Ex Parte MORGANADownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardSep 25, 201412142174 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 25, 2014) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte STEPHEN C. MORGANA ____________________ Appeal 2012-008462 Application 12/142,174 Technology Center 2600 ____________________ Before: JOSEPH L. DIXON, JAMES R. HUGHES, and ERIC S. FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judges. DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2012-008462 Application 12/142,174 2 STATEMENT OF CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1– 5, 8–12, and 15–19. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. The claims are directed to reducing the number of vertices in a clustered Delaunay mesh when generating a color gamut. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method for reducing complexity when constructing a color gamut with a Delaunay mesh, the method comprising: receiving, into a memory, a plurality of color data points of image pixels of a color image; defining an n-dimensional Delaunay mesh of individual point clusters; performing cluster analysis on said received plurality of color data points to determine which new point clusters need to be added to said mesh and which existing point cluster in said mesh is to receive a color data point; restructuring said n-dimensional Delaunay mesh comprising: for each point cluster in said Delaunay mesh, determining a representative point to serve as a normal vertex for said cluster; and adding said normal vertex to said Delaunay mesh; generating a color gamut from said Delaunay mesh; storing said generated color gamut to said memory; and Appeal 2012-008462 Application 12/142,174 3 using said generated color gamut to model any of: the gamut of said color image or the gamut of a color output device used to render said color image. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Cholewo Migdal US 6,480,301 B1 US 6,611,267 B2 Nov. 12, 2002 Aug. 26, 2003 Rizwan A. Siddiqui et al., Hierarchical Compression of Tetrahedral Meshes Through Clustering and Vector Quantization (2007) (hereinafter “Siddiqui). Hong Zhou et al., Energy-Based Hierarchical Edge Clustering of Graphs, IEEE Pacific Visualisation Symposium, 55-61 (2008)(hereinafter “Zhou”). REJECTIONS The Examiner made the following rejections: Claims 1, 8, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C §103(a) as being unpatentable over Cholewo and Siddiqui. Claims 2–4, 9–11, and 16–18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C §103(a) as being unpatentable over Cholewo, Siddiqui, and Migdal. Claims 5, 12, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C §103(a) as being unpatentable over Cholewo, Siddiqui, and Zhou. ANALYSIS The Examiner finds Siddiqui discloses the independent claim 1 limitations “restructuring said n-dimensional Delaunay mesh comprising: for each point cluster in said Delaunay mesh, determining a representative point to serve as a normal vertex for said cluster, and adding said normal Appeal 2012-008462 Application 12/142,174 4 vertex to said Delaunay mesh” (Ans. 5–6). Appellant contends Siddiqui fails to disclose these limitations because “portions of the provided translation of Siddiqui have, at best, unclear or ambiguous interpretations” (Br. 9). We agree with Appellant. Siddiqui discloses determining centroids for clusters in a Delaunay mesh and generating error vectors from the centroids to vertex locations in order to perform a compression algorithm on the mesh (See Siddiqui, Abstract). The Examiner relies on the following disclosure in Siddiqui for meeting the claimed “restructuring” limitations (Ans. 5–6, 22–23): 2.1.2 Finding the Central Node Frequency Values and Error Vectors K-means clustering technique after the creation of the central nodes of the node coordinates of the centers are determined. Central nodes in 3D space Voronoi diagram is determined by subtracting the number of nodes in each center in their area. The number of the node that determines the center frequency. Classified according to the central nodes in the nodes are sorted. Delaunay triangulation method, the wire mesh structure is created due to the lack of importance of the order of the node, instead of just the central nodes in the list of key nodes in the use of frequencies will be enough. (Siddiqui, sec. 2.1.2). We cannot ascertain from this disclosure exactly how Siddiqui’s central node, or centroid, is used in creating a Delaunay mesh because the language quoted above is not explicitly clear. Further, the Examiner’s interpretation of the reference (Ans. 22–23) does not explain why this language shows that Siddiqui’s central node is a representative point in a cluster of points which is selected to serve as a normal vertex and added to a Delaunay mesh, as recited in claim 1. Rather, one of ordinary skill in the art could read the ambiguous language of the translated reference Appeal 2012-008462 Application 12/142,174 5 as disclosing that the central nodes in Siddiqui are merely abstractions created from clusters of nodes. However, Appellant’s Specification defines normal vertices as “data points obtained from image measurement sensors” (Spec. ¶ 33). It is not self-evident from Siddiqui and the Examiner has not explained why Siddiqui’s central nodes should be understood as being actual sensed data points meeting the definition of normal vertices. Accordingly, we find the Examiner has not shown that Siddiqui discloses “determining a representative point to serve as a normal vertex for said cluster; and adding said normal vertex to said Delaunay mesh,” as recited in claim 1. We are, therefore, constrained by the record to find the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim 1, independent claims 8 and 15 which recited commensurate limitations, and dependent claims 2–5, 9–12, and 16– 19 for similar reasons. CONCLUSION The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1–5, 8–12, and 15–19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). DECISION For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–5, 8–12, and 15–19 is reversed. REVERSED Appeal 2012-008462 Application 12/142,174 6 lv Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation