as
C’ = C – f(Y,D) x (C-Co), where C is the original chroma value for the
pixel, D is the chromatic dynamic range, Co is a chromatic modulus
having a value between zero and the minimum chroma of the local
neighborhood for the pixel, and f(Y,D) is a parametric expression that
determines the amount of relative chroma reduction.

(FF 14).
In the parametric expression, f(Y,D), “Y” is the pixel’s luminance, and “D”
is the chromatic dynamic range of the neighborhood (FF 15). Restated,
Appellant expressly discloses that the claimed scaling reduction is based
upon luminance as well as the chromatic dynamic range.
We also agree with Appellant that Harrington’s subsequently
performed, chrominance limiting operation is not a scaling operation (Br. 5-
6). “Scaling” involves changing all inputs by some equal proportion. The
Appeal 2008-5642
Application 09/676,866

11
limiting operation involves clipping large chrominance values and
increasing small chrominance values to be within a predetermined
minimum-maximum range, regardless of how far outside the range a value
would have otherwise fallen. No scaling or proportional change is involved.
However, the fact that Harrington follows the scaling algorithm by a limiting
process does not change our decision.
Claim 1 states that the method comprises reducing chrominance
values by an amount that is scaled. “‘Comprising’ is a term of art used in
claim language which means that the named elements are essential, but other
elements may be added and still form a construct within the scope of the
claim.” Genentech, Inc. v. Chiron Corp., 112 F.3d 495, 501 (Fed. Cir.
1997). As such claim 1 reads on a method that first employs a chrominance
scaling process and then further employs a chrominance clipping process.

CONCLUSION OF LAW
Appellant has not shown that the Examiner erred in finding that the
cited prior art teaches reducing the chrominance value of a pixel by an
amount that is scaled according to the chromatic dynamic range of the
pixel’s local neighborhood. Accordingly, Appellant has not shown that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 2, 16, 17, and 29 under § 102.

DECISION
We sustain the Examiner's rejections with respect to all pending
claims on appeal. Therefore, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 16, 17,
and 29 is affirmed.
Appeal 2008-5642
Application 09/676,866

12

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)(iv).

AFFIRMED

gvw

HEWLETT PACKARD COMPANY
P. O. BOX 272400
3404 E HARMONY ROAD
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ADMINISTRATION
FORT COLLINS CO 80527-2400