Ex Parte Mestha et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 19, 2013

11099589 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 19, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
__________

Ex parte LALIT K. MESTHA, TONYA L. LOVE,
TA-CHEN HSU, and PATRICIA J. DONALDSON
__________

Appeal 2011-004455
Application 11/099,589
Technology Center 2600
__________

Before TONI R. SCHEINER, LORA M. GREEN, and
ERICA A. FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judges.

FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal1 under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) involving claims to a
method and a system for producing output color image. The Patent
Examiner rejected the claims as obvious. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse.

1 Appellants identify the Real Party in Interest as Xerox Corporation. (See
App. Br. 1.)
Appeal 2011-004455
Application 11/099,589

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claims 1-4, 6, and 8-23 are on appeal. Claim 1 is representative and
reads as follows:
1. A method for producing an output color image in an image forming
device, comprising:
obtaining an input color image;
at least one of, adding color rendition dictionaries to, deleting color
rendition dictionaries from, or modifying color rendition dictionaries in, a
plurality of color rendition dictionaries stored in the image forming device
based on input from a user;
selecting a color rendition dictionary from among the plurality of
color rendition dictionaries;
setting setpoint values for a plurality of process parameters in the
image forming device based on the selected color rendition dictionary; and
producing an output color image using the image forming device in
which the setpoint values have been set,
wherein the plurality of stored color rendition dictionaries includes at
least one color rendition dictionary which is usable to produce a non-
standard gamut color in the produced output color image.

(Emphasis added.)

The Examiner rejected the claims as follows:
• claims 1-4, 8-16, and 18-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Decker,2 Nishide,3 and Arakawa;4
• claim 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Decker,
Nishide, Arakawa, and Torigoe;5 and

2 US Patent No. 5,987,168 issued to William Chesley Decker et al., Nov. 16,
1999.
3 Patent Application Publication No. US 2006/0007510 A1 by Yasushi
Nishide et al., published Jan. 12, 2006.
4 Patent No. US 7,466,446 B2 issued to Naoto Arakawa et al., Dec. 16,
2008.
Appeal 2011-004455
Application 11/099,589

3
• claims 6 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Decker, Nishide, Arakawa, and Thomas.6

OBVIOUSNESS
The Examiner’s findings are set forth in the Answer. In particular, the
Examiner found that Decker disclosed a method for producing an output
color image in an image forming device, comprising “setting setpoint values
(e.g., setting grey scale [sic] of each color and enter into printing device,
blocks 201, 204, 205, figure 2, column 10, lines 30-54) for a plurality of
process parameters in the image forming device based on the selected color
rendition dictionary . . . .” (Ans. 4.)
Appellants contend that Decker’s disclosure of printing greyscale
patches does not involve setting any values, “less any . . . feature that can
reasonably be considered to have rendered obvious setting set point [sic]
values for a plurality of process parameters in the image forming device,” as
required by the claimed invention. (App. Br. 9.)
Decker Figure 2 is reproduced below:

5 Patent Application Publication No. US 2003/0202194 A1 by Makoto
Torigoe et al., published Oct. 30, 2003.
6 Patent No. US 6,525,721 B1 issued to Karen H. Thomas et al., Feb. 25,
2003.
Appeal 2011-004455
Application 11/099,589

4

Figure 2 illustrates a “flow diagram of the process for creating a color
rendering dictionary.” (Decker, col.10, ll. 30-31.) Decker describes Figure
2 as follows:
First, 50 greyscale patches are printed of each C,M,Y,K, step
201. The L*a*b* of each patch is measured, step 202. Piece-
wise linearization in L* into N segments (N=8 in the preferred
embodiment) for each color is performed, step 203. Then
C,M,Y patches with various percents of each color (0-100%)
are printed (e.g., 729 patches), step 204. The L*a*b* values of
each of these patches are measured, step 205. This data is then
entered into a computer program, step 206. C', M', Y', K'
equivalents to the patches of CMY are calculated, step 207,
using the computer program as shown in FIG. 3A. Then,
new patches of C', M', Y', K', are printed, step 208, and the
patches are measured for their L*a*b* values, step 209. This
data is entered into a computer program, step 210. A look up
table is formed of L*a*b*-to-CMYK for in gamut and out of
Appeal 2011-004455
Application 11/099,589

5
gamut colors, step 211. A color rendering dictionary file is
created having black point, white point, and gamma
correction, step 212. The color rendering dictionary file can
then be sent and loaded into a printer controller 213 or
loaded onto a storage medium such as a diskette, step 214.
If the color rendering dictionary is stored on a storage
medium, the color rendering dictionary can be permanently
stored into the printer controller via the storage medium, or
it can be loaded into the printer controller by the print driver as
required by the print job, 214-217.

(Id. at ll. 31-54.)
According to the Examiner, the “50 greyscale are setting
setpoint values when it is entered into computer program at step 210,
figure 2.” (Ans. 13.) However, as Appellants have asserted (see App.
Br. 9; Reply Br. 3) Decker does not describe this printing of greyscale
patches and/or the entering of the data into a computer program as
setting any setpoint values. Nor has the Examiner explained why a
person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would
have understood Decker’s method as including this step. Thus, we do
not find that Decker supports the Examiner’s finding. Because the
Examiner relied only on Decker for the claim limitation “setting
setpoint values for a plurality of process parameters in the image
forming device based on the selected color rendition dictionary,” we
conclude that the Examiner has not established a prima facie case of
obviousness for claim 1 and its dependent claims.
Regarding independent claim 14, the Examiner found that the
recited system corresponds to the method of claim 1, with functional
steps corresponding directly to the method step elements in claim 1.
(Ans. 9.) Claim 14 requires that “process parameter setpoint values
Appeal 2011-004455
Application 11/099,589

6
are adjusted to those associated with the individually selected color
rendition dictionary.” (App. Br. A-3, Claims App’x.) However, the
Examiner has not specifically addressed this limitation. To the extent
that the Examiner relies on Decker’s printing of 50 greyscale patches
and entering the data into the computer for this teaching, we do not
find such reasoning is supported by the art. Therefore, we conclude
that the Examiner has not established prima facie obviousness for
independent claim 14 and its dependent claims.
Accordingly, we reverse each of the obviousness rejections.

REVERSED

cdc